Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

A Tiny, 'Endangered' Fish Delayed a Dam's Construction in the 1970s. Now, Scientists Say the Snail Darter Isn't So Rare After All

News Feed
Wednesday, January 8, 2025

Though small, the snail darter has played an outsize role in American law, conservation and biology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters via Flickr Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee described an “awful beast” in 1979. That beast—which he also called “the bane of my existence, the nemesis of my golden years, the bold perverter of the Endangered Species Act”—was none other than the snail darter, a fish no more than 3.5 inches in length. Still, the tiny creature had plagued the politics of Tennessee throughout the decade. Since its discovery in the 1970s and protection under the Endangered Species Act, the snail darter has cast a long shadow over American law, conservation and biology. Against Baker’s wishes, a Supreme Court ruling about the endangered status of the little fish upended progress on a controversial dam in Tennessee for years. But now, a new study published last week in Current Biology suggests the snail darter isn’t a genetically distinct species at all—and that it was therefore never endangered in the first place. “There is, technically, no snail darter,” Thomas Near, an ichthyologist at Yale University and a senior author of the study, tells Jason Nark of the New York Times. Instead, Near and his co-authors argue, the tiny fish known as Percina tanasi that embodied a David and Goliath battle against the Tellico Dam is an eastern population of the stargazing darter—not a distinct or endangered species. The Tellico Dam in Tennessee, where the fish known as the snail darter held up construction for several years. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters via Flickr The controversy began in 1967, when the Tennessee Valley Authority initiated construction on a dam on the Little Tennessee River, some 20 miles southwest of Knoxville. Environmentalists, local farmers and the Cherokee, whose land and ancestral sites were to be flooded, opposed the project, per the New York Times. They sought a way to halt the dam, and, in 1973, a zoologist at the University of Tennessee named David Etnier found that solution. Etnier was snorkeling with a group of students in Coytee Spring, not far from the dam site, when he discovered a previously unseen fish darting across the riverbed. He called it the snail darter, because of its feeding habits, and it received endangered species protection in 1975. “Here’s a little fish that might save your farm,” Etnier reportedly told a local, according to The Snail Darter and the Dam by Zygmunt Plater. Plater, an environmental lawyer, represented the snail darter in front of the Supreme Court after its endangered status went challenged by the TVA. He was initially victorious in protecting the fish: In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that “the Endangered Species Act prohibits impoundment of the Little Tennessee River by the Tellico Dam” because of the presence of the endangered snail darters. The ruling in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill “gave teeth” to the new Endangered Species Act and “helped to shape environmental law for decades to come,” according to a statement from Yale. But lawmakers like Baker were still eager to see the dam completed and derided the decision as environmental overreach, seeing little reason to delay a major project for a seemingly minor fish. Representative John Duncan Sr., a fellow Tennessee Republican, called the snail darter a “worthless, unsightly, minute, inedible minnow,” according to the New York Times. The anti-fish brigade ultimately triumphed in 1979, however, by adding a rider that exempted the Tellico Dam from the Endangered Species Act to a spending bill. Jimmy Carter signed the whole bill into law, and the dam opened just a few months later. In the meantime, conservationists “scrambled to save the small fish by moving it to other waterways,” as David Kindy wrote for Smithsonian magazine in 2021. Their efforts resulted in a resurgence of the snail darter population that led to its removal from the endangered species list in 2022. U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland called its recovery “a remarkable conservation milestone that tells a story about how controversy and polarization can evolve into cooperation and a big conservation success,” according to the Associated Press. But Near’s new study casts this entire history into doubt. A historical range map for the snail darter (Percina tanasi) in the Tennessee River watershed is shown in red, and the stargazing darter's (Percina uranidea) historical range is shown in blue. Ghezelayagh et al., Current Biology, 2024. Photographs courtesy of Uland Thomas and Jon Michael Mollish Jeffrey Simmons, a co-author of the study and former biologist with the TVA, was wading through the creeks near the Mississippi-Alabama border in 2015, when he thought he saw a snail darter far from where it was known to dwell. This apparent discovery prompted a team of scientists led by Ava Ghezelayagh, then an ecologist at Yale, to undertake anatomical and genetic research of the fish. “Our approach combines analyses of the physical characteristics and the genetics, which scientists weren’t doing in the 1970s,” Near says in the statement. “Despite its legacy, the snail darter is not a distinct species,” the authors of the study conclude. But the disputed fish has not left its controversy behind quite yet. Plater, the lawyer who defended the fish in court, takes issue with the study, calling the researchers “lumpers” instead of “splitters,” according to the New York Times. That means they tend toward reducing species with their research rather than expanding them. “Whether he intends it or not, lumping is a great way to cut back on the Endangered Species Act,” Plater says of Near to the New York Times. Near, for his part, argues that, “while we’re losing the snail darter as a biological conservation icon, our findings demonstrate the capability of genomics, in addition to studying an organism’s observable features, to accurately delimit species,” he says in the statement. And, in other genetic and anatomical research, his teams have uncovered new species. “We’re discovering species that are truly imperiled, which helps us better understand where to devote resources to protect biodiversity,” he adds. “This is still a success story,” Simmons says to the New York Times. “Its listing under the Endangered Species Act worked, regardless of what you call this fish.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

A lawsuit to protect the snail darter from the Tellico Dam in Tennessee offered the first real test of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. But a new study disputes the fish's status as a distinct species

a small fish in a person's hand
Though small, the snail darter has played an outsize role in American law, conservation and biology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters via Flickr

Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee described an “awful beast” in 1979. That beast—which he also called “the bane of my existence, the nemesis of my golden years, the bold perverter of the Endangered Species Act”—was none other than the snail darter, a fish no more than 3.5 inches in length. Still, the tiny creature had plagued the politics of Tennessee throughout the decade.

Since its discovery in the 1970s and protection under the Endangered Species Act, the snail darter has cast a long shadow over American law, conservation and biology. Against Baker’s wishes, a Supreme Court ruling about the endangered status of the little fish upended progress on a controversial dam in Tennessee for years.

But now, a new study published last week in Current Biology suggests the snail darter isn’t a genetically distinct species at all—and that it was therefore never endangered in the first place.

“There is, technically, no snail darter,” Thomas Near, an ichthyologist at Yale University and a senior author of the study, tells Jason Nark of the New York Times.

Instead, Near and his co-authors argue, the tiny fish known as Percina tanasi that embodied a David and Goliath battle against the Tellico Dam is an eastern population of the stargazing darter—not a distinct or endangered species.

a dam on a river
The Tellico Dam in Tennessee, where the fish known as the snail darter held up construction for several years. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters via Flickr

The controversy began in 1967, when the Tennessee Valley Authority initiated construction on a dam on the Little Tennessee River, some 20 miles southwest of Knoxville. Environmentalists, local farmers and the Cherokee, whose land and ancestral sites were to be flooded, opposed the project, per the New York Times. They sought a way to halt the dam, and, in 1973, a zoologist at the University of Tennessee named David Etnier found that solution.

Etnier was snorkeling with a group of students in Coytee Spring, not far from the dam site, when he discovered a previously unseen fish darting across the riverbed. He called it the snail darter, because of its feeding habits, and it received endangered species protection in 1975.

“Here’s a little fish that might save your farm,” Etnier reportedly told a local, according to The Snail Darter and the Dam by Zygmunt Plater.

Plater, an environmental lawyer, represented the snail darter in front of the Supreme Court after its endangered status went challenged by the TVA. He was initially victorious in protecting the fish: In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that “the Endangered Species Act prohibits impoundment of the Little Tennessee River by the Tellico Dam” because of the presence of the endangered snail darters.

The ruling in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill “gave teeth” to the new Endangered Species Act and “helped to shape environmental law for decades to come,” according to a statement from Yale.

But lawmakers like Baker were still eager to see the dam completed and derided the decision as environmental overreach, seeing little reason to delay a major project for a seemingly minor fish. Representative John Duncan Sr., a fellow Tennessee Republican, called the snail darter a “worthless, unsightly, minute, inedible minnow,” according to the New York Times.

The anti-fish brigade ultimately triumphed in 1979, however, by adding a rider that exempted the Tellico Dam from the Endangered Species Act to a spending bill. Jimmy Carter signed the whole bill into law, and the dam opened just a few months later.

In the meantime, conservationists “scrambled to save the small fish by moving it to other waterways,” as David Kindy wrote for Smithsonian magazine in 2021. Their efforts resulted in a resurgence of the snail darter population that led to its removal from the endangered species list in 2022.

U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland called its recovery “a remarkable conservation milestone that tells a story about how controversy and polarization can evolve into cooperation and a big conservation success,” according to the Associated Press.

But Near’s new study casts this entire history into doubt.

map showing stargazing darter range in parts of Louisiana, Arkansas, illinois, Indiana and Missouri, as well as the snail darter range in parts of tennessee, mississippi, alabama, georgia, kentucy, north carolina and virginia
A historical range map for the snail darter (Percina tanasi) in the Tennessee River watershed is shown in red, and the stargazing darter's (Percina uranidea) historical range is shown in blue. Ghezelayagh et al., Current Biology, 2024. Photographs courtesy of Uland Thomas and Jon Michael Mollish

Jeffrey Simmons, a co-author of the study and former biologist with the TVA, was wading through the creeks near the Mississippi-Alabama border in 2015, when he thought he saw a snail darter far from where it was known to dwell. This apparent discovery prompted a team of scientists led by Ava Ghezelayagh, then an ecologist at Yale, to undertake anatomical and genetic research of the fish.

“Our approach combines analyses of the physical characteristics and the genetics, which scientists weren’t doing in the 1970s,” Near says in the statement.

“Despite its legacy, the snail darter is not a distinct species,” the authors of the study conclude.

But the disputed fish has not left its controversy behind quite yet.

Plater, the lawyer who defended the fish in court, takes issue with the study, calling the researchers “lumpers” instead of “splitters,” according to the New York Times. That means they tend toward reducing species with their research rather than expanding them.

“Whether he intends it or not, lumping is a great way to cut back on the Endangered Species Act,” Plater says of Near to the New York Times.

Near, for his part, argues that, “while we’re losing the snail darter as a biological conservation icon, our findings demonstrate the capability of genomics, in addition to studying an organism’s observable features, to accurately delimit species,” he says in the statement. And, in other genetic and anatomical research, his teams have uncovered new species.

“We’re discovering species that are truly imperiled, which helps us better understand where to devote resources to protect biodiversity,” he adds.

“This is still a success story,” Simmons says to the New York Times. “Its listing under the Endangered Species Act worked, regardless of what you call this fish.”

Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Reform of NZ’s protected lands is overdue – but the public should decide about economic activities

Changes to New Zealand’s conservation laws could delist up to 60% of protected areas. There are better ways to balance ecological values with economic gains.

Getty ImagesThe government’s proposed reforms of the rules governing public conservation land aim to dismantle any potential obstacle to “unleashing economic growth” in protected areas. Currently, about a third of New Zealand’s land is under protection. This ranges from national parks (11.6%) to stewardship areas (9.4%) and conservation parks (5.7%). Twelve other designations make up the rest. Some commercial activities are permitted – including guided walks, aircraft-based sightseeing, ski fields and animal grazing – and approved by the Department of Conservation as “concessions”. The proposed changes to the Conservation Act include a review of land designation. The government could delist or swap up to 60% of the current area under protection. Conservation Minister Tama Potaka said he can’t indicate which designations or locations would be delisted. Nor can he say what percentage of conservation lands would be affected – and where – because changes will be driven by demand for land. The minister only committed to leaving untouched the designations that are difficult to change: national parks, wilderness areas, reserves and world heritage sites. The question of whether more economic benefits can be obtained from protected areas is legitimate. New Zealand does need a radical reform of its conservation areas and legislation. There is potential for better social and economic outcomes. But the proposal consolidates ministerial discretion to unprecedented levels and the government follows a misguided fast-track approach to permitting economic activities such as mining. This could take native biodiversity into dangerous territory. Outdated conservation laws New Zealand holds tight to an outdated approach known as “fortress conservation”. This limits commercial opportunities to specific areas, mostly concentrated around established facilities (roads, hotels) and the edges of designated lands. Even when regulating other activities such as energy generation or agriculture, the idea has been to “sacrifice” some spaces and keep as much land as possible “locked up”. A key reason was that people didn’t know enough about the ecological values of the land. As a proxy, lawmakers relied on the subjective concepts of wilderness values and intrinsic values to justify strict protections over most lands. Insufficient scientific input meant authorities have relied on “ecologically blind” zoning frameworks, such as a planning tool known as the recreation opportunity spectrum. This divides lands according to recreational opportunities and visitor needs. But there is a better path forward – one that allows public decision making and honours international commitments, while achieving better ecological and economic benefits. Towards regulations informed by science This alternative approach is grounded in three key principles. First, it uses gap analysis to identify which ecosystems and species are underprotected. Second, it relies on regulations shaped by ecological knowledge and conservation priorities. Third, it applies the principles of proportionality and precaution, meaning that regulatory responses should match the severity, reversibility and likelihood of environmental harm. Currently, New Zealand’s regulatory framework does not reflect this. New Zealand has signed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. This means at least 30% of conservation lands must be representative of most, if not all, native ecosystems by 2030. At present, coastal, lowland and dryland ecosystems are under-represented. In contrast, alpine and montane environments, are represented way above the recommended threshold (20% of the remaining cover for that ecosystem). If up to 60% of conservation lands were to be swapped or delisted without prioritising representativeness, vulnerability and rarity, the ecological losses may be immense and irreversible. Rethinking protection categories My research develops a broader reform approach. It also reflects growing international consensus on the need for science-informed conservation planning. I argue New Zealand should set up region-specific and nationwide fora, such as citizen assemblies or consensus conferences. Conversations should focus on specific topics, informed by scientists and iwi. Vulnerable or under-represented ecosystems currently require stronger protection. Deliberations should indicate which activities should be limited or excluded to better protect such areas. We must also consider vulnerability to climate change. Scientists expect that ecosystems may migrate outside protected areas. Consensus should be built around what qualifies as a “significantly over-represented” native ecosystem. Where ecosystems are already well protected and resilient, the public should discuss whether re-designation, land exchanges or even disposals may be appropriate. If lands are retained, consensus should be sought on the economic uses that can maintain ecological health. If the public doesn’t support land delisting or swaps, alternative strategies must be developed to improve ecological representativeness. Sustainable funding mechanisms should also be identified to support these efforts. The Department of Conservation should work with independent scientists and iwi to develop a new zoning framework to guide commercial concessions and recreational access. This framework should capture the principles highlighted above. When applied to each area, it should also enable the mapping of the ecological values feasible to protect. This would help select bespoke regulatory options. In turn, it would balance biodiversity and economic outcomes for each context. Guidance for these steps should be incorporated in a new national strategy, aligned with domestic goals such as the biodiversity strategy and international commitments. New Zealand has the expertise for smart reforms. New Zealanders have the passion for nature and patience required to engage in deliberations. But will politicians have the wisdom to avoid a totally unnecessary mutilation of conservation lands, for undefined biodiversity gains? Valentina Dinica does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

EPA to undergo layoffs amid shutdown fight

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is among the agencies where federal workers will be laid off by the Trump administration in the ongoing federal government shutdown. Employees in the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Sustainability Division received an email indicating that the agency would be undertaking a reduction in force (RIF).  That division undertakes recycling initiatives and...

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is among the agencies where federal workers will be laid off by the Trump administration in the ongoing federal government shutdown. Employees in the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Sustainability Division received an email indicating that the agency would be undertaking a reduction in force (RIF).  That division undertakes recycling initiatives and seeks to reduce food waste and plastic pollution. It’s not immediately clear how many people will be impacted and if any additional offices within EPA will also face layoffs.  “This notice is to inform you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be conducting a Reduction in Force,” said the email from Steven Cook, principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management.  “This action is necessary to align our workforce with the Agency’s current and future needs and to ensure the efficient and effective operation of our programs,” Cook wrote.  Asked about layoffs broadly, an EPA spokesperson told The Hill via email, "It’s unfortunate that Democrats have chosen to shut down the government and brought about this outcome. If they want to reopen the government, they can choose to do so at any time.”  The agency did not address questions from The Hill about which offices were facing cuts and how many people would be fired. It did not immediately respond to follow up questions about the resource conservation and sustainability division. Unions representing federal employees have been critical of the Trump administration’s moves.  “This is the latest way that the Trump administration is weaponizing this furlough against federal employees, stopping them from serving the American people to the best of their ability,” Nicole Cantello, president of the AFGE Local 704 union, which represents EPA staffers in the Midwest,  told The Hill. The notice comes after the Trump administration threatened to lay off federal workers if Democrats do not pass a bill to fund the government. Democrats are trying to get Republicans to pass legislation aimed at bringing down healthcare costs before they agree to fund the government. The administration has also more broadly sought to cut the federal workforce, including through earlier rounds of layoffs and buyouts. 

More than half of world’s bird species in decline, as leaders meet on extinction crisis

Biodiversity losses are growing, the IUCN reports as summit opens, but green turtle’s recovery ‘reminds us conservation works’More than half of all bird species are in decline, according to a new global assessment, with deforestation driving sharp falls in populations across the planet.On the eve of a key biodiversity summit in the UAE, scientists have issued a fresh warning about the health of bird populations, with 61% of assessed species now recording declines in their numbers. Continue reading...

More than half of all bird species are in decline, according to a new global assessment, with deforestation driving sharp falls in populations across the planet.On the eve of a key biodiversity summit in the UAE, scientists have issued a fresh warning about the health of bird populations, with 61% of assessed species now recording declines in their numbers.From Schlegel’s asity in Madagascar to the tail-bobbing northern nightingale-wren in Central America, many bird species have lost habitat to expanding agriculture and human development. Just nine years ago, 44% of assessed bird species had declining populations, according to the red list of endangered species from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).Dr Ian Burfield, BirdLife’s global science coordinator, who helped oversee the assessment, said: “That three in five of the world’s bird species have declining populations shows how deep the biodiversity crisis has become and how urgent it is that governments take the actions they have committed to under multiple conventions and agreements.”It comes as hundreds of conservationists gather in Abu Dhabi on Friday for the IUCN’s congress, where the fate of many of the world’s most at-risk wildlife species will be discussed. In the face of global headwinds on environmental action, scientists are urging governments to deliver on recent pledges to better protect nature.Birds play an important role in ecosystems, helping to pollinate flowers, disperse seeds and control pests. Hornbills – which are found across the tropics – can spread up to 12,700 large seeds a day in a square kilometre.Dr Malin Rivers, head of conservation prioritisation at the Botanic Gardens Conservation International, said: “The fates of birds and trees are intertwined: trees depend on birds for regeneration and birds depend on trees for survival.”The green sea turtle’s recovery “reminds us that conservation works”, said the IUCN director general, Dr Grethel Aguilar. Once classified as endangered, it is now viewed as a species of least concern due to conservation efforts. The turtles’s numbers have grown by 28% since the 1970s thanks to greater protection for nest sites in Ascension Island, Brazil, Mexico and Hawaii.A Pacific green sea turtle cruising off Hawaii. The recovery of the species shows what global conservation efforts can achieve, experts say. Photograph: Chris Strickland/AlamyRoderic Mast, co-chair of IUCN’s species survival commission marine turtle specialist group, said the green turtle’s recovery was “a powerful example of what coordinated global conservation over decades can achieve to stabilise and even restore populations of long-lived marine species”.But there was bad news for Arctic seals, which scientists warn are drifting closer to extinction due to global heating. The loss of sea ice has seen population numbers for bearded and harp seals fall sharply. Thinning sea ice means that the Artic seals are finding it more difficult to find areas to rest and breed. They are a critical prey species for polar bears, which researchers fear will also be affected by the loss.Dr Kit Kovacs, Svalbard programme leader at the Norwegian Polar Institute, said: “Each year in Svalbard, the retreating sea ice reveals how threatened Arctic seals have become, making it harder for them to breed, rest and feed.“Their plight is a stark reminder that climate change is not a distant problem – it has been unfolding for decades and is having impacts here and now.”Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow the biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield in the Guardian app for more nature coverage.

Would a ban on genetic engineering of wildlife hamper conservation?

Some conservation groups are calling for an effective ban on genetic modification, but others say these technologies are crucial for preserving biodiversity

The idea of genetically modifying wild lions divides opinionAndrewfel/Shutterstock Should we genetically modify wild lions? Of course not, might be your instant response. But what if lions were being wiped out by a devastating disease introduced by people? What if the genetic change was a tiny tweak that makes them immune to this disease, of the sort that might evolve naturally given enough time and enough dead lions? These kinds of questions are dividing conservationists, and matters are about to come to a head. In the coming week, at a meeting of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – the world’s leading conservation organisation – delegates will vote on a motion that would “pause” any form of genetic engineering of wildlife, including the introduction of modified microbes. “I have no idea how the vote will go,” says Piero Genovesi at the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research in Italy, who helped draft an open letter opposing the proposed motion. An IUCN moratorium on synthetic biology would have no legal force, but it could still have far-reaching effects. For instance, many conservation organisations might stop funding work involving genetic engineering, and some countries could make such a ban part of national laws. “The moratorium would certainly be problematic on many levels,” says Ben Novak at Revive & Restore, a US-based non-profit that aims to use biotechnologies to rescue endangered and extinct species. Why is this happening now? In a word, CRISPR. In 2014, it was shown that CRISPR gene-editing technology can be used to create gene drives – basically, a piece of DNA that gets passed down to all offspring, rather than the usual half. This means a gene drive can spread even if it is harmful and could, in theory, be used to wipe out invasive species. Gene drives could also be used to spread beneficial traits, such as disease resistance. At a conference in Hawaii in 2016, there was talk of using gene drives to get rid of the invasive mosquitoes that have wiped out half of Hawaii’s native bird species, says Genovesi. Some conservationists were enthusiastic; others were horrified. That triggered the events leading to the proposed moratorium. “Gene drives are being pushed quite strongly by some as the panacea for dealing with all sorts of environmental problems,” says Ricarda Steinbrecher at EcoNexus, a research organisation that is among those backing a moratorium. But the broad wording of the proposed motion applies to far more than gene drives. It would rule out most de-extinction efforts, for instance, and could also be seen as banning live vaccines. Steinbrecher says a moratorium is a pause, not a permanent block, and that there could be another vote to end it “when we have more data”. But some of those backing the ban are campaign groups opposed to any genetic engineering, so it is hard to see what would change their minds. “I am afraid it could be a very long ban,” says Genovesi. Take the idea of using gene editing to make wild animals resistant to diseases. Steinbrecher says gene editing could have unintended side effects. But the evidence we have suggests the risks are low – which is why several gene-edited foods are already being eaten, and why the first CRISPR treatment for people got approved last year. The same benefits-versus-risks considerations apply with conservation. Is it really better to stand by and watch coral reefs being wiped out by global warming than to, say, release genetically engineered algal symbionts that give corals more heat tolerance? A key issue is scalability, says Novak. Divers transplanting corals by hand are never going to save reefs. “This is where synthetic biology tools are vital,” he says. “The overall goals of restoring 30 per cent of land to nature, of saving species, etc, will not be attainable without synthetic biology.” Ultimately, this is about competing visions of nature. Some see nature as pristine and sacrosanct, and are appalled by the idea of any genetic meddling. But humans have been transforming nature ever since we wiped out most megafauna. We are already unintentionally meddling genetically by imposing all kinds of selection pressures. Hunting, pollution, pesticides, invasive species and introduced diseases are forcing many plants and animals to change to survive. Some elephant populations are nearly tuskless, for instance. Of course, this doesn’t mean that more meddling will make things better. There are indeed serious risks to releasing gene drives – for instance, gene drives designed to wipe out invasive species might spread to the native range of the target species. But researchers are very aware of the risks. And there are ways to reduce them, for instance by making gene drives self-limiting so they cannot just spread indefinitely. “We are facing a dramatic crisis of biodiversity,” says Genovesi. “We shouldn’t close the door to new tools that could help us combat some of the major threats.” Conservation and rewilding in the Central Apennines: Italy Journey into Italy’s Central Apennines region for a fascinating introduction to the concept and practicalities of rewilding.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.