Preserving Life on Earth: A Conceptual Model Linking Biobanks,Biotechnology,and Zoological Parks for Biodiversity Hotspots

Biobanks and their role in conservation

Biobanks are foundational to conservation biotechnology, enabling the long-term preservation of genetic material, such as DNA, tissues, gametes, and viable cell lines, essential for safeguarding species and ecosystems.^11–14

A scientifically robust biobank should not be defined by a universal numerical threshold but rather by its capacity to preserve fitness-for-purpose biological material and metadata that adequately capture genetic variation relevant to its conservation objectives. While the “50/500 rule”^26,27 has long served as a heuristic in conservation biology—distinguishing between the short-term effective population size (Ne) needed to limit inbreeding (≈50) and the larger size required to maintain long-term evolutionary potential (≈500)—these values are guidelines for population management, not prescriptive targets for biobanking. The appropriate number and diversity of samples will vary between species and must be informed by demographic history, genetic structure, and ecological context.^28,29

Equally, robustness depends on the infrastructure and operational framework of the biobank. Collections can only retain their conservation value if supported by a smoothly running infrastructure, trained personnel, standardized and validated SOPs, and long-term storage and quality control systems. Together, these biological and institutional components ensure that the material stored today will remain viable, well-documented, and usable for future conservation actions.

Quality and integrity are equally critical. Each sample must be associated with standardized metadata (e.g., origin, health status, sex, age, location) and stored under strict cryogenic conditions.^11,13 Redundancy across geographically separated facilities and continuous quality control are key to long-term viability.^12,17

Importantly, biobanks do not function in isolation. Their success depends on integration within a wider scientific and conservation framework, including collaboration with field biologists, genomics labs, and reproductive specialists. ¹⁸ They also serve as platforms for public education and outreach, bridging cutting-edge science with real-world conservation challenges. ¹⁹

In biodiversity hotspots like Misiones, where local biobanking capacity is still emerging, institutions such as IMiBio represent a unique opportunity to build this infrastructure from the ground up, in close coordination with in-situ conservation actors. ²⁰

Biodiversity institutions and their role in conservation

Biodiversity institutions located in hotspots play a central role in documenting local species, safeguarding genetic diversity, and implementing in-situ conservation strategies.^21,22 They often host seed banks, biobanks, or living collections that support ecosystem restoration and scientific research. ²³ These institutions also lead public education initiatives and inform policy by translating scientific findings into actionable conservation strategies. ²⁴ By partnering with global organizations and aligning local knowledge with international expertise, they ensure that conservation approaches are both effective and context-specific. ²⁵

Zoological gardens and their role in conservation

Modern zoos, particularly those affiliated with associations like the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria and adhering to the One Plan Approach, are obliged to and contribute to in-situ conservation by integrating in-situ and ex-situ strategies. ²⁶ Their roles include fundraising, research, educational outreach, breeding programs, and participation in habitat restoration. ²⁷ Genetic challenges such as inbreeding in zoo-managed populations highlight the importance of biobanking and assisted reproductive technologies to support species resilience.^28,29 Institutions like Hai Park Kiryat Motzkin exemplify how zoos can participate in hotspot-based conservation networks, reinforcing both field and ex-situ efforts. ³⁰

Contribution of technological and scientific progress to conservation efforts

Advances in cell reprogramming and reproductive technologies now allow for the generation of gametes from skin biopsies via induced pluripotent stem cells for some species, offering potential for restoring genetic diversity and contributing to biodiversity recovery efforts.^31,32 Cryopreservation and genomic analysis provide crucial tools for understanding population dynamics and adaptive capacity.^33,34

Nature’s SAFE serves as a leading example of biobanking practice and its commitment to biodiversity conservation has led to the development of cryopreservation strategies for a growing number of endangered species, positioning it as a key actor in species recovery and genomic safeguarding. ³⁵

Nature’s SAFE exemplifies best practices in cryopreservation of somatic and reproductive tissues, developing species-specific protocols and validating post-thaw viability, forming the technical backbone of future biodiversity recovery initiatives. ³⁵

No single institution can tackle the biodiversity crisis alone. Effective conservation depends on collaborative frameworks where institutions share knowledge, technical resources, and strategic coordination.^1,3,11,20 This is particularly relevant in biodiversity hotspots, where scientific capacity may be uneven and threats are highly context specific.^17,20

Two collaborative models are commonly employed. The first is networks, characterized by flexible, autonomous participation, which encourage South–South collaboration—partnerships between institutions in biodiversity-rich regions of the Global South—and allow partners to adapt practices to local realities.^21,24 The second is consortia, involving shared governance and standardized protocols, which offer more integrated approaches and are exemplified by initiatives like the Frozen Ark. ³⁶

CryoArks, a UK-wide initiative, exemplifies how biobank networks can standardize protocols, share resources, and foster coordinated conservation efforts across institutions and species boundaries. ³⁶

We propose that biodiversity hotspots themselves serve as the organizing nodes of global collaboration. Institutions such as IMiBio, rooted in the Atlantic Forest biome of Misiones, Argentina, are ideally placed to lead fieldwork, incorporate traditional ecological knowledge, and manage in-situ sampling and preservation.^20,22

Even within a single hotspot, conservation challenges are too broad for any one actor. A hotspot collaborative network, linking biobanks, research institutions, zoos, Indigenous communities, and NGOs, can ensure complementarity, improve regional coverage, and enable coordinated response strategies.^20,21,24,36 These networks also facilitate capacity building and resilience.^21,24,36

Global collaborators, including zoos, biobanks, and biotech firms, should function as enablers rather than extractive partners. Training programs, shared research agendas, and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms are essential to shift from hierarchical models toward truly reciprocal partnerships.^20,24,35,36

Organizational models: Centralization vs. Decentralization in conservation

The organization of global conservation has profound implications. Centralized models ensure quality control and consistency but often lack sensitivity to local conditions and risk perpetuating asymmetries.^24–26 Decentralized models promote place-based leadership and equity, though they may face coordination and capacity challenges.^21,36

We advocate for a coordinated decentralization model: autonomous local institutions connected through flexible, distributed networks that allow tailored responses while sharing knowledge and infrastructure.^20,21,36 This approach acknowledges both the limitations and strengths of hotspot-based institutions and seeks to empower them through supportive global linkages.^20,21,36

Technical requirements for participating institutions

Effective participation in conservation biotechnology requires different levels of infrastructure and expertise. Institutions at the basic tier require access to portable cryopreservation kits, –80°C freezers, and training in sterile sampling and metadata collection.^10,13 Intermediate-tier institutions need on-site liquid nitrogen storage, cell culture labs, and integrated sample management systems.^11,12,16 Advanced-tier institutions should have the capacity for iPSC derivation, next-generation sequencing, AI-assisted analytics, and governance for ethical and legal compliance.^30,31,33

Alignment with international protocols such as the Nagoya Protocol and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development best practices, and participation in global registries, enhance interoperability and transparency. ⁵

Financing conservation biotechnology

Long-term funding is essential but elusive. Conservation biobanks often depend on fragmented, short-term grants.^20,24 A diversified strategy is needed, combining public sector investment through science and environment ministries, international mechanisms like Horizon Europe and the Green Climate Fund,^3,25,36 philanthropic support from organizations such as the Wellcome Trust, ³ and private partnerships with biotech companies and zoological parks. ²⁶

Sustainable finance mechanisms—including green bonds, ethical bioeconomy ventures, and community-based enterprises—should be explored to reduce reliance on donor cycles. ³⁶

A biodiversity hotspot collaborative model for technological biodiversity conservation

This model proposes a decentralized, equity-driven approach to biodiversity conservation, positioning Indigenous and local communities as active partners in governance.^20,21,25 It integrates biocultural sovereignty, fair benefit-sharing, and traditional knowledge into modern scientific practice. ²⁴

Core principles include the autonomy of local councils in guiding conservation strategies, the creation of biocultural research hubs rooted in hotspot regions and equipped for genomic and reproductive research, ²⁰ and access to resources regulated by local law and global agreements like the Nagoya Protocol. ⁵ Community participation is secured through Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), and ethical bioeconomy initiatives support financial sustainability while retaining local control over genetic resources.^24,36

Transparent governance and monitoring mechanisms ensure that conservation does not replicate colonial or extractive paradigms but rather fosters dignity, inclusion, and resilience.^21,27

Challenges and benefits of the hotspot collaborative model

This model offers benefits such as the empowerment of regional institutions, integration of traditional and scientific knowledge, greater local ownership and adaptive capacity, and enhanced international cooperation and scientific diplomacy.^20,21,25

However, challenges remain. These include high initial costs and long-term investment needs, ²⁴ technical limitations for many species due to a lack of baseline data,^11,13 legal complexities in sample sharing and IP rights, ⁵ public skepticism toward genetic technologies, ²⁴ and the necessity of ecosystem restoration alongside species recovery.^1,3

To overcome these, institutions must commit to transparent governance, participatory frameworks, and sustained global-local investment partnerships.^21,36

Ethics

Ethical governance is not peripheral—it is central. Conservation biotechnology must uphold animal welfare and ecosystem integrity,^13,26 Indigenous and community rights, especially regarding FPIC and intellectual property,^5,24 inclusive governance structures that resist monopolization,^21,24 and responsible use of AI and synthetic biology guided by precaution and justice. ³⁶

By aligning technological capability with ethical responsibility, the model seeks to foster stewardship rather than exploitation.^21,24,36

Outline of an example: A tri-continental collaboration model for conservation

The collaboration between IMiBio (Argentina), Nature’s SAFE (UK), and Hai Park Kiryat Motzkin (Israel) exemplifies the proposed model. IMiBio leads due to its scientific and ethical commitment, geographic relevance, and institutional mandate. ²⁰

Each partner contributes distinct roles. IMiBio is responsible for primary biobanking, community liaison, genomic analysis, and the enforcement of FPIC.^5,20 Nature’s SAFE provides cryopreservation expertise, validation protocols, and secure storage. ³⁵ Hai Park contributes through breeding programs, comparative studies, and sample sharing.^26,30

Projects are co-designed with shared legal agreements.^24,36 Training is reciprocal. Biobanking is structured as a distributed system: IMiBio stores primary samples, Nature’s SAFE serves as a backup, and Hai Park supports live specimen conservation.^26,35

Outreach emphasizes the voice of biodiversity hotspots through exhibitions, education, and Indigenous advocacy in global forums.^20,21

The strategic goal is to reverse extractive models, support regional capacity, and redefine biodiversity hotspots as hubs of innovation and recovery, not merely vulnerable zones.^7,14,26