undefined
The writer is a science commentator
Horseshoe crabs are among the oldest species on Earth. The prehistoric-looking creatures, more closely related to spiders and scorpions than crustaceans, have existed for about 450mn years.
But most fascinatingly, they have bright blue, copper-based blood valued in the region of $16,000 a litre. That is because it has unique biological properties: it clots quickly in the presence of bacterial toxins, making it a now-vital ingredient in the safety testing of drugs and vaccines.
About a million crabs a year are harvested to have their blood drawn, before being returned to coastal habitats — but up to a third die on their return. In May, US pharmaceutical authorities ruled that a synthetic blood alternative is an acceptable substitute for drug testing, safeguarding not only the crabs themselves but also other species that depend on them, such as the coastal birds that dine on their eggs.
Some campaigners now cite this as an example of how synthetic biology can save threatened species. Potential projects include genetically engineering frogs to resist deadly fungal diseases and modifying bacteria to improve coral reef health. But a parallel precautionary movement has sprung up, arguing that synthetic biology and genetic engineering have no place in conservation, particularly when it comes to releasing engineered organisms and microorganisms in the wild.
The two sides will spar next month at the World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi, where attendees will debate a proposed moratorium on such science. While those championing the moratorium are rightly concerned with issues such as biosafety, unintended consequences and the rights of indigenous peoples, the key question is really whether any scientific innovation should be beyond the pale in saving species and habitats.
Pollinis, a French non-profit environmental organisation, has teamed up with several other organisations, including Save our Seeds, to argue for the moratorium. Earlier this year, Joann Sy, director of research at Pollinis, explained why: many genetic engineering ideas, such as introducing heat-tolerant gene variants of coral to warming waters, are unproven and experimental; releasing engineered organisms into the wild could irreversibly disrupt ecosystems; gene drives, which spread genetic traits rapidly through a population and are being trialled with mosquitoes to tackle malaria, can amplify both intended and unintended consequences.
But Sy also wrote of a deeper, ideological divide in conservation, between the protectors and the interventionists: “Nature conservation is informed by a recognition that we do not fully understand the systems we depend on and that precaution is essential when intervening in them. Synthetic biology, on the other hand, sees nature as improvable.”
More than 200 scientists and other conservation organisations, including the Charles Darwin Foundation in the Galápagos, have signed an open letter rejecting the moratorium. They point out that traditional conservation methods, like poisoning invasive rats, have downsides too, including cost, scalability, effectiveness and harmful effects on other species.
The letter states: “With nature declining at an unprecedented pace, this is not a time to retreat from bold solutions . . . We strongly support the precautionary approach, but precaution must not be equated with inaction.” Leena Tripathi, a plant scientist at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Kenya, said that synthetic biology could “also advance broader sustainability goals, such as improving agricultural resilience and creating innovative ways to capture or store carbon”.
Because of existing UN conventions and protocols, according to environmental law experts, a moratorium would have limited practical impact. For that reason, this debate feels like an era-defining fight for the soul of conservation — just as humanity confronts the possibility of a sixth mass extinction.
Not every genetic engineering project will or should find public approval; many, including me, bristle at the Disneyesque aspiration of Colossal Biosciences, another signatory, to bring back the dodo. Still, the company’s own, contested achievements seemingly confirm each extinction as an irreversible loss. It feels wiser to use that technology, with care and humility, to save what we still can.