Genetic engineering and the fight for the soul of conservation

The scale of the biodiversity crisis means we cannot ignore the potential of technology.

- Anjana Ahuja

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 450 million years.

But most fascinatingly, they have bright blue, copper-based blood valued in the region of US$16,000 (S$20,440) 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, the US pharmaceutical authorities ruled that a synthetic blood alternative is an acceptable substitute for drug testing, safeguarding not only the crabs 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.