This is another item from the vault, something I wrote in the attempt to win an essay contest that the Global Forum for Health Research was running around the middle of 2006. The theme was 'combating disease and promoting health'. Sadly, I didn't win. In retrospect it's a bit clunky, and could perhaps have been dressed up a bit better. Still, it's a decent read and I stand by the points I made. I like to think if I'd said I was from a developing country I'd have won pants down. Perhaps this all served me right for prostituting my goddess-given writing ability in the pursuit of glory and gold.
***
Rethinking Health Promotion
In the debate on how to promote health, I can think of no better starting point than to define what it is we actually mean by health. According to the Collins Concise Dictionary, health is:
“The state of being bodily and mentally vigorous and free from disease”
I would like to use this definition as the basis for a discussion of what it would really mean to promote the health of all people around the world today.
The first part of this definition is noncontroversial, obvious even. Good health means good physical health — the absence of bumps and bruises, aches and pains, stresses and strains. The second component, mental vitality, is far too often neglected. Indeed it appears that little more than lip service is paid to the notion of promoting mental health. The final term in our dictionary definition of health, freedom from disease, is also not as clear-cut as it may seem, as will be discussed further below.
As a society we do far too little to promote mental health. How can I justify this serious claim? For starters, how can you promote mental health when there is no consensus on what it is! Is it happiness? Peace of mind? A state of grace? Or is it merely the absence of illness? We seem to be quite good at defining mental illness. Not only do we think we know what it is, we keep adding to the list. There are a myriad medical manuals devoted to documenting and reifying all sorts of mental maladies. Incidentally, there are clear conflicts of interests in the writing of these manuals. Sheldon Krimsky, of Tufts University, has found that contributors to the widely used Diagnostic & Statistical Manual IV often have financial ties with companies selling treatments for these disorders. Where are the manuals for mental health?
To be fair, mental health is not much different from physical health in this respect. The majority of medical science proceeds by focusing on illness, rather than health. Over the years this has been a remarkably fruitful strategy, and it still has its place. Yet any researcher will tell you we are still a long way from a complete understanding of even ‘simple’ organisms. As controversial scientist Craig Venter eloquently put it, “We don’t know shit”. In the mental sphere we are even more in the dark (despite regular sensational reports to the contrary in the science media). If we want to take health to another level, both physically and mentally, sooner or later we must shift our focus from illness to wellbeing.
Of course, it is a luxury to ponder questions that must seem terribly remote to those in the midst of acute physical and mental trauma. Shouldn’t we be tackling these problems first? Sadly, our record of public and private support for mental illness is woeful. It is in areas of treatment and community support, rather than research, that we really let ourselves – and I do mean ourselves - down. While the main sufferers of mental illness are the afflicted themselves, society also bears the burden of mental illness gone undetected, untreated and effectively punished. Amongst the homeless, the incarcerated and the lower rungs of society the mentally sick are overrepresented. This last point may be no coincidence. Michael Marmot, of University College London, has found evidence to suggest a relationship between inequality and poor physical and mental health.
Yet along with the luxury to think about these things comes the responsibility to think big. Returning to the question of mental health promotion, what we need are some indicators of mental health. What about happiness? For all the material advances of certain countries, there is no evidence that people living in these countries are any happier than they were in the past. Not only this, but are they any happier than people living in different countries? This is no excuse for maintaining the disgraceful discrepancies between the haves and have nots, both within and between countries. It simply demonstrates that, above a certain baseline, there is no clear link between income and happiness.
And happiness is but one measure of mental health. What about a sense of belonging, the opportunity to fulfil one’s potential (in other words self-actualisation), a connection with the natural environment, mental stimulation, a feeling of control over one’s life? I suspect that the reader could contribute many items to a checklist of mental health indicators. You get an idea of how neglected this area is by the amount of questions it raises. What sorts of employers create a workplace that promotes mental health? What sorts of communities contain mentally healthy people? What sorts of environments are good for your mental health?
Moving away from the mental realm, we are closer to knowing the kinds of things that promote physical health. Diet is obviously important. So is some sort of regular exercise, although I suspect it would be more beneficial if it were integrated into our lives rather than slotted in twice a week between morning and afternoon meetings. Don’t be surprised if you are soon told which genes you need to be healthy, thanks to the massive investments being made into identifying genetic markers of disease. One problem with focusing on the genetic basis of disease, as David Suzuki has pointed out, is that it can shift the burden of responsibility onto the individual, rather than the firms which create hazardous work environments or emit pollutants, and the governments which regulate them. We would benefit by diverting some of our resources towards understanding these controllable environmental factors.
The last part of the dictionary definition of health is freedom from disease. While we are diverting resources, we would do well to remember that millions of people suffer from entirely preventable illnesses. We could make a huge dent in these very quickly by dramatically increasing funding targeted to those most at risk. Rather than detailing grim statistics on life expectancy, infant mortality and malnourishment, I would make two points, both of which apply locally and globally. Firstly, we must judge ourselves by how we treat those who are least well off. Secondly, acting is not a matter of charity, but obligation.
Can we all eventually be free from disease? This sounds like a reasonable request at first blush. Indeed it is the implicit underpinning of medical science. But on closer inspection, disease is a blurry concept (as are most useful concepts, by the way). There is a continuum from the obvious (eg HIV) to the mostly obvious (cancer is a disease, but it shares its lifeblood – mutation – with evolution), to the conditional (sickle cell anaemia arises from the trade-off between healthy blood cells and malaria resistance), to the ambiguous (eg a slightly less effective version of some metabolic enzyme). As with mental illness, it is in the interests of some to have the broadest possible definition of disease. If we take this to its logical conclusion, we reach what I call Clarke’s Principle: there is a disease phenotype for every genotype. In other words, if you look hard enough, you’ll find in every single person some inherited deficiency with respect to the majority of the population.
In this technical sense, none of us are or ever will be free from disease. It is a statistical impossibility, unless we all become clones of one another. In the case of more clear-cut diseases, can we realistically evade them completely? In nature the battle against illness and disease is perpetually waged but never won. Gains in one generation are lost in the next. The vanquishing of one illness merely paves the way for another. We cannot use this as an excuse not to act in the face of people dying preventable deaths. But even this is not so straightforward. How far do we go to prevent a centenarian from dying? Researchers are now openly discussing the possibility that we may never die. Is this the sort of health we want to promote? How will this affect the environment? Our children? I suspect that before we reach immortality something will cut us down a notch, not because I am a doomsayer but because I see no reason to exempt us from the sort of cyclical fluctuations of boom and bust that beset other species.
In conclusion, if we are serious about health promotion there are several things we can do as individuals and as a society. We must address inequality in access to healthcare. We must take mental illness seriously. But it is not enough to fire disease; we must promote health. As a corollary, we must define health in terms of more than just the absence of illness. Lastly, we should not confuse standard of living with quality of life. One has been rising in some countries for decades, but it appears to have completely detached from the other. Few would argue that good health is a prerequisite to a reasonable quality of life. Let’s make our society reflect this.
Showing posts with label *Feature Story*. Show all posts
Showing posts with label *Feature Story*. Show all posts
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Fire in the belly
As I was conducting one of my occasional vain trawls through my hard drive looking at things I've written over the years, I came across this piece from late 2006. It's part of I reckon around 50% of files that haven't made it onto Artful Science or Hammertime's Brog. If you just take science related writings into account, it's more like 90% that haven't made it onto this here blog.
It pleases me that not everything I've written is on one of my blogs. It seems kind of weird to pour everything into those (these) two vessels, kind of like putting all my eggs in one basket. Won't, one day when I get discovered, I want to have items that haven't made it into the public domain? (But hang on, haven't only two people ever read this blog? And didn't they each only read one post, leaving 89% of the blog unread? I really need to build up my readership. At the moment it's a reader flotsam or jetsam) Then I thought of a humourous part from Vicki Cristina Barcelona, where Javier Bardem's poet dad refuses to publish his writing because he hates the world and wants to deprive them of beauty. At the end of the day we can probably file this dilemma under the already overcrowded heading "Things I think too much about".
I wrote this piece in response to an article by Martina Newell-McGloughlin spruiking the benefits of biotechnology and defending it against its critics. While it isn't exactly the kind of writing I envisioned ending up on the blog, I am strangely proud of it, belligerence, earnestness, profanity and all. And in the absence of any regular creative sciwriting spark, I might as well put the dang thing up. Stay tuned for a few more golden oldies from the C drive.
***
Response to “Green genes” (Cosmos Issue 12, p112)
If you want to understand Martina Newell-McGloughlin’s argument, you could do worse than starting with the following comment. I want to be fair to Newell-McGloughlin, so I’ll let her speak for herself.
“Biotechnology has the potential to … improve the volume and quality of food, feed, fibre and biofuels; reduce agriculture’s dependency on chemicals and fossil fuels; diminish overcultivation and erosion; and lower the cost of raw materials – all in an environmentally sustainable manner.”
When put like this, it’s hard to argue. If we are to proceed rationally, we must embrace biotechnology. It almost seems unfair to the world’s suffering to deprive them of this hope. Just like it would be unfair to the world’s poor students to deprive them of untested immune drugs that lead to horrific side effects.
David Suzuki has often pointed out that biotechnology proponents promise the earth. Even the apparently impressive figures quoted by Newell-McGloughlin don’t bear a great deal of scrutiny. Take a step back. If someone tells you that they can solve the world’s problems, and has been telling you this for the last – oh, ten years, and the problems haven’t even come close to being solved… My friend, you see them for what they are. Cranks suffering from delusions of grandeur, with difficulty perceiving their environment accurately.
“Trust me, trust me. I’m a scientist.” This is one of the arguments they like to deliver. There is a distinct lack of humility in these men and women.
I’d like the reader to imagine a day when the great biotech companies are in full stride. When they get what they want. Making billion dollar quarterly profits, products with a worldwide reach. And the clout that comes with money. Power, in other words. We’ll start seeing mergers and acquisitions. Smaller players will get bought out. Do you really think the world’s problems will be solved? Will the poor be fed? Definitely – those that can afford it, anyway.
Are banks with $4b profits making the world a better place? Fuck no.
A considerable problem with Newell-McGloughlin’s opinion is that it is one-sided. Does the author not see any problems with biotechnology, or are they for us to gather elsewhere? From sources the biotech camp has discredited? Can we have a comment from someone without vested interests? Perhaps not, but we can at least pretend to be ‘fair and balanced’. At least pay lip service to counterarguments. Well, let’s see if I can.
Gene technology is amazing. We are learning so much about genes, cells, organisms, environments. It seems we will be able to do so much. Make the hungry full. Make the sad happy. Make the flaccid erect. Make the weak assertive. The feeder of people faces certain fundamental problems wherever they may be. Produce enough food, of enough nutritional value, with as little impact on the environment as possible so as to allow future repetition of the process. There are many ways of reaching this end, and gene technology is one. But it is not the only one, it is not the cheapest one, it is not the safest one, it is not the most effective one, it is not the most efficient one (funny how efficiency’s a virtue and effectiveness isn’t any more) and it is not the most rational one. But it is one.
This kind of reasoning presented in the opinion piece is eerily reminiscent of the way some drugs are presented. We find out a lot about the benefits (essentially it does something, although whether it’s good for you, better than competitors, alternatives, or doing nothing is murky), nothing about the problems. What we need is information about the whole situation, not just the efficacy of one option. We cannot judge the situation without knowing alternatives.
Could there be other ways of feeding people? What about us fatties in the west eat a little less? I forgot, these same companies will solve that problem by letting us eat what we want, and decreasing our set point weight at the drop of a tabsule.
Could there be other ways of reducing emissions? How much energy goes into running laboratories?
Is it really ‘status quo’ versus GM alone? Newell-McGoughlin seems to think so. What the hell’s the status quo anyway?
Are there other avenues of action available to us?
Of course there are. It is our job as a society to think of these alternatives, and to foster the conditions which will lead to creativity. Capitalism is supposed to be creative, but it either isn’t, or what we have isn’t capitalism. Too often the monopoly, the duopoly. The perversion of market forces. The stifling of creativity. It’s quite funny to see leaders, officials, sensible people happily declaring the inevitability of the way society is run. The inevitability of globalism. Of market forces.
An idea doesn’t deserve to exist if it doesn’t make money. This is a wise and useful way to face the future. If we want to go extinct.
It’s a problem JR Saul has noted. When society is made up of interest groups – industry, government departments, non profit organisations, it doesn’t matter – they will fight for their interest, at the expense of other interests. It’s an exciting game, but I wouldn’t want my quality of life to be decided by the outcome of this game. The cards are stacked, even if it is the only game in town.
As mentioned above, Newell-McGoughlin invokes some impressive numbers in biotechnology’s defense. Quoting research just doesn’t carry the weight that it used to. People can quote statistics to justify many ends – in this case the positioning of biotechnology as saviour, without which society will founder. Do these people seriously believe this themselves? Are they surprised when their predictions do not come true? I suppose not, because they can point to statistics like a net farm income increase of $35.5 billion since GM crops were allowed.
Of course this (increase in net income) is the ultimate end which cannot be questioned. More money has been made by farm. Therefore biotechnology is goooood. QED. GDP increases when biotech PR people pollute the airwaves with their ‘information’. Seems like a sensible enough measure of the functioning of society.
It’s kind of like the way technocrats justify their existence and their miserable theories. IMF dude fishes around for some statistics that back her argument up. You’ll always find something. It’s basically how government advertising works.
We are told that “GM may actually be beneficial for animals as well”, owing to the fact that less space will be taken by ‘us’ away from ‘them’. People who think we’ll save species from extinction by using GM crops are kidding themselves. The idea that we’ll feed a forever-growing human population at no cost to the environment is ridiculous. And it’s not really the intention of businescientists. If you care to ask around, people will tell you there is already enough food to feed people. It’s an oh so simple question of political will, one which we are a long fucking way from at the moment. These people make me sick. Let’s try a little honesty. We are out to make a buck and would like you to get off our fucking back, or even better, defend us against our critics.
Biotechnology can be used to extend the climatic conditions at which we can grow food. That’s a great idea – let’s colonise whatever remaining space there is on earth. India and China will need more space in the future. What about the West – if the rest were like the West, we’d need five earths. How is biotech saving our souls here?
I should add a disclaimer that I am not in principle against technological advance aiding and abetting the human race. I just think that agendas exist, and we are kidding ourselves if we don’t question them. Simple question: who benefits? Who pays?
And what’s the real aim? Is it to feed everyone, or develop technology that allows us to survive in the desert for forty days and forty nights on a single pill? If we actually aim to improve the quality of life for the many who do not enjoy much of it, we might consider putting our resources to other more direct efforts.
The final joke of the opinion piece is to equate those in favour of biotechnology as being ‘enlightened’. It’s either that or the strange equating of ‘science’ with biotechnology. Nuclear weapons are based on science. Does that mean we should start developing them?
Enlightened, to me, would mean something like people having control over their own development. It would mean GM companies losing some control over their product. Funny, they’ll sue you if a GM seed accidentally takes in your soil, but they won’t cough up if there are any adverse effects from the business. Which is exactly what it is. A business. Can you predict who’ll bear the cost?
That’s right. You. Us. The government. We the fucking people.
And you better believe they want control. Why have so many millions of dollars been invested in drafting the bizarre TRIPS? In case you didn’t realise, that’s MINE and you cannot use it unless you PAY ME money. That bug. That’s mine. That plasmid. That’s mine. You can have it in fifty years.
Newell-McGloughlin thinks that if we steer clear of genetically modified agriculture, we run risks. No shit. In case you hadn’t noticed, we’re running quite a few risks at the moment. If we hand over control to those few companies touting GM (which is pretty much the way academia operates these days – oh, I’ve found something cool, let’s convert public knowledge into private profit otherwise the public money will be wasted!), we’ll no doubt run few risks too. But to pretend that it’s GM or starve is seriously deceptive and the kind of fear mongering a politician would be proud of.
Of course, on some level people these days know well enough not to trust big business, the government or increasingly ‘experts’ with an education. But it’s that little bit harder to see the full picture when there’s so much damn emotive propaganda out there.
Am I questioning her credentials? Well, she is not industry, right? Well, websites proudly declare her expert ability to create links between academia and industry. And of course, there’s the little matter of her job and through it, her self-worth and security, depending in no small part on public acceptance of GM technology. None of this takes away from arguments that she makes, but I’ll be darned if finding out about someone’s background doesn’t help you discern their agendas.
It pleases me that not everything I've written is on one of my blogs. It seems kind of weird to pour everything into those (these) two vessels, kind of like putting all my eggs in one basket. Won't, one day when I get discovered, I want to have items that haven't made it into the public domain? (But hang on, haven't only two people ever read this blog? And didn't they each only read one post, leaving 89% of the blog unread? I really need to build up my readership. At the moment it's a reader flotsam or jetsam) Then I thought of a humourous part from Vicki Cristina Barcelona, where Javier Bardem's poet dad refuses to publish his writing because he hates the world and wants to deprive them of beauty. At the end of the day we can probably file this dilemma under the already overcrowded heading "Things I think too much about".
I wrote this piece in response to an article by Martina Newell-McGloughlin spruiking the benefits of biotechnology and defending it against its critics. While it isn't exactly the kind of writing I envisioned ending up on the blog, I am strangely proud of it, belligerence, earnestness, profanity and all. And in the absence of any regular creative sciwriting spark, I might as well put the dang thing up. Stay tuned for a few more golden oldies from the C drive.
***
Response to “Green genes” (Cosmos Issue 12, p112)
If you want to understand Martina Newell-McGloughlin’s argument, you could do worse than starting with the following comment. I want to be fair to Newell-McGloughlin, so I’ll let her speak for herself.
“Biotechnology has the potential to … improve the volume and quality of food, feed, fibre and biofuels; reduce agriculture’s dependency on chemicals and fossil fuels; diminish overcultivation and erosion; and lower the cost of raw materials – all in an environmentally sustainable manner.”
When put like this, it’s hard to argue. If we are to proceed rationally, we must embrace biotechnology. It almost seems unfair to the world’s suffering to deprive them of this hope. Just like it would be unfair to the world’s poor students to deprive them of untested immune drugs that lead to horrific side effects.
David Suzuki has often pointed out that biotechnology proponents promise the earth. Even the apparently impressive figures quoted by Newell-McGloughlin don’t bear a great deal of scrutiny. Take a step back. If someone tells you that they can solve the world’s problems, and has been telling you this for the last – oh, ten years, and the problems haven’t even come close to being solved… My friend, you see them for what they are. Cranks suffering from delusions of grandeur, with difficulty perceiving their environment accurately.
“Trust me, trust me. I’m a scientist.” This is one of the arguments they like to deliver. There is a distinct lack of humility in these men and women.
I’d like the reader to imagine a day when the great biotech companies are in full stride. When they get what they want. Making billion dollar quarterly profits, products with a worldwide reach. And the clout that comes with money. Power, in other words. We’ll start seeing mergers and acquisitions. Smaller players will get bought out. Do you really think the world’s problems will be solved? Will the poor be fed? Definitely – those that can afford it, anyway.
Are banks with $4b profits making the world a better place? Fuck no.
A considerable problem with Newell-McGloughlin’s opinion is that it is one-sided. Does the author not see any problems with biotechnology, or are they for us to gather elsewhere? From sources the biotech camp has discredited? Can we have a comment from someone without vested interests? Perhaps not, but we can at least pretend to be ‘fair and balanced’. At least pay lip service to counterarguments. Well, let’s see if I can.
Gene technology is amazing. We are learning so much about genes, cells, organisms, environments. It seems we will be able to do so much. Make the hungry full. Make the sad happy. Make the flaccid erect. Make the weak assertive. The feeder of people faces certain fundamental problems wherever they may be. Produce enough food, of enough nutritional value, with as little impact on the environment as possible so as to allow future repetition of the process. There are many ways of reaching this end, and gene technology is one. But it is not the only one, it is not the cheapest one, it is not the safest one, it is not the most effective one, it is not the most efficient one (funny how efficiency’s a virtue and effectiveness isn’t any more) and it is not the most rational one. But it is one.
This kind of reasoning presented in the opinion piece is eerily reminiscent of the way some drugs are presented. We find out a lot about the benefits (essentially it does something, although whether it’s good for you, better than competitors, alternatives, or doing nothing is murky), nothing about the problems. What we need is information about the whole situation, not just the efficacy of one option. We cannot judge the situation without knowing alternatives.
Could there be other ways of feeding people? What about us fatties in the west eat a little less? I forgot, these same companies will solve that problem by letting us eat what we want, and decreasing our set point weight at the drop of a tabsule.
Could there be other ways of reducing emissions? How much energy goes into running laboratories?
Is it really ‘status quo’ versus GM alone? Newell-McGoughlin seems to think so. What the hell’s the status quo anyway?
Are there other avenues of action available to us?
Of course there are. It is our job as a society to think of these alternatives, and to foster the conditions which will lead to creativity. Capitalism is supposed to be creative, but it either isn’t, or what we have isn’t capitalism. Too often the monopoly, the duopoly. The perversion of market forces. The stifling of creativity. It’s quite funny to see leaders, officials, sensible people happily declaring the inevitability of the way society is run. The inevitability of globalism. Of market forces.
An idea doesn’t deserve to exist if it doesn’t make money. This is a wise and useful way to face the future. If we want to go extinct.
It’s a problem JR Saul has noted. When society is made up of interest groups – industry, government departments, non profit organisations, it doesn’t matter – they will fight for their interest, at the expense of other interests. It’s an exciting game, but I wouldn’t want my quality of life to be decided by the outcome of this game. The cards are stacked, even if it is the only game in town.
As mentioned above, Newell-McGoughlin invokes some impressive numbers in biotechnology’s defense. Quoting research just doesn’t carry the weight that it used to. People can quote statistics to justify many ends – in this case the positioning of biotechnology as saviour, without which society will founder. Do these people seriously believe this themselves? Are they surprised when their predictions do not come true? I suppose not, because they can point to statistics like a net farm income increase of $35.5 billion since GM crops were allowed.
Of course this (increase in net income) is the ultimate end which cannot be questioned. More money has been made by farm. Therefore biotechnology is goooood. QED. GDP increases when biotech PR people pollute the airwaves with their ‘information’. Seems like a sensible enough measure of the functioning of society.
It’s kind of like the way technocrats justify their existence and their miserable theories. IMF dude fishes around for some statistics that back her argument up. You’ll always find something. It’s basically how government advertising works.
We are told that “GM may actually be beneficial for animals as well”, owing to the fact that less space will be taken by ‘us’ away from ‘them’. People who think we’ll save species from extinction by using GM crops are kidding themselves. The idea that we’ll feed a forever-growing human population at no cost to the environment is ridiculous. And it’s not really the intention of businescientists. If you care to ask around, people will tell you there is already enough food to feed people. It’s an oh so simple question of political will, one which we are a long fucking way from at the moment. These people make me sick. Let’s try a little honesty. We are out to make a buck and would like you to get off our fucking back, or even better, defend us against our critics.
Biotechnology can be used to extend the climatic conditions at which we can grow food. That’s a great idea – let’s colonise whatever remaining space there is on earth. India and China will need more space in the future. What about the West – if the rest were like the West, we’d need five earths. How is biotech saving our souls here?
I should add a disclaimer that I am not in principle against technological advance aiding and abetting the human race. I just think that agendas exist, and we are kidding ourselves if we don’t question them. Simple question: who benefits? Who pays?
And what’s the real aim? Is it to feed everyone, or develop technology that allows us to survive in the desert for forty days and forty nights on a single pill? If we actually aim to improve the quality of life for the many who do not enjoy much of it, we might consider putting our resources to other more direct efforts.
The final joke of the opinion piece is to equate those in favour of biotechnology as being ‘enlightened’. It’s either that or the strange equating of ‘science’ with biotechnology. Nuclear weapons are based on science. Does that mean we should start developing them?
Enlightened, to me, would mean something like people having control over their own development. It would mean GM companies losing some control over their product. Funny, they’ll sue you if a GM seed accidentally takes in your soil, but they won’t cough up if there are any adverse effects from the business. Which is exactly what it is. A business. Can you predict who’ll bear the cost?
That’s right. You. Us. The government. We the fucking people.
And you better believe they want control. Why have so many millions of dollars been invested in drafting the bizarre TRIPS? In case you didn’t realise, that’s MINE and you cannot use it unless you PAY ME money. That bug. That’s mine. That plasmid. That’s mine. You can have it in fifty years.
Newell-McGloughlin thinks that if we steer clear of genetically modified agriculture, we run risks. No shit. In case you hadn’t noticed, we’re running quite a few risks at the moment. If we hand over control to those few companies touting GM (which is pretty much the way academia operates these days – oh, I’ve found something cool, let’s convert public knowledge into private profit otherwise the public money will be wasted!), we’ll no doubt run few risks too. But to pretend that it’s GM or starve is seriously deceptive and the kind of fear mongering a politician would be proud of.
Of course, on some level people these days know well enough not to trust big business, the government or increasingly ‘experts’ with an education. But it’s that little bit harder to see the full picture when there’s so much damn emotive propaganda out there.
Am I questioning her credentials? Well, she is not industry, right? Well, websites proudly declare her expert ability to create links between academia and industry. And of course, there’s the little matter of her job and through it, her self-worth and security, depending in no small part on public acceptance of GM technology. None of this takes away from arguments that she makes, but I’ll be darned if finding out about someone’s background doesn’t help you discern their agendas.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Zoo apes egged on by treats
THEY'RE used to eating plants and small animals, but these apes weren't about to give up a special present yesterday.
Siamang apes Puteri and baby Chanee were among scores of animals at Taronga Western Plains Zoo which received Easter treats.
The playful primates received their Easter goodies inside a $6,000 Louis Vuitton bag.
Renualdo Obierto, a spokesperson for Louis Vuitton, said the gift represented the company’s deep and abiding respect for our evolutionary cousins.
“At Louis Vuitton we’re all about luxury fashion and leather goods. These monkeys have given us so much, it’s time we gave something back.
The bags were filled with carob eggs and handheld power tools, much to Puteri and Chanee’s delight.
Zookeeper Brad Higgins said that it had been a tough year at the zoo, so they wanted to give Puteri and Chanee a break from their normal diet of plants and wildlife such as insects and small birds.
“After the debacle last year when they refused to eat chocolate eggs, we thought we’d try carob – the all natural chocolate substitute.
Siamang apes, originally from southeast Asia, are large, dark gibbon apes and are considered harmless by the Australian Defence Force.
They have dense, shaggy hair over most of their bodies and have senses surprisingly similar to humans including touch and taste.
Taronga Western Plains Zoo, which leads the world with its 1:1 zookeeper to animal ratio, is located at Dubbo, in central west NSW.
Story and photo Daily Telegraph, with an Artful Science Twist
Sunday, March 9, 2008
HARD DRUGS IN OUR DRINKING WATER
As usual, humans have been incredibly industrious in producing an assortment of society-saving goods (SSGs). Also as usual we are just now looking back over our shoulder and wondering whether the environment really does have a limitless capacity to absorb the byproducts of all these SSGs after all.
In this case the SSGs are pharmaceuticals. We are excreting them en masse into our toilets, and from there it’s but a plop, skim and pump to our sewage treatment plants, our waterways, our dams and our taps – and don't forget our bottled water. Hang on, our waterways? Who says their ours? Our propensity for property may actually spur us onto doing something in this case, as opposed to if it was just some remote wilderness that we didn’t claim or directly rely on.
This issue has been growing for a while, although it’s anyone’s guess as to whether it will turn out to be a big deal. The establishment says no big deal. Their argument is essentially “the solution to pollution is dilution.” Others say we should be worried – we’re talking massive and increasing quantities (albeit at very low concentrations - think pico, femto and attomolar) of drugs designed to act on humans, that could build up in our bodies over decades. There’s been very little research done as far as I know.
Yes, we need to investigate and no, I’ve no idea where this issue stands in relation to a bunch of other very pressing environmental problems. AP did some research, in their own journalistic ways (btw, halle-friggin-lujah, has anyone else noticed that real investigative journalism is dying a big fat death?) and the article that came out of it did a decent job. It gives a nice overview of some of the issues, with a sprinkling of scary quotes thrown in.
In this case the SSGs are pharmaceuticals. We are excreting them en masse into our toilets, and from there it’s but a plop, skim and pump to our sewage treatment plants, our waterways, our dams and our taps – and don't forget our bottled water. Hang on, our waterways? Who says their ours? Our propensity for property may actually spur us onto doing something in this case, as opposed to if it was just some remote wilderness that we didn’t claim or directly rely on.
This issue has been growing for a while, although it’s anyone’s guess as to whether it will turn out to be a big deal. The establishment says no big deal. Their argument is essentially “the solution to pollution is dilution.” Others say we should be worried – we’re talking massive and increasing quantities (albeit at very low concentrations - think pico, femto and attomolar) of drugs designed to act on humans, that could build up in our bodies over decades. There’s been very little research done as far as I know.
Yes, we need to investigate and no, I’ve no idea where this issue stands in relation to a bunch of other very pressing environmental problems. AP did some research, in their own journalistic ways (btw, halle-friggin-lujah, has anyone else noticed that real investigative journalism is dying a big fat death?) and the article that came out of it did a decent job. It gives a nice overview of some of the issues, with a sprinkling of scary quotes thrown in.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
World's Oldest Bat Discovered Under Fat Man
Here's one from the archives, that now assumes its rightful location at ArtfulScience. In fact, there's a stack of other archived material that really belongs at this blog, but the transportation costs are considerable, not to mention greenhouse gas emissions. So check em out please. On to the story...
World's Oldest Bat Discovered Under Fat Man
The oldest bat in the world was discovered on a couch previously occupied by a morbidly obese man. The bloodsuckler was a Townsend's Big Eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) and biological testing confirmed its age as 37, beating by seven the previous record held by a little brown bat.
The man involved was identified as Barry Templeton, a 62 year old man from a village near Bristol, England. Templeton, who weighs 132 kg, explained that he would not have noticed a thing, but his dog, Marmaduchess alerted him to the unlikely visitor's presence after he had gotten up to answer the door. Templeton took the bat to his local vet, who pronounced the bat dead on arrival. Templeton said he had "no idea" how the bat got there.
Although a battery of tests were used to establish the deceased bat's age, the clincher was DNA testing of blood which had dried around its lips. This was amazingly traced back to a male pig-tailed monkey (Macaca nemestrina) known as Bonnie, who died of heart failure whilst in orbit around the earth aboard the NASA spacecraft, Biosatellite III. The monkey passed away 9 days after being launched in June, 1969.Templeton, an amateur astronomer, casually mentioned the story to a friend working at NASA, who recounted the tale of Bonnie.
NASA regularly takes blood samples of humans and animals it sends into space for identification purposes. Although it usually keeps these records confidential, NASA had no problem releasing the data to the Bristol veterinarian.A NASA official was unable to confirm whether Bonnie had been bitten by a bat, but suggested that a trip to the zoo a few days before launch by members of the Biosatellite III team, including Bonnie, would have been the only time the monkey would have been exposed to bats.
World's Oldest Bat Discovered Under Fat Man
The oldest bat in the world was discovered on a couch previously occupied by a morbidly obese man. The bloodsuckler was a Townsend's Big Eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) and biological testing confirmed its age as 37, beating by seven the previous record held by a little brown bat.
The man involved was identified as Barry Templeton, a 62 year old man from a village near Bristol, England. Templeton, who weighs 132 kg, explained that he would not have noticed a thing, but his dog, Marmaduchess alerted him to the unlikely visitor's presence after he had gotten up to answer the door. Templeton took the bat to his local vet, who pronounced the bat dead on arrival. Templeton said he had "no idea" how the bat got there.
Although a battery of tests were used to establish the deceased bat's age, the clincher was DNA testing of blood which had dried around its lips. This was amazingly traced back to a male pig-tailed monkey (Macaca nemestrina) known as Bonnie, who died of heart failure whilst in orbit around the earth aboard the NASA spacecraft, Biosatellite III. The monkey passed away 9 days after being launched in June, 1969.Templeton, an amateur astronomer, casually mentioned the story to a friend working at NASA, who recounted the tale of Bonnie.
NASA regularly takes blood samples of humans and animals it sends into space for identification purposes. Although it usually keeps these records confidential, NASA had no problem releasing the data to the Bristol veterinarian.A NASA official was unable to confirm whether Bonnie had been bitten by a bat, but suggested that a trip to the zoo a few days before launch by members of the Biosatellite III team, including Bonnie, would have been the only time the monkey would have been exposed to bats.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
First ever missionary found in Africa
WASHINGTON - Leah, the first gorilla ever seen using tools, has secured herself another ‘small place’ in history by becoming the first gorilla captured on film mating face-to-face, researchers reported on Tuesday.
A team from the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Max Planck Institute for Marital Aids in Leipzig, Germany photographed the unusual scene in the Republic of Congo. Although other researchers have reported seeing gorillas in such a human-like position, none had ever been photographed.
"We can't say how common this manner of mating is, but if I had to guess I’d say about 15% of the time," said Max-Planck's Thomas Breuer, who photographed the gorilla couple along with colleague Mireille Ndoundou Hockemba and her husband.
"It is deeply satisfying to observe gorilla sexual behaviour."
The researchers have been studying the group of western gorillas in Nouabale-Ndoki National Park in the Republic of Congo.
"Understanding the behaviour of our cousins the great apes sheds light on the evolution of behavioural traits in our own species and our ancestors," Breuer added in a statement.
"This same adult female has been noted for innovative behaviours before, including using a stick to stimulate her partner."
Writing in the Gorilla Gazette, Breuer and Hockemba said they spent 45 minutes watching Leah mating with a silverback male named Barry, who dominates the small group.
"Leah was lying on the ground and Barry was looking into Leah's eyes," the report reads.
“They were both highly aroused and mated for what seemed like all day. We all went for coffee afterwards.”
The western lowland gorilla is a critically endangered species, with populations down 60 percent under pressure from human hunters, destruction of their habitat, and health threats such as the Ebola virus, which kills gorillas and humans alike.
Leah made headlines around the world in 2005 when she was seen using a stick to test the depth of a pool of water before breaking it.
Breuer said only a few primates such as bonobos mate in a face-to-face position, known technically as ventro-ventral copulation. Most usually mate while facing in the same direction.
"There have been unsubstantiated reports of primates mating while facing different directions - left and right, if you will," Breuer said.
Written by Reuters, with surprisingly little Artful Science twist.
A team from the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Max Planck Institute for Marital Aids in Leipzig, Germany photographed the unusual scene in the Republic of Congo. Although other researchers have reported seeing gorillas in such a human-like position, none had ever been photographed.
"We can't say how common this manner of mating is, but if I had to guess I’d say about 15% of the time," said Max-Planck's Thomas Breuer, who photographed the gorilla couple along with colleague Mireille Ndoundou Hockemba and her husband.
"It is deeply satisfying to observe gorilla sexual behaviour."
The researchers have been studying the group of western gorillas in Nouabale-Ndoki National Park in the Republic of Congo.
"Understanding the behaviour of our cousins the great apes sheds light on the evolution of behavioural traits in our own species and our ancestors," Breuer added in a statement.
"This same adult female has been noted for innovative behaviours before, including using a stick to stimulate her partner."
Writing in the Gorilla Gazette, Breuer and Hockemba said they spent 45 minutes watching Leah mating with a silverback male named Barry, who dominates the small group.
"Leah was lying on the ground and Barry was looking into Leah's eyes," the report reads.
“They were both highly aroused and mated for what seemed like all day. We all went for coffee afterwards.”
The western lowland gorilla is a critically endangered species, with populations down 60 percent under pressure from human hunters, destruction of their habitat, and health threats such as the Ebola virus, which kills gorillas and humans alike.
Leah made headlines around the world in 2005 when she was seen using a stick to test the depth of a pool of water before breaking it.
Breuer said only a few primates such as bonobos mate in a face-to-face position, known technically as ventro-ventral copulation. Most usually mate while facing in the same direction.
"There have been unsubstantiated reports of primates mating while facing different directions - left and right, if you will," Breuer said.
Written by Reuters, with surprisingly little Artful Science twist.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Race for Branson's Millions
As if we didn’t have enough incentive to tackle climate change, Richard Branson is offering US$25 million to anyone who can come up with an effective means of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Let's have a gander at some of the contenders.
Standing shoulder to shoulder, Al Gore and British billionaire Richard Branson announced recently they would help save the Earth - by giving away US$25 million. And to take advantage of Branson's generosity, all you need is an invention that will fix global warming.
More specifically, the Virgin Earth Challenge prize, worth A$32 million, will be awarded to a person whose invention removes significant amounts of "anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases each year for at least ten years without countervailing harmful effects". Let's put the word 'significant' in perspective.
The Australian government thinks it can prevent up to four million tonnes per year of carbon dioxide emissions by requiring virtually every person in Australia to swap their wasteful incandescent light bulbs for more energy-efficient options. This is less than one tenth of one percent of current annual global emissions. For Branson and Gore, 'significant' amounts to something in the order of one billion tonnes per year - 250 times more than what Australia hopes to achieve. To make it happen every year - without side effects - is a truly monumental undertaking.
To the winner of the challenge goes the cold hard cash and to the rest of us go the spoils of a less-spoiled planet. Though the task may seem insurmountable, prizes have proved a potent incentive for innovation in the past. Branson himself is reaping the fruits of another large prize - licensing the technology that won the US$10 million Ansari Prize for the first private manned space vehicle for use by Virgin Galactic, his venture into space tourism.
While slowing global warming is arguably a bit more difficult than sending a few tourists into space, and though the prize won't be awarded until 2010 at the earliest, individuals and organisations are lining up to throw their hat in the ring. And since they're already queueing, we might as well start inspecting them to see if they've got what it takes to meet the challenge.
Here, fishy fishy
Some technologies aim to harness or improve on nature's own carbon removal and storage systems; its oceans, forests and soils. Others use a more artificial approach to carbon sequestration. An example of the former is Ocean Nourishment.
"Ocean Nourishment takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and converts it into fish," says Ian Jones of Sydney University's Ocean Technology Group. The idea is to dump nitrogen in the form of urea into the open ocean to stimulate the growth of plant-like microorganisms called phytoplankton. Like plants, phytoplankton perform photosynthesis - turning carbon into sugars that they use for food. Phytoplankton are near the bottom of the oceanic food chain, and more phytoplankton means more food for fish and other marine life. The theory goes: every animal is basically a mobile carbon storage device, so more animals in the oceans means better carbon storage.
The scheme was originally developed to restore the health of 'desertified' parts of the ocean with dwindling plankton populations, but snaffling excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is a welcome side effect. Early trials have been promising, but the biggest question is what will happen when it is scaled up.
Dawn Levy, a science writer at Stanford University in California, is wary of strategies like Ocean Nourishment and an analogous scheme that uses iron instead of nitrogen as fertiliser. "Monkeying with the food chain may have ripple effects - unknown consequences - throughout the system, and I doubt it would have a big enough effect to make a dent on the problem," she says.
There's carbon in them thar hills!
If the Earth Challenge were awarded today, many people would place their own money on geosequestration. Already well into the testing phase, variations on the geosequestration theme are probably the best known carbon-reducing strategies at the moment. Basically, geosequestration is the burial of carbon in rocks. Many possible locations have been mooted, including old oil fields, saline aquifers and unminable coal seams. Some schemes are looking to store carbon dioxide beneath the seabed.
For years mining companies have been pumping carbon dioxide and other gases into oil fields to pressurise oil pockets, helping push the oil to the surface. To many it makes sense to take advantage of this pre-existing infrastructure. The energy industry is well-placed to take the lead with geosequestration, as they can capture emissions at the source. In the North Sea, a Norwegian company has been separating carbon dioxide from natural gas and burying it for the last ten years, with over 10 million tonnes stored so far.
Critics of geosequestration say it amounts to sweeping carbon under the carpet, with a real chance that it could leak out at a later date. If this were to happen to carbon stored under the seabed, it could make the ocean more acidic – and ocean acidity is already a problem in some areas.
Kelpie Wilson, environmental editor at the online magazine truthout.org, believes everyone has overlooked something that applies to all forms of carbon sequestration. "When plants pull CO2 out of the air and use it to grow stems and roots, they recycle the oxygen back into the atmosphere. Are we in danger of burying a needful portion of our oxygen deep in the Earth?"
Fake plastic trees
Klaus Lackner of Columbia University in New York has several fingers in the Earth Challenge pie. One project of Lackner's that has attracted attention is using artificial trees to capture carbon dioxide. In fact, it was Lackner's daughter who performed the proof of concept experiment for the technology - for her high school science class. Blowing carbon dioxide through a solution containing sodium hydroxide (lye), she captured half of the CO2 as sodium carbonate, or soda ash.
Artificial 'trees' would be coated with a carbon-capturing chemical, their 'leaves' far more densely packed than a regular tree, as they need only be exposed to air rather than direct sunlight. It has been pointed out that the coating would need to be regularly recycled and refreshed – something trees do for no charge. The carbon captured using this method would then be piped away and stored using one of the geosequestration techniques.
As part of the industry group known as the Zero Emissions Coal Alliance (ZECA), Lackner is also behind proposals to minerally sequester carbon. In this process, carbon is transformed into a less reactive and – more to the point – less dangerous form than carbon dioxide.
One limitation of this method is the relative scarcity of raw materials for the reaction, which converts carbon dioxide into magnesium carbonate. Another extremely stable form of carbon is diamond. But if researchers could transform atmospheric carbon dioxide into diamonds they wouldn't need the prize money in the first place.
~~~
It is genuinely exciting to think of the potential of these and other technologies that will emerge in the future. But how hopeful should we be?
Wilson has condemned the prize, which she calls "an engineer's wet dream", for encouraging inaction among the masses who blithely assume the inevitability of a techno-fix. This assumption is not shared by Jones and Lackner, who agree on the need to cut our fossil fuel use now. Others cry out for more support of renewable and non-polluting energies.
Levy, who thinks that the climate situation is more serious than the general public perceives, is more optimistic. "I think the prize will make a difference in both the short and long term. I am grateful people like Richard Branson and Al Gore are looking beyond profit and politics to address a problem that knows no borders."
A broader concern of Wilson's is one shared by many of us. When we set out to change the earth's climate on the grandest scale of all, how confident can we possibly be of precisely controlling its consequences? What if we overcorrect and remove too much carbon dioxide, killing all the trees and starving ourselves of oxygen in the process?
Last week the company Geopower Basel provided a timely warning to those who would save the Earth with technology. The geothermal energy project involved injecting pressurised water into 4.8 km deep bore holes near Basel, Switzerland, where the water is heated to 200 ° C. When the water returns to the surface as steam it drives a turbine to generate electricity. Unfortunately the work set off four minor earthquakes in the area.
Jones summed up the current pickle when he told the BBC, "Once you start managing nature you have to continue to manage nature, there is no use hoping that it will restore itself to a new equilibrium set up by humans."
Standing shoulder to shoulder, Al Gore and British billionaire Richard Branson announced recently they would help save the Earth - by giving away US$25 million. And to take advantage of Branson's generosity, all you need is an invention that will fix global warming.
More specifically, the Virgin Earth Challenge prize, worth A$32 million, will be awarded to a person whose invention removes significant amounts of "anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases each year for at least ten years without countervailing harmful effects". Let's put the word 'significant' in perspective.
The Australian government thinks it can prevent up to four million tonnes per year of carbon dioxide emissions by requiring virtually every person in Australia to swap their wasteful incandescent light bulbs for more energy-efficient options. This is less than one tenth of one percent of current annual global emissions. For Branson and Gore, 'significant' amounts to something in the order of one billion tonnes per year - 250 times more than what Australia hopes to achieve. To make it happen every year - without side effects - is a truly monumental undertaking.
To the winner of the challenge goes the cold hard cash and to the rest of us go the spoils of a less-spoiled planet. Though the task may seem insurmountable, prizes have proved a potent incentive for innovation in the past. Branson himself is reaping the fruits of another large prize - licensing the technology that won the US$10 million Ansari Prize for the first private manned space vehicle for use by Virgin Galactic, his venture into space tourism.
While slowing global warming is arguably a bit more difficult than sending a few tourists into space, and though the prize won't be awarded until 2010 at the earliest, individuals and organisations are lining up to throw their hat in the ring. And since they're already queueing, we might as well start inspecting them to see if they've got what it takes to meet the challenge.
Here, fishy fishy
Some technologies aim to harness or improve on nature's own carbon removal and storage systems; its oceans, forests and soils. Others use a more artificial approach to carbon sequestration. An example of the former is Ocean Nourishment.
"Ocean Nourishment takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and converts it into fish," says Ian Jones of Sydney University's Ocean Technology Group. The idea is to dump nitrogen in the form of urea into the open ocean to stimulate the growth of plant-like microorganisms called phytoplankton. Like plants, phytoplankton perform photosynthesis - turning carbon into sugars that they use for food. Phytoplankton are near the bottom of the oceanic food chain, and more phytoplankton means more food for fish and other marine life. The theory goes: every animal is basically a mobile carbon storage device, so more animals in the oceans means better carbon storage.
The scheme was originally developed to restore the health of 'desertified' parts of the ocean with dwindling plankton populations, but snaffling excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is a welcome side effect. Early trials have been promising, but the biggest question is what will happen when it is scaled up.
Dawn Levy, a science writer at Stanford University in California, is wary of strategies like Ocean Nourishment and an analogous scheme that uses iron instead of nitrogen as fertiliser. "Monkeying with the food chain may have ripple effects - unknown consequences - throughout the system, and I doubt it would have a big enough effect to make a dent on the problem," she says.
There's carbon in them thar hills!
If the Earth Challenge were awarded today, many people would place their own money on geosequestration. Already well into the testing phase, variations on the geosequestration theme are probably the best known carbon-reducing strategies at the moment. Basically, geosequestration is the burial of carbon in rocks. Many possible locations have been mooted, including old oil fields, saline aquifers and unminable coal seams. Some schemes are looking to store carbon dioxide beneath the seabed.
For years mining companies have been pumping carbon dioxide and other gases into oil fields to pressurise oil pockets, helping push the oil to the surface. To many it makes sense to take advantage of this pre-existing infrastructure. The energy industry is well-placed to take the lead with geosequestration, as they can capture emissions at the source. In the North Sea, a Norwegian company has been separating carbon dioxide from natural gas and burying it for the last ten years, with over 10 million tonnes stored so far.
Critics of geosequestration say it amounts to sweeping carbon under the carpet, with a real chance that it could leak out at a later date. If this were to happen to carbon stored under the seabed, it could make the ocean more acidic – and ocean acidity is already a problem in some areas.
Kelpie Wilson, environmental editor at the online magazine truthout.org, believes everyone has overlooked something that applies to all forms of carbon sequestration. "When plants pull CO2 out of the air and use it to grow stems and roots, they recycle the oxygen back into the atmosphere. Are we in danger of burying a needful portion of our oxygen deep in the Earth?"
Fake plastic trees
Klaus Lackner of Columbia University in New York has several fingers in the Earth Challenge pie. One project of Lackner's that has attracted attention is using artificial trees to capture carbon dioxide. In fact, it was Lackner's daughter who performed the proof of concept experiment for the technology - for her high school science class. Blowing carbon dioxide through a solution containing sodium hydroxide (lye), she captured half of the CO2 as sodium carbonate, or soda ash.
Artificial 'trees' would be coated with a carbon-capturing chemical, their 'leaves' far more densely packed than a regular tree, as they need only be exposed to air rather than direct sunlight. It has been pointed out that the coating would need to be regularly recycled and refreshed – something trees do for no charge. The carbon captured using this method would then be piped away and stored using one of the geosequestration techniques.
As part of the industry group known as the Zero Emissions Coal Alliance (ZECA), Lackner is also behind proposals to minerally sequester carbon. In this process, carbon is transformed into a less reactive and – more to the point – less dangerous form than carbon dioxide.
One limitation of this method is the relative scarcity of raw materials for the reaction, which converts carbon dioxide into magnesium carbonate. Another extremely stable form of carbon is diamond. But if researchers could transform atmospheric carbon dioxide into diamonds they wouldn't need the prize money in the first place.
~~~
It is genuinely exciting to think of the potential of these and other technologies that will emerge in the future. But how hopeful should we be?
Wilson has condemned the prize, which she calls "an engineer's wet dream", for encouraging inaction among the masses who blithely assume the inevitability of a techno-fix. This assumption is not shared by Jones and Lackner, who agree on the need to cut our fossil fuel use now. Others cry out for more support of renewable and non-polluting energies.
Levy, who thinks that the climate situation is more serious than the general public perceives, is more optimistic. "I think the prize will make a difference in both the short and long term. I am grateful people like Richard Branson and Al Gore are looking beyond profit and politics to address a problem that knows no borders."
A broader concern of Wilson's is one shared by many of us. When we set out to change the earth's climate on the grandest scale of all, how confident can we possibly be of precisely controlling its consequences? What if we overcorrect and remove too much carbon dioxide, killing all the trees and starving ourselves of oxygen in the process?
Last week the company Geopower Basel provided a timely warning to those who would save the Earth with technology. The geothermal energy project involved injecting pressurised water into 4.8 km deep bore holes near Basel, Switzerland, where the water is heated to 200 ° C. When the water returns to the surface as steam it drives a turbine to generate electricity. Unfortunately the work set off four minor earthquakes in the area.
Jones summed up the current pickle when he told the BBC, "Once you start managing nature you have to continue to manage nature, there is no use hoping that it will restore itself to a new equilibrium set up by humans."
A Few Good Viruses
Viruses generally get a bad rap, but when you scratch under the surface, you see not all is what it seems...
As far as words with negative connotations go, it's hard to top 'virus'. AIDS, bird flu, cholera, Dengue fever, Ebola - and that's just the first five letters of the alphabet. And when Agent Smith tells Neo in The Matrix that he considers the human race a virus, it's widely understood that he's not paying a compliment. But for a rising number of scientists, viruses aren't sinister at all.
Hitchhikers, hijackers & hosts
Defining viruses is notoriously difficult. Though viruses are a subject firmly rooted in biology, ask a biologist for an explanation of what they are and you're likely to hear some emphatically non-biological descriptives like 'particle', 'entity' and 'fragment'.
Like some bacteria, and even 'higher' eukaryotic organisms such as fungi, viruses are entirely dependent on a host organism for survival. But unlike the others, viruses are not generally afforded 'living' status because they consist of little more than DNA or RNA wrapped in a shell, without the tools for reproducing themselves or turning their genetic information into useful proteins.
When a virus infects a host cell, the cell becomes its workshop. It hijacks the machinery of the cell, turning it from its usual purposes to the sole task of replicating the virus's genetic material and protein coat. So effectively does the virus take over the cell - so many copies of the virus does it produce - that the cell eventually suicides, bursting under the pressure of the viral progeny (also called bicentuplets), setting them free to infect other cells and continue the cycle.
But there is another path the virus can take, one that has spawned a research love affair with viruses. Rather than immediately hijacking the cell for its own reproductive ends, sometimes a virus will insert its genes into the host's genome, ensuring their safety and biding its time until conditions are right for replication. Often this is not harmful to the host cell, and during this period of dormancy the viral DNA gets replicated along with the rest of genome when the cell divides. Eventually, a trigger may activate the viral genes, which usurp control of the cell's machinery and send off daughter viruses to infect other cells.
Tool thief or tool?
In 1952, Martha Chase and Alfred Hershey used viruses to help establish that DNA, rather than protein, forms the basis of heredity. Cheap, quick to produce, and easy to modify, a core group of viruses has filled out the toolboxes of many a biologist ever since.
Their ability to entwine themselves with the host's genome has made viruses the darlings of the field of gene therapy. The once outlandish scenario of going into a person's cells and correcting genetic 'typos' is now an earnest aim of researchers, who hope intentional viral infections will one day help sufferers of diseases such as Parkinson's and Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID), also known as 'bubble boy syndrome', a mutation in the genome that prevents the body's immune system from functioning.
Researchers plan to 'hijack the hijackers' - swapping the virus' harmful genes for a corrected version of the patient's defective genes and using the virus' unique abilities to insert the gene into patient's genome. In reality, the procedure is fraught with difficulties, not least getting the right amount of gene in the right location without side effects.
Pavel Osten from Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, recently co-authored a paper on the use of viruses as DNA delivery systems, or vectors. "In my view, it is most likely that this work [gene therapy] will become a mainstream treatment of some of the devastating brain disorders for which there is currently no treatment," he wrote.
But how would you feel about being injected with a virus to cure a disease? According to Osten, the risks are low and decreasing. "The viral vectors … are in most cases stripped down to the most basic elements that are required for gene delivery, and thus in no possible way pose any risk with respect to the original disease."
Viruses don't attack only animal cells, however. The vast majority of viruses actually target bacteria, including the bacteria that infect humans; they are called bacteriophages, or phages for short (from the Greek phagein, to consume). "For years researchers have been looking at using this targeted bacterial killing as an alternative to antibiotics," says Jason Clark from Moredun Research Institute in Scotland. While this might seem a bit like inviting in the barbarians, it's also sound science; in August of last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a bacteriophage food spray designed to reduce the amount of illness-causing bacteria on ready-to-eat meals.
It's a virus' world
By probing their workings and exploiting their functions in laboratories around the world, scientists have gone a long way toward demystifying viruses. But recent revelations about the extent of viral diversity could radically shift our perceptions of them again.
The advent of a range of DNA-sequencing technologies has allowed microbiologists to move beyond the constraints of studying only what they can culture in the lab, and glimpse what exists 'out there' - in the soil, in the sea and in our guts. And the results have been eye opening.
According to some estimates, the total number of viruses exceeds the total number of cells in every other life form - including bacteria - by a factor of ten. "The total biomass and biodiversity of viruses is truly staggering," says microbiologist Nick Coleman, from the University of Sydney in Australia.
So what are all these viruses doing? Should we be avoiding contact with other people and frequently sterilising ourselves? According to Coleman, viruses actually do a lot to control other parasites. "The implication [of microbial biodiversity studies] is that most, if not all, larger microbes are subject to viral parasitism, and that viruses might be crucial in controlling the populations of other microbes."
Forest Rohwer of San Diego State University in southern California has conducted several landmark studies of marine microbial diversity. Rohwer has seen a change in attitudes towards viruses over the years. "Scientists have always recognized the importance of viruses, but recently it has become clearer that viruses are an integral part of every ecosystem and can't be ignored when we try to understand how life on Earth works," he says. "We usually only hear about viruses in the context of human disease. But most viruses are actually not harmful, and in fact have played an important part in evolution and in maintaining healthy ecosystems."
Andrew Holmes, a microbiologist from the University of Sydney, thinks that people should know that "viruses are everywhere and do not instantly equal 'bad'… [they] have the potential to cause very rapid biological change through epidemic disease, but that is exceedingly rare," he says. "Vigilance is important but panic is unwarranted." Holmes points out that this same process is an important part of correcting imbalances that occur in nature. For example, one mechanism by which algal blooms - explosions of algae that choke sea life and disrupt food chains - break down is viral disease. As Holmes puts it, "such viruses are the means by which the ecosystem corrects itself."
According to Rohwer, when you multiply the number of viruses out there by the billions of years they've been around, their probable influence over evolution is huge. "They are able to move genetic information between different hosts, but we still do not fully understand how this has influenced, and continues to influence, the evolution of new species."
So the next time your nose starts to run or you feel a tickle in your throat, spare a thought for your uninvited guest … and the role you play as gracious host to a galaxy of hitchhikers.
As far as words with negative connotations go, it's hard to top 'virus'. AIDS, bird flu, cholera, Dengue fever, Ebola - and that's just the first five letters of the alphabet. And when Agent Smith tells Neo in The Matrix that he considers the human race a virus, it's widely understood that he's not paying a compliment. But for a rising number of scientists, viruses aren't sinister at all.
Hitchhikers, hijackers & hosts
Defining viruses is notoriously difficult. Though viruses are a subject firmly rooted in biology, ask a biologist for an explanation of what they are and you're likely to hear some emphatically non-biological descriptives like 'particle', 'entity' and 'fragment'.
Like some bacteria, and even 'higher' eukaryotic organisms such as fungi, viruses are entirely dependent on a host organism for survival. But unlike the others, viruses are not generally afforded 'living' status because they consist of little more than DNA or RNA wrapped in a shell, without the tools for reproducing themselves or turning their genetic information into useful proteins.
When a virus infects a host cell, the cell becomes its workshop. It hijacks the machinery of the cell, turning it from its usual purposes to the sole task of replicating the virus's genetic material and protein coat. So effectively does the virus take over the cell - so many copies of the virus does it produce - that the cell eventually suicides, bursting under the pressure of the viral progeny (also called bicentuplets), setting them free to infect other cells and continue the cycle.
But there is another path the virus can take, one that has spawned a research love affair with viruses. Rather than immediately hijacking the cell for its own reproductive ends, sometimes a virus will insert its genes into the host's genome, ensuring their safety and biding its time until conditions are right for replication. Often this is not harmful to the host cell, and during this period of dormancy the viral DNA gets replicated along with the rest of genome when the cell divides. Eventually, a trigger may activate the viral genes, which usurp control of the cell's machinery and send off daughter viruses to infect other cells.
Tool thief or tool?
In 1952, Martha Chase and Alfred Hershey used viruses to help establish that DNA, rather than protein, forms the basis of heredity. Cheap, quick to produce, and easy to modify, a core group of viruses has filled out the toolboxes of many a biologist ever since.
Their ability to entwine themselves with the host's genome has made viruses the darlings of the field of gene therapy. The once outlandish scenario of going into a person's cells and correcting genetic 'typos' is now an earnest aim of researchers, who hope intentional viral infections will one day help sufferers of diseases such as Parkinson's and Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID), also known as 'bubble boy syndrome', a mutation in the genome that prevents the body's immune system from functioning.
Researchers plan to 'hijack the hijackers' - swapping the virus' harmful genes for a corrected version of the patient's defective genes and using the virus' unique abilities to insert the gene into patient's genome. In reality, the procedure is fraught with difficulties, not least getting the right amount of gene in the right location without side effects.
Pavel Osten from Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, recently co-authored a paper on the use of viruses as DNA delivery systems, or vectors. "In my view, it is most likely that this work [gene therapy] will become a mainstream treatment of some of the devastating brain disorders for which there is currently no treatment," he wrote.
But how would you feel about being injected with a virus to cure a disease? According to Osten, the risks are low and decreasing. "The viral vectors … are in most cases stripped down to the most basic elements that are required for gene delivery, and thus in no possible way pose any risk with respect to the original disease."
Viruses don't attack only animal cells, however. The vast majority of viruses actually target bacteria, including the bacteria that infect humans; they are called bacteriophages, or phages for short (from the Greek phagein, to consume). "For years researchers have been looking at using this targeted bacterial killing as an alternative to antibiotics," says Jason Clark from Moredun Research Institute in Scotland. While this might seem a bit like inviting in the barbarians, it's also sound science; in August of last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a bacteriophage food spray designed to reduce the amount of illness-causing bacteria on ready-to-eat meals.
It's a virus' world
By probing their workings and exploiting their functions in laboratories around the world, scientists have gone a long way toward demystifying viruses. But recent revelations about the extent of viral diversity could radically shift our perceptions of them again.
The advent of a range of DNA-sequencing technologies has allowed microbiologists to move beyond the constraints of studying only what they can culture in the lab, and glimpse what exists 'out there' - in the soil, in the sea and in our guts. And the results have been eye opening.
According to some estimates, the total number of viruses exceeds the total number of cells in every other life form - including bacteria - by a factor of ten. "The total biomass and biodiversity of viruses is truly staggering," says microbiologist Nick Coleman, from the University of Sydney in Australia.
So what are all these viruses doing? Should we be avoiding contact with other people and frequently sterilising ourselves? According to Coleman, viruses actually do a lot to control other parasites. "The implication [of microbial biodiversity studies] is that most, if not all, larger microbes are subject to viral parasitism, and that viruses might be crucial in controlling the populations of other microbes."
Forest Rohwer of San Diego State University in southern California has conducted several landmark studies of marine microbial diversity. Rohwer has seen a change in attitudes towards viruses over the years. "Scientists have always recognized the importance of viruses, but recently it has become clearer that viruses are an integral part of every ecosystem and can't be ignored when we try to understand how life on Earth works," he says. "We usually only hear about viruses in the context of human disease. But most viruses are actually not harmful, and in fact have played an important part in evolution and in maintaining healthy ecosystems."
Andrew Holmes, a microbiologist from the University of Sydney, thinks that people should know that "viruses are everywhere and do not instantly equal 'bad'… [they] have the potential to cause very rapid biological change through epidemic disease, but that is exceedingly rare," he says. "Vigilance is important but panic is unwarranted." Holmes points out that this same process is an important part of correcting imbalances that occur in nature. For example, one mechanism by which algal blooms - explosions of algae that choke sea life and disrupt food chains - break down is viral disease. As Holmes puts it, "such viruses are the means by which the ecosystem corrects itself."
According to Rohwer, when you multiply the number of viruses out there by the billions of years they've been around, their probable influence over evolution is huge. "They are able to move genetic information between different hosts, but we still do not fully understand how this has influenced, and continues to influence, the evolution of new species."
So the next time your nose starts to run or you feel a tickle in your throat, spare a thought for your uninvited guest … and the role you play as gracious host to a galaxy of hitchhikers.
Nature of War
Landmines, chemical agents and hunting for bushmeat all take a heavy toll on wildlife during war, but on occasion animals can fare surprisingly well in times of conflict. What can we learn from these examples?
After ten years of bitter civil combat in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) the outlook for the eastern lowland gorilla was looking grim. The combat itself, a marked increase in the bushmeat trade and illegal mining to fund the conflict had all taken a heavy toll. Conservation International was one of many non-governmental organisations chased out by the war in 1994. But upon their return ten years later, they found that gorilla numbers had collapsed by as much as 70 per cent.
This tale has a familiar ring to it. Asian elephants in Vietnam and Sri Lanka, waterfowl in Iraq, bluefin tuna and green turtles in Lebanon, rhinos in Nepal and hippos in the DRC have all suffered the fallout of human conflict.
It doesn't always have to be that way though. During a similar period in the 1990s, a radically different fate befell the eastern mountain gorilla, a montane cousin of the lowland gorilla. The species shot to fame after the work of conservationist Dian Fossey and the subsequent movie Gorillas in the Mist. Amidst Rwanda's own infamously bloody civil war, mountain gorillas in the Virunga Volcanoes National Park experienced a remarkable upswing, of a round a fifth, in numbers.
This begs the question: why would a species do well at times of conflict? If conservationists can pin down the reasons, they might be able to learn from these experiences to help species survive future conflicts.
Hit list
The list of ways in which warfare can harm wildlife and their habitats is lengthy. Munitions, landmines and chemical agents can cause both immediate and long-lasting effects. Refugees and soldiers spill into wild habitats during conflicts, as does poaching and over-harvesting.
"Here in [Africa's] Great Lakes Region you are never far from war," says Andre Plumptre, director of the Wildlife Conservation Society's Albertine Rift Program in Uganda. Plumptre has seen the effect of war on wildlife first hand and says that conserving species while finding ways to work alongside a background of unrest is a way of life.
Large animals tend to suffer disproportionately as they are hunted for bushmeat, he says. That can also be "bad for the rest of the biodiversity, if it leads to loss of their habitat or conversion to another land use."
One such example is Akagera Park in Rwanda, which has shrunk to a third of its original area as a direct result of the civil war. The bushmeat trade also hurts conservation efforts indirectly as the loss of large 'flagship' species makes it much harder to generate funds and retain political support.
Agent Orange
Plumptre co-authored a 2002 study in U.S. journal Conservation Biology cataloguing effects such as these and detailing a litany of species battered by war. For example, during the Vietnam War (1955 to 1975) Asian elephants were routinely strafed and bombed by U.S. aircraft to prevent the Vietcong using them for transport. Landmines continue to maim wildlife and livestock, in addition to people, to this day.
Furthermore, around one hundred thousand tonnes of herbicide – such as the 'defoliant' Agent Orange - were sprayed over not just Vietnam, but also Cambodia and Laos during the conflict. A recent survey in an area of Vietnam untouched by the conflict found 150 species of birds; but a comparable area, blanketed with the herbicide during the war, was found to contain just 24 species of birds.
Asian elephants have also been caught in the crossfire in the ongoing Sri Lankan civil war. Starting in 1984, elephants that managed to avoid munitions have had their migratory patterns disrupted by the conflict. In 1986 a national park was directly attacked by rebels, killing staff and wildlife and crippling infrastructure.
No-go zone
Surprisingly though, some species do quite well in times of conflict. The answer may lie in the compelling deterrent conflict creates for people, and the ability of species to bounce back when humans leave them well alone.
According to Plumptre, war can sometimes give species the breathing space they need to rebound. "War can be good in that it keeps people from moving into an area and settling there," he says.
He cites the example of an area of the DRC west of Lake Tanganyika, which has been unstable because of rebel activity until the last few years.
"The forest is amazingly intact and few people live in the region despite the place having been totally unprotected for more than 50 years," says Plumptre. "If there had not been rebels here this forest would likely have been finished by now."
The deterrent effect isn't new either. Paul Martin and Christine Szuter from the University of Arizona in the U.S. studied areas disputed by Native American tribes from the 17th to the 19th centuries. They found that disagreement between tribes over these areas created buffer zones with few inhabitants, where species such as bison, elk and deer thrived.
Strange effects
The Korean Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea is perhaps the ultimate no man's land. Created in 1953 by the U.N., the DMZ (four-km-wide but 248 km-long) divides the Korean Peninsula in two and is the most heavily armed border in the world.
Thanks to this strange confluence of events, the DMZ is a treasure trove of biodiversity, packed with 149 U.N.-listed World Heritage Sites. The zone is home to a significant chunk of Korean biodiversity and two endangered cranes use it as a pit-stop on a migratory journey spanning thousands of kilometres across the globe.
Present day Australia is not the first place you'd think to go looking for war zones. One thing the country does have in increasing abundance though are military training areas, and these often have high conservation value too, says zoologist John Woinarski with the Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts in Darwin.
This is likely down to the fact that much of the rest of Northern Australia, at least the bits that aren't desert, are given over to cattle production, he says. "In this environment, any lands that aren't managed for cows will have biodiversity gains."
Working in a war zone
In between dodging bullets, conservationists working in war zones are constantly trying to extract maximum benefit from severely limited resources. But can we learn from the experiences of species that have been ravaged by conflict to better protect others in the future?
A study published in April 2007 in the U.K. journal Biology Letters argues that current efforts to protect endangered species during wartime may need rethinking. Guy Cowlishaw, a conservationist at the Institute of Zoology in London, U.K., and colleagues studied changes in the bushmeat trade in the DRC during periods of peace and conflict. Surprisingly, the number of anti-poaching patrols had little effect on bushmeat offtake.
What they found instead was that social factors were critical in determining the opportunities of poachers. In rural areas where village chiefs maintained a tight control over the supply of automatic weapons, poaching was restricted even during periods of armed conflict. In urban areas the outbreak of fighting lead to a catastrophic loss of control over arms and an increase in poaching.
These results point to the need for conservationists to establish closer links with the community. "Our results indicate that sociopolitical factors can be an important determinant of species offtake," say the authors.
"The impact of human conflict on wildlife and habitats is complex. While stretches of depopulated no man's land between warring forces can provide a sanctuary for wildlife, most war zones are more likely to act as population sinks through the proliferation of armaments and uncontrolled poaching by refugees and combatants," they wrote. "Given the threat that warfare poses and the prevalence of armed conflicts, it is imperative to identify how wildlife and habitats can best be safeguarded."
Their study is hopefully the first of many that will provide more data to help conservationists understand why the eastern mountain gorilla was able to do so well during the Rwandan civil war – and also help them find ways to protect less fortunate species such as the eastern lowland gorilla, which was so decimated during the DRC's neighbouring conflict.
After ten years of bitter civil combat in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) the outlook for the eastern lowland gorilla was looking grim. The combat itself, a marked increase in the bushmeat trade and illegal mining to fund the conflict had all taken a heavy toll. Conservation International was one of many non-governmental organisations chased out by the war in 1994. But upon their return ten years later, they found that gorilla numbers had collapsed by as much as 70 per cent.
This tale has a familiar ring to it. Asian elephants in Vietnam and Sri Lanka, waterfowl in Iraq, bluefin tuna and green turtles in Lebanon, rhinos in Nepal and hippos in the DRC have all suffered the fallout of human conflict.
It doesn't always have to be that way though. During a similar period in the 1990s, a radically different fate befell the eastern mountain gorilla, a montane cousin of the lowland gorilla. The species shot to fame after the work of conservationist Dian Fossey and the subsequent movie Gorillas in the Mist. Amidst Rwanda's own infamously bloody civil war, mountain gorillas in the Virunga Volcanoes National Park experienced a remarkable upswing, of a round a fifth, in numbers.
This begs the question: why would a species do well at times of conflict? If conservationists can pin down the reasons, they might be able to learn from these experiences to help species survive future conflicts.
Hit list
The list of ways in which warfare can harm wildlife and their habitats is lengthy. Munitions, landmines and chemical agents can cause both immediate and long-lasting effects. Refugees and soldiers spill into wild habitats during conflicts, as does poaching and over-harvesting.
"Here in [Africa's] Great Lakes Region you are never far from war," says Andre Plumptre, director of the Wildlife Conservation Society's Albertine Rift Program in Uganda. Plumptre has seen the effect of war on wildlife first hand and says that conserving species while finding ways to work alongside a background of unrest is a way of life.
Large animals tend to suffer disproportionately as they are hunted for bushmeat, he says. That can also be "bad for the rest of the biodiversity, if it leads to loss of their habitat or conversion to another land use."
One such example is Akagera Park in Rwanda, which has shrunk to a third of its original area as a direct result of the civil war. The bushmeat trade also hurts conservation efforts indirectly as the loss of large 'flagship' species makes it much harder to generate funds and retain political support.
Agent Orange
Plumptre co-authored a 2002 study in U.S. journal Conservation Biology cataloguing effects such as these and detailing a litany of species battered by war. For example, during the Vietnam War (1955 to 1975) Asian elephants were routinely strafed and bombed by U.S. aircraft to prevent the Vietcong using them for transport. Landmines continue to maim wildlife and livestock, in addition to people, to this day.
Furthermore, around one hundred thousand tonnes of herbicide – such as the 'defoliant' Agent Orange - were sprayed over not just Vietnam, but also Cambodia and Laos during the conflict. A recent survey in an area of Vietnam untouched by the conflict found 150 species of birds; but a comparable area, blanketed with the herbicide during the war, was found to contain just 24 species of birds.
Asian elephants have also been caught in the crossfire in the ongoing Sri Lankan civil war. Starting in 1984, elephants that managed to avoid munitions have had their migratory patterns disrupted by the conflict. In 1986 a national park was directly attacked by rebels, killing staff and wildlife and crippling infrastructure.
No-go zone
Surprisingly though, some species do quite well in times of conflict. The answer may lie in the compelling deterrent conflict creates for people, and the ability of species to bounce back when humans leave them well alone.
According to Plumptre, war can sometimes give species the breathing space they need to rebound. "War can be good in that it keeps people from moving into an area and settling there," he says.
He cites the example of an area of the DRC west of Lake Tanganyika, which has been unstable because of rebel activity until the last few years.
"The forest is amazingly intact and few people live in the region despite the place having been totally unprotected for more than 50 years," says Plumptre. "If there had not been rebels here this forest would likely have been finished by now."
The deterrent effect isn't new either. Paul Martin and Christine Szuter from the University of Arizona in the U.S. studied areas disputed by Native American tribes from the 17th to the 19th centuries. They found that disagreement between tribes over these areas created buffer zones with few inhabitants, where species such as bison, elk and deer thrived.
Strange effects
The Korean Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea is perhaps the ultimate no man's land. Created in 1953 by the U.N., the DMZ (four-km-wide but 248 km-long) divides the Korean Peninsula in two and is the most heavily armed border in the world.
Thanks to this strange confluence of events, the DMZ is a treasure trove of biodiversity, packed with 149 U.N.-listed World Heritage Sites. The zone is home to a significant chunk of Korean biodiversity and two endangered cranes use it as a pit-stop on a migratory journey spanning thousands of kilometres across the globe.
Present day Australia is not the first place you'd think to go looking for war zones. One thing the country does have in increasing abundance though are military training areas, and these often have high conservation value too, says zoologist John Woinarski with the Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts in Darwin.
This is likely down to the fact that much of the rest of Northern Australia, at least the bits that aren't desert, are given over to cattle production, he says. "In this environment, any lands that aren't managed for cows will have biodiversity gains."
Working in a war zone
In between dodging bullets, conservationists working in war zones are constantly trying to extract maximum benefit from severely limited resources. But can we learn from the experiences of species that have been ravaged by conflict to better protect others in the future?
A study published in April 2007 in the U.K. journal Biology Letters argues that current efforts to protect endangered species during wartime may need rethinking. Guy Cowlishaw, a conservationist at the Institute of Zoology in London, U.K., and colleagues studied changes in the bushmeat trade in the DRC during periods of peace and conflict. Surprisingly, the number of anti-poaching patrols had little effect on bushmeat offtake.
What they found instead was that social factors were critical in determining the opportunities of poachers. In rural areas where village chiefs maintained a tight control over the supply of automatic weapons, poaching was restricted even during periods of armed conflict. In urban areas the outbreak of fighting lead to a catastrophic loss of control over arms and an increase in poaching.
These results point to the need for conservationists to establish closer links with the community. "Our results indicate that sociopolitical factors can be an important determinant of species offtake," say the authors.
"The impact of human conflict on wildlife and habitats is complex. While stretches of depopulated no man's land between warring forces can provide a sanctuary for wildlife, most war zones are more likely to act as population sinks through the proliferation of armaments and uncontrolled poaching by refugees and combatants," they wrote. "Given the threat that warfare poses and the prevalence of armed conflicts, it is imperative to identify how wildlife and habitats can best be safeguarded."
Their study is hopefully the first of many that will provide more data to help conservationists understand why the eastern mountain gorilla was able to do so well during the Rwandan civil war – and also help them find ways to protect less fortunate species such as the eastern lowland gorilla, which was so decimated during the DRC's neighbouring conflict.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)