Take a look at this recent National Geographic photo of a researcher licking one of her beloved research subjects. We'll just have to hope neither she nor her lab research equipment is carrying the Chytrid Fungus that's wiping out the world's amphibians.
After watching that video on MSN I was curious if other National Geographic videos were similarly "entertainment oriented." The next clip (preceded by a commercial) was about some tourist in Thailand purportedly pulling a monster fish out of a lake. It isn't a lake. It's a 9-acre pond stocked with fish for tourists to catch. The lodge owner appears to let tourists catch this particular giant fish over and over again. They have even designed a net that won't kill it (past experience, I'm sure).
The narration in these clips appears to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, possibly kindergarteners.
"Kieth worries. The longer the air breathing fish[?] stays under, the greater its danger of suffocation ... the exhausted angler finally gets the fish to shore ... gauges that it is larger than any caught on record [my ass]."
On the heels of that clip is another where an excited and well-meaning researcher catches a Great White. He hacks a chunk off its tail before letting the oxygen starved animal sink to the bottom, apparently with a hook still embedded in its mouth and rope still dangling on the end.
Unlike most fish, sharks pump oxygen through their gills by constantly moving forward. Force a shark to hold still and it will suffocate. When medics arrive on a scene their first priority is to make sure oxygen is flowing to the brain. Oxygen deprivation destroys cells, particularly brain cells -- starve a brain of oxygen too long and it will be permanently damaged. I wonder what level of oxygen deprivation damage that shark sustained as a result of its encounter with the researcher.
The last time I posted an article critical of researchers (particularly their tendency to dart anything that moves), I caught hell from an irate big cat biologist sitting atop his high horse. By the way, a study recently published in the Journal of Mammalogy suggests that darting may have greater ramifications than realized.
I am not of course advocating an end to research. I would advocate that biologists around the world consider adopting an oath similar to the Hippocratic oath taken by physicians.
Comments
View as Flat
Russ Posted 7:32 pm
19 Oct 2008
Their rationale was that shows like theirs, by showing the viewer these animals he'll never see in real life, and educating him about their predicaments, can help develop pro-conservation attitudes. Therefore, the individual animals who are upset (and probably sustain some real damage sometimes, which we don't see on camera) are "ambassadors" of a sort, and their suffering is for the good of their species and the overall ecosystem.
The same rationale is used to justify confining animals in zoos. I've read that there's a strong correlation between going to the zoo as a child and being pro-conservation later in life.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:22 am
20 Oct 2008
Rhett Butler has an article up on Mongabay that rubs our faces in a little reality:
Armageddon for amphibians? Frog-killing disease jumps Panama Canal
The scientists say that physical barriers to the spread of Chytrid -- including salt water, deforested lowlands where high temperatures kill the fungus, and the Panama Canal -- are being "easily overcome" in Panama by "human movement of the pathogen". In other words, human activities like tourism, scientific research, and construction are facilitating the epidemic. The authors suggest that measures to reduce transportation of Chytrid such as "bleaching boots and cleaning field gear between sites, and providing information at eco-lodges" could help contain the disease.
Here is a case where researchers introduced the fungus to a rare wild population:
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08100822 ...
I know this post will be misconstrued by animal rights folks, who see animals in the same light they see human beings. I also know posts like this raise the ire of biologists. The last thing I want to do is give the animal rights folks ammunition. This isn't about hurting animals feelings, it's about ending an extinction event.
Hospitals are notorious places for spreading disease. Similarly, research labs that house frogs will have a tendency to spread disease. Researchers have to be especially careful because they are much more likely to spread this fungus than someone like Irwin who just grabs animals long enough to show them to a cameraman. He didn't confine them in close proximity to other frogs or use contaminated equipment.
The real problem is that we human beings have thrown the natural world into a blender. Disease had a hard time wiping out entire species because species were isolated from each other or there were enough individuals to develop resistance. Today, nothing is isolated because we stomp across all habitats, introduce species at will, and to ice the cake, the numbers of individuals are now small and vulnerable. The perfect storm for an extinction event by microbioal infestation.
The only way I can see to stop this is to protect habitat and by protect I mean keep people out of it. The idea that you can "sustainably harvest" critical ecosystems is wishful thinking.
Biologists have begun a desperate holding action where they put frogs in plastic containers in labs and zoos to protect them while the wild populations go extinct.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:36 am
20 Oct 2008
The purpose of the physician is to save the patient's life, heal them, or at least keep them comfortable if they are terminal. The focus in this context is entirely on the individual human organism, which, implicitly, is valued in and of itself.
A research biologist, even one focused on conservation, is not and should not be focused on the individual organism. Good conservation biology focuses on ecosystems and habitats and populations, not individuals. "Less trees, more forest" as my permaculture teacher would say when talking about the value of thinning in forest management.
The exception to this is of course extremely endangered populations of larger animals, where each individual's survival distinctly contributes to the survival of the species. But that, I think, is the exception rather than the rule for most working biologists.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:25 am
20 Oct 2008
Such an oath would also not be enforcible. It would at best act as a consciousness raiser.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 8:15 am
20 Oct 2008
What blows me away is that so much of it is so obvious to me, as a sometime biologist, but seems to be lost on the producers and viewers. Animals that are being filmed are so often obviously under stress, but this is not mentioned.
This is not to say that we must leave all beasts alone. Any interference in the name of research can mean risk to the subject -- but so much of this research, as you point out, is vital for us to figure out what is happening w the planet.
Where can we draw the line? I'm not sure.
Whiskerfish
Permalink