New hope for Tassie Devils

[Made Of Stars]

http://www.popsci.com.au/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/TasmanianDevil_1888.jpg
Credit: Mike Lehmann (GNU Free Documentation License)

Australia's marsupial predator, the Tasmanian Devil, has been undergoing a rapid decline in its population. The decline is driven by a fatal facial cancer that is spread from animal to animal when they fight. Popsci.com.au reports on research to identify the aetiology of the disease. From here (http://www.popsci.com.au/science/article/2010-01/new-hope-tasmanian-devils).

The first set of Tasmanian Devils’ genetic sequencing has revealed the origin of the unique transmissible cancer now devastating the devil population, offering hope that the rapid decline in devil numbers can be arrested and giving scientists new insights for cancer research. The work was done by an international team of scientists lead by Dr Elizabeth Murchison, who conducted the research at The Australian National University in the laboratory of Professor Jenny Graves of the ANU Research School of Biology and the ARC Centre of Excellence in Kangaroo Genomics. The team made the breakthrough by studying and comparing the genes active in both healthy and sick Tasmanian Devils.

[SchizoDeluxe]

There is something iffy about trying to save animals on the brink of extinction, or at the very least, trying to save species in general. Isn't natural selection supposed to run it's course and do it's thing without our interference? Of course, the strongest argument to that is that humans have been the major cause on certain species being on the verge of extinction but that is not always the case in all species. I dunno, I have a hard time with this one these days, there are contrasting arguments on both sides which to me conflict with each other. I just think we need to step out of this interfering thing, regardless of whether it's saving or killing.

[KeithW]

Schizo, you might be right humans causing exstnctions in some cases but this facial disease may be different. It appears to have broken out in several regions at the same time as opposed to spreading from a single source.

A friend of mine in WA makes wildlife documentaries, some years ago he did one on the Pacific Green Turtle that had a tumour disease very very similar to the Tassie Devil one. This too broke out in different regions many thousands of miles apart indicating that something other than humans was responsible.

It could be natures way of cleaning the gene pool so to speak. I live just south of Hobart, last year we suddenly saw no sparrows or starlings at all in the area, this was reported in the papers. They are gradually coming back and again it could be a natural gene pool cleansing exercise.

How do you feel about whales beaching themselves, this could a sign that they want to get back to land, all we do is push them back, are we fighting evolution by doing this, could be.

[SchizoDeluxe]

Exactly, if the disease is nature's way of getting rid of that species for one reason or another, then we should let nature take it's course and not interfere, that's what has gotten us into trouble in the first place. I guess emotion sometimes get's the better of people in these cases.

[Made Of Stars]

SchizoDeluxe, I think your point would be more valid if humans hadn't had a hand in depleting their population (through, for example, habitat loss). I suspect that there aren't many endangered species that haven't been helped there by our species' ignorance, greed or incompetence.

Doing nothing would just perpetuate the same 'personality defects', with an irreversible consequence.

[Fearless]

Damnit, there was a special on this on ABC a few months back. I can't recall what it was called, very interesting though.

They managed to find 2 devils that should have been affected by the cancer but seemed to be immune... I think one of the two ended up dying anyway, but it was a rare find and I think they ended up shifting it to Melbourne or somewhere away from the rest to start a breeding program.

[SchizoDeluxe]

SchizoDeluxe, I think your point would be more valid if humans hadn't had a hand in depleting their population (through, for example, habitat loss). I suspect that there aren't many endangered species that haven't been helped there by our species' ignorance, greed or incompetence.

Doing nothing would just perpetuate the same 'personality defects', with an irreversible consequence.

It's been said that over 90% of all animals that have lived on earth became extinct without human interference. Granted a lot of that was probably before the industrial age but there are still species on this planet that disappear in remote areas. That being said, I can't disagree with you in that we have had a major hand in killing off a large number of species. But it does make me think though, aren't we just one of the other species on this planet along with all the others? How does our existence and it's affect on other animals differ to any others? Is that just another arrogant human idea that our consequences are more important than anyone elses? It's just a thought anyway.

[Made Of Stars]

But it does make me think though, aren't we just one of the other species on this planet along with all the others? How does our existence and it's affect on other animals differ to any others? Is that just another arrogant human idea that our consequences are more important than anyone elses? It's just a thought anyway.
I wondered if this thread would head down this path. ;)

The "it's just nature taking its course" is the same argument that was deployed by the Nazis. That might seem extreme (and it is), but the point is that just because something is 'natural' doesn't make it right. That's the 'naturalistic fallacy'.

The difference is that a) we have far more power to affect the world than any other species, and b) we're aware of the consequences of our actions. With power and understanding comes responsibility. If we don't act responsibly we're no better than the fundamentalists who breed to fill the earth because their fiction tells them to. We can do better than that.

[Loki]

We have already caused the extinction on numerous plant and animal species, both directly and indirectly. I find it abhorrent that people can be blase about losing a few more. Apart from this world being incredibly boring without them, we need the resource they represent and we are still unaware of the detail about how much of our environment fits together. Who's to say that stress caused by human interference like pollution and habitat destruction was not a factor in devil facial tumours. By becoming the dominant force for change on this planet and manifestly controlling what's left of the natural world we are ethically bound to take responsibility for it.

[/rant]

[Fearless]

I think 'we' would generally be disappointed in ourselves if we had the ability to help a species but sat idle by and ignored their demise. Maybe it is a trait of our species to protect other species.

I wouldn't mind if we didn't save the European Wasp from extinction though... the little bastards are like flies where I work. :mad:

[Caio]

I watched a doco on a series of "incidents" in Tasmania. A high rate of rare cancers and diseases in the local population, any one of which is rare to be seen by a doctor, let alone dozens of cases in a localized area. The growth impediment of the local oysters which are farmed. I remember these two, i think there we're some other things. They found that the local water surrounding these areas, was highly toxic, forming a foam in certain locations. The agent is as yet unidentified, despite many tests. It did however show to be deadly to cancerous liver cells (used to test how deadly a particular agent is because of its resistance to toxicity), the results were bad, very bad. many other tests have also shown the water to be toxic.
It was also about this time that the first cancerous cases were found in the devils. The likely culprit? A local farm of genetically modified trees, the company refused to say what exactly was modified, but just remarked that it had been changed to "promote growth". Genetics being the complicated thing it is, its not implausible that some chemical agent is being produced by the trees and getting into the local water system causing all the observed effects.
I think this came from the "Australian Story", something in the water, worth looking into...

[SchizoDeluxe]

I wondered if this thread would head down this path. ;)

The "it's just nature taking its course" is the same argument that was deployed by the Nazis. That might seem extreme (and it is), but the point is that just because something is 'natural' doesn't make it right. That's the 'naturalistic fallacy'.



Yeah I have heard that argument before and while it makes some sense, I don't necessarily buy the whole thing as it is. My point really is, it's our interference, both negative and positive, that is the issue. I just see it as both a negative and positive thing that we feel the need to destroy and save everything in the world, regardless of whether they actually want it or need it. It's just like the hypocrisy of war, where we destroy towns and cities and then drop humanitarian aids to help out. As I said, it's our interference that got us in this mess in the first place.

[gruber]

I like the tas devil their like the koala, cute from a distance but'll rip ya to shreds close up:D