Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Build an Ark To Save Jungle Amphibians

Peace Corps Online writes "In the 1980s a deadly fungus called chytrid appeared in Central America and began moving through mountain streams, killing as many as 8 out of 10 frogs and extinguishing some species entirely. (The fungus has little effect on any other vertebrates.) Now a returned Peace Corps volunteer and her husband have opened the El Valle Amphibian Conservation Center in western Panama to house more than 600 frogs as chytrid cuts a lethal path through the region. Experts agree that the only hope of saving some of the more endangered, restricted-range species is to collect animals from remaining wild populations, establish captive breeding programs, and be prepared to conduct reintroduction projects in the future. But before reintroduction can even begin, scientists must find some way to overcome the chytrid in native habitats using vaccines, breeding for resistance, or genetic engineering of the fungus. Conservationists are budgeting for 25 years of captive breeding, long enough, they believe, to allow some response to chytrid to be found. 'There are more species in need of rescue than there are resources to rescue them,' says Amphibian Ark's program director. 'When you're talking about insidious threats like disease or climate change, threats that can't be mitigated in the wild, there's simply no alternative.'"

20 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Nature? by Brimmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I understand that we dont want frogs to die off in that region but why mess with nature. If we vaccinate these frogs and there numbers swell; what are those consequences going to be? Im sure that the frogs will adapt to the environment and overcome.

    1. Re:Nature? by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Im sure that the frogs will adapt to the environment and overcome.

      And if they don't, something else will.

      No tasty bug goes un-eaten for long.

      Nature abhors a vacuum.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Nature? by Urkki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wacko nature lovers aside, but what you talk about "evolutionists" is pure rubbish. Evolution is a phenomenon, a force of nature, just like gravity. By your logic, if one is interested in natural processes, one should not fly, because it is against gravity...

      No, it's you who is putting evolution on some kind of pedestal, saying it's something we shouldn't mess with it. Our whole culture and civilization is based on messing with evolution! Or how do you think our current crops and livestock became like they are now?

      There is no grand plan that says that for example these frogs should go extinct if they can't develop resistance to this fungus. Either they don't and fungus kills them, or the do and they might survive. There's no "law" that says humans must not help them to acquire resistance, it's not against any scientific or natural principle.

      Survival of the fittest is not a goal or a moral guideline or a law of nature. It's the intermediate result, and nothing more. Those that survived were the fittest at the time, by definition. And that's it. It's not even the end result, since the end result will be that nothing survives (in a few billion years or whatever).

  2. Nature by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not leave nature to its own devices? Survival of the fittest, and all that kinda stuff...

    1. Re:Nature by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because Nature is "insidious" if it is not commensurate with our financial aspirations.

      --
      Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    2. Re:Nature by migla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not save species from extinction if we can?

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    3. Re:Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why not extinguish species if we can?
      That's the same kind of question.
      Personally I believe it is a pointless exercise to spend some of our limited resources, so we can delay a natural process that has no direct impact on us. We shouldn't be playing god unless we really have to. A stable ecosystem is based on extinction-level events happening.

    4. Re:Nature by macraig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How would biologists stay employed, if not for this?

    5. Re:Nature by COMON$ · · Score: 1, Insightful

      amen, but don't you know that environmentalists these days seem more interested in empathetic selection than natural selection, eg survival of what I love most, not survival of the fittest. All they are doing is keeping the inevitable away, if the weak frogs are not killed off then what happens when we are not around to save them next time?

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    6. Re:Nature by psnyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      we're just postponing the inevitable.

      Which is why we go to the doctor.

      You make it sound like postponing the inevitable is a bad thing. Maybe we'll learn a thing or two from these frogs or about these frogs if we keep them around just a little bit longer.

    7. Re:Nature by Thiez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Back to frogs - Extinction is a GOOD thing. It's how nature weeds-out the weak. Let them die, and the few that are left behind will be stronger & better.

      What will be left behind is a fungus and a huge pile of dead frogs. I fail to see how that is a desireable state.

  3. Re:How far we've fallen by ElectricRook · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And now they're begging for money to save frogs.

    It seems to me, that here they are begging money to fight evolution...

    Witness Don Quixote in action.

    --
    - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
  4. frog huggers. Sounds dubioius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Breeding frogs in a greenhouse for many generations for reintroduction into a native environment? Wow, I bet the descendants will be much better prepared [/sarcasm]

    Then there's the chance that the critters could be accidentally or mischievously let out in some sheltered environment (e.g. Hawaii, Austrailia), and overrun the place.

    What about speciation and adaptation based on natural selection in their native environment? Just because 80+ pct are killed off by the fungus doesn't mean that they can't adapt and recover. At least, that's one reason we're told it's so hard to clear out pests from an inhabited area by chemical means.

  5. Evolution stymied? by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this a good idea?

    Preserving species that are not fit for their environment seems the wrong approach to me. The chance of ever totally eradicating this fungus is nil, and if the most numerous amphibian population around is a re-seeded susceptible population you get to re-play the whole scenario in another 25 or 100 years.

    Even trying to bread a frog with some resistance is at best an artificial solution, and one that historically has never worked on any grand scale.

    Nature is not so fragile that the loss of said frogs will not be offset the the advance of some niche dweller to fill the gap.

    We can't even manage our own affairs. It seems unwise and premature to step in and take over from mother nature.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Evolution stymied? by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Keeping the frogs available for study may help us learn to exploit them.

      The more creatures we "ranch" the more we have available. Think of it as a "seed bank" of sorts. Instead of killing off species, we can retain and manipulate them.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  6. Re:How far we've fallen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    fuck you and the high horse you rode in on, buddy

    Next time I'll make sure the Peace Corps checks with you first before they make a move to improve the world

  7. Re:How far we've fallen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is saving frogs from evolution improving the world exactly?

  8. Re:How long by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Foreign aid? What about local welfare programs? We already support tons of people who can't support themselves.

    And before anyone goes crazy about what I just wrote, I realize that some people are just down on their luck and need a little help. I'm talking about those shiftless bums who just take the free handouts and don't bother trying, or could never support themselves even if they -did- try.

    As a side note, I used to spend a lot of time thinking about how society has stopped evolution in humans... But then I realized it didn't stop it, just changed its direction. It worried me a lot less after that. (But still a little, as we don't let it remove genetic disease any more.)

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  9. Re:How far we've fallen by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems to me, that here they are begging money to fight evolution...

    Natural selection, not evolution. And people have always been about preventing natural selection. We call it compassion, it's a pretty common trait. I guess it's more comfortable to look at it cynically for some people though.

  10. Re:How far we've fallen by Thiez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Aye. And it's not just compassion. Suppose some bacterium mutates and becomes extremely lethal to cows, pigs, chickens, etc., and spreads like crazy, and kills every member of these species on earth. Some loony will shrug and say 'oh, evolution/natural selection, nothing to see here, move along', but it is NOT in our best interests to let these animals go extinct.

    Just because evolution is 'natural' doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it when it is screwing us in some way. Dying of appendicitis is natural selection too, yet very few people suffering from such diseases refuse medical attention...