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.'"

18 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.

  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 Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is our nature to interfere with nature, and who are we to interfere with nature? Therefore, in order to be true to our nature (and therefore not interfere with nature) we must surely interfere with nature!

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:Nature by macraig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How would biologists stay employed, if not for this?

    3. Re:Nature by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Humans are virtually incapable of making realistic cost-benefit analyses of these type of situations. There is so much genetic material phasing into and out of existence, human beings could not begin to comprehend it all. However, a single species is easy enough to comprehend, and so by being considered at all it gets a fairly disproportionate representation in the grand scheme of earth's ecosystem. (and I guess the 'conservationists' are not so sentimental about fungus as frogs)

      I think it is interesting that their long-term solution is either to attack the fungus (basically performing a total reversal of natural selection through human intervention) or to preserve the frogs and provide the frogs with some kind of immunity. Of course, nature *already has* an paradigm for immunity, the principle mechanism of which is to let all the organisms that lack intrinsic biological defenses to be killed off.

    4. 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.

  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. Re:Evolution stymied? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem is that we could be causing this disease to spread. One reason which has been put forward is that frog researchers who go from country to country are spreading diseases. So saving frogs in this instance may be more a case of fixing the damage we have done.

  5. Re:How far we've fallen by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did you read the article you fucking dimwit? This is not a Peace Corps project, and the only connection to the Peace Corps is that one of the people doing it used to be a Peace Corps volunteer.

    He is allowed to do other things I hope.

    Look, I know, being apparently rather stupid and badly educated, you do not like to read articles; I am sure entire articles with all their long paragraphs and sentences and stuff tire you out and are terrible burden upon you. And I am sure it is much easier and more fun to just vent this pent up hatred you have of volunteer organizations. I mean whats not to hate about volunteer organizations -- they try to help people. The bastards.

    But you see, if you are going to start flaming on slashdot, you should try very hard to read the article (you can do it, just get plenty of sleep beforehand). You have to do it just to cover your ass. Otherwise you get flamed yourself. Asshole.

  6. More like frog domestication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know I've been looking forward to free-range fried frog's legs that don't let you down in the hallucination department.

  7. Re:Evolution stymied? by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    I disagree. I've successfully managed to bread frogs en masse, you just have to have a really large fryer. Delicious and crispy!

    Sorry, couldn't help myself.

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  8. indeed by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe Love And Rockets covered this: "You cannot go against nature / because when you do / go against nature / it's part of nature too".

    Thus confirming the thesis that all major questions of philosophy have been covered by 80s music.

    1. Re:indeed by dov_0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thus confirming the thesis that all major questions of philosophy have been covered by 80s music.

      Philosophy maybe, but that still leaves the ethical questions regarding their 80's hairstyles...

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
  9. Re:sentimental fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not natural:
    "Due to its extensive use in obstetrics and research, it appears Xenopus laevis has carried B. dendrobatidis with it out of Africa to all over the world, causing chytridomycosis and eventually death in native frogs naÃve to the fungi."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_clawed_frog
    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no12/03-0804.htm

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

    How is saving frogs from evolution improving the world exactly?

  11. 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."
  12. Re:How far we've fallen by leromarinvit · · Score: 5, Funny

    But you see, if you are going to start flaming on slashdot, you should try very hard to read the article (you can do it, just get plenty of sleep beforehand). You have to do it just to cover your ass. Otherwise you get flamed yourself. Asshole.

    I think you forgot to add "Also, fuck you."

    --
    Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
  13. 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...