Clam That Was Killed Determining Its Age Was Over 100 Years Older Than Estimated

schwit1 writes "In 2006, climate change experts from Bangor University in north Wales found a very special clam while dredging the seabeds of Iceland. At that time scientists counted the rings on the inside shell to determine that the clam was the ripe old age of 405. Unfortunately, by opening the clam which scientists refer to as 'Ming,' they killed it instantly. Cut to 2013, researchers have determined that the original calculations of Ming's age were wrong, and that the now deceased clam was actually 102 years older than originally thought. Ming was 507 years old at the time of its demise."

Comments

Shame on them

[2.7182]

What was the point of examining this individual animal?

Re:Shame on them

[Aranykai]

Well, you catch them in bulk, and preserve them for later examination by freezing. I doubt they would make good eating, but the reason is about the same. Its not pleasant to examine a 500 year old clam in a lab that's been sitting in a box for weeks/months/years decomposing.

Non-destructive testing

[seven of five]

Ever heard of it?

Re:Non-destructive testing

[Anonymous Coward]

...why? It's just a clam.

Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a scientist myself, but even I feel slightly bit disturbed by this realisation - that the oldest animal on Earth was killed in the experiment. I don't know why, I guess I have some kind of respect for the uniqueness of the status of this animal.

Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame

[game kid]

The even bigger shame is that this is what scientists end up doing...just imagine less science-friendly oil drillers and poachers who don't give a shit about clams that are in the way of, well, *tosses coin* clams.

Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Actually when they do that offshore drilling it tends to thrill paleontologists. Nothing macro-scale is really alive at those depths, but things old dead and long since buried tend to surface, several of which would have been undiscovered without oil drilling.

Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame

[EdIII]

I've been on site during drilling collecting mud samples. It is ridiculously cool to take samples and put them under the microscope and see things that were alive back when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

This Clam shall be immortalized

[Anonymous Coward]

by the new FOSS operating system, MING (MING Is Not GNU)

Re:ironic idiocy

[TitusGroan8856]

it was frozen upon collection (standard procedure). So it was already dead when they counted in inside. Do not wish scorn upon others for it may fall upon you.

And the anti-science spin continues

[bledri]

It's a type of clam known to live extremely long lives that people are studying to understand aging. It was part of a haul of clams caught on a field trip of Bangor University’s School of Ocean Sciences. And it's a clam. You know, one of those things we catch and eat by the millions every year without shedding a tear.

But God forbid a scientist kills one and actually learns something. And since one of the many things we might learn is how the climate has changed over the last 500 years, we get to blame climate science.

In summary:

• Over Fishing entire species to near extinction: Fine.

• Kill one clam that turns out to be really old add to our understanding of the oceans and climate: Evil, arrogant, and self-centered!

WTF?

Re:And the anti-science spin continues

[sackvillian]

In summary: Over Fishing entire species to near extinction: Fine. Kill one clam that turns out to be really old add to our understanding of the oceans and climate: Evil, arrogant, and self-centered! WTF?

Ever notice how much efforts police will make to safely sedate and transport a cow that's loose on the highway? Even one that was heading (and will continue to head) to a slaughterhouse?

The reality is that the vast majority of people are not comfortable with killing animals and simply can't handle the idea -- let alone the sight! -- of it. Just the information given on this clam in TFA is enough to rouse people's sympathy and make its death seem tragic. But, as is true for war, the idea of millions of something dying is incomprehensible and therefore inconsequential. Especially if the dying is out of sight and out of mind.

It's for this reason that I can understand and respect the perspectives of hunters and vegetarians alike. But it's quite sad when people can't face the reality of their own actions.

"Happy" as a clam?

[eyenot]

A clam's entire sensory apparatus is very simplistic compared to what you experience as a human being.

For a clam, there isn't much sensory input. A basic aspect of its life is completely cutting itself off from the outside world.

Its life was a repetitive series of shell openings and closings. The flavor of various things floating in told it whether to intake or expel seawater. The threats of various predators told it whether to shut very quickly or to stay a bit open for the purpose of expelling seawater.

Its internal organs were probably healthy. It likely had no recollection of the ups and downs of pains and aches. Things we're used to as human beings, that we even use to mark turning points in our lives.

It likely had no sense of the world's existence beyond the approach of sustenance or poison, the clamoring of various threats, and the terrain of whatever was immediately behind it (toward the hinge of the shell). It would be a stretch to consider it to be a sentient being, or one possessing self-awareness.

Even its reproductive cycles were involuntary spurts of either eggs or sperms, just released blindly into the water based on temperature and food supply.

The "happiness" of a clam is entirely due to the low margin for error inherent in a system with truly very few variables.

Re:Science is Inherently Destructive

[MacTO]

Some science is destructive, while other science isn't. A lot of it depends upon the research objectives, as well as the available methods to conduct that research. In a lot of cases it is even imperative to do non-destructive studies, either for reasons of conscience or to generate reproducible results.

Examples:

We study stellar evolution through observation, because we are limited by the methods available.

We study subatomic particles by smashing things together because we can only observe their interactions (i.e. we cannot observe them directly).

We study many parts of the body using MRI because it is both unethical to destroy the subject and because it produces better results.

It's a clam, folks

[GodfatherofSoul]

Odds are there are 1000s more around the same age or older, sucking dirty water somewhere else out there.

Re: ironic idiocy

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

It's not "by mistake" given they knew freezing clams kills them -- it's premeditated. Whether they were cackling with malicious glee or simply didn't give a shit (which seems disturbingly near-sociopathic) doesn't change that.