From Michael Rands, BirdLife International
Talk of “frozen zoos” containing tissue from endangered species sends a
shiver down my spine. Andy Coghlan has reported that Advanced Cell Technology of
Worcester, Massachusetts, proposes to bring back a species of mountain goat from
recent extinction by cloning stored tissue samples taken from the last surviving female
(14 October, p 5). The idea is a distraction from the
real priorities for saving the world’s threatened species.
BirdLife International’s Globally Threatened Species Programme recently
completed and published a three-year assessment of extinction risks to birds,
Threatened Birds of the World. This assessment, compiled with data from over
1000 scientists and ornithologists, clearly shows that cloning is not a priority
for the world’s 1186 threatened bird species. Instead, it identifies over 5000
practical conservation actions necessary to save the world’s growing number of
threatened birds.
These actions will need funding. Early last month, the New Zealand government
confirmed funding for an ambitious US$1 million project to eradicate
introduced rats from Campbell Island, one of the actions identified in
Threatened Birds of the World to protect the vulnerable Campbell albatross. Once
the main island is cleared of rats, the critically endangered and flightless
Campbell Island teal, which survives on only two tiny islands, can also be
returned to its former home, thereby reducing its risk of extinction.
The cross-fostering of eggs from the last surviving female Chatham Island
black robin, also in New Zealand, has resulted in a population today of over 250
individuals. Intensive techniques such as these have proved remarkably
successful in saving some species from the brink.
Advertisement
Even if cloning were a possibility, it would not stop the continuing
degradation of forests which is the greatest threat to birds worldwide. That is
why most conservation funding needs to be focused on conserving sufficient
natural habitats to maintain viable populations in the wild. Surely it is better
to spend limited conservation funds on these tried and tested conservation
measures and so maintain species in the wild, than on unproven “frozen
zoos”.
Andy Coghlan writes: Throughout the article to which Michael Rands refers,
“gaur” was mistakenly typed as “guar”. Thanks to the readers who pointed this out.
Cambridge
