Are Animals Worth It

Are Animals Worth It?

   Thirty years ago, congress passed a law to protect animals that are at risk of becoming extinct. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 outlined the responsibilities of the government and citizens concerning these animals. It requires that every five years, species are evaluated, and it is decided whether they are okay, endangered, whose population is so low that it is in danger of becoming extinct, or threatened, who are not in as much danger, but whose population is small enough for concern. Threatened and endangered species are then placed on a list, the “red list,” and closely monitored until conditions improve and population numbers increase enough that they can be removed. But how are these animals monitored and how is it possible to get them to the point that they can be removed from the “red list”? To find the answers, many conservationists and scientists have turned to technology. Technology has enabled scientists to help animals reproduce, improve their habitat, and protect them. There are a few disadvantages and opposing viewpoints to this issue. Is it worth the money to use these technologies to save a species from becoming extinct? And more importantly, is it right for humans to intervene with nature? From cloning to satellites, technology has helped save many species from extinction, but is it worth it?
   One popular method of trying to increase the numbers of endangered species is by in vitro fertilization, or test tube babies. Scientists take the sperm from a male and an egg from a female and united them in the laboratory, then place the embryo into a surrogate mother, which is usually put inside a similar animal. For instance, a Bengal tiger cub was born to a Siberian tiger last year. Scientists do this in order to not put the endangered animals through the extreme stresses that this procedure and surrogate motherhood present. One big advantage to in vitro fertilization is that it enables scientist to keep genetic variability in these species by uniting genes from animals separated by great distances. Too much inbreeding, mating of related animals, does not provide the genetic diversity these species need to survive (Begley 12). Scientists believe that inbreeding is the cause of the dwindling of many species, such as the precious pandas, as well as the rhinoceros. Zoos have also been trying to release some of these animals back into their habitat, in order to do so these animals must have a complete, yet diverse, set of genes to ensure their survival against diseases and predators. Technology has enabled this process to be very successful.
Inbreeding is a major concern for conservationists in trying to successfully increase population numbers of endangered species. Before, scientists had no way of determining the genetic variation of any animals, resulting in inbreeding. They now have the science to determine how related to animals are, and can determine which animals to bring together in the laboratory. Though, this means disrupting natural behavior, it seems worth the while. It gives every male and female the chance to reproduce, when otherwise they may not have been able to. This means that scientists can control the increase in population by accelerating the process (Begley 13). In vitro fertilization has proved to be very successful. It has taken animals with severely low numbers left and re-introduced them into the wild by the thousands.
   One of the most radical experimental procedures that are taking place is the practice of cloning. Zoos often experience difficulty in encouraging some animals to mate in captivity, since it is not their natural habitat. For example, tigers’ natural habitat is very large, so when they are placed in a small area in the captivity, they will not procreate. In desperation, scientists have tried a new way other than in vitro to reproduce these animals. Now some researchers have turned to cloning to see if they can successfully reproduce endangered, or even extinct, species. The first animal that they successfully cloned was an ox-like animal from Europe, a gaur. They impregnated an ordinary dairy cow with a blastocyte (cluster of cells) of a gaur, who they named Noah. Noah was a success. The cow carried Noah full term, but unfortunately, Noah died of complications a mere two days after scientists celebrated his birth. But researchers are not giving up hope. The famous San Diego Zoo has been storing and deep freezing cells of animals for more than 25years. The researchers have decided to try again to clone an endangered species (DNA taken from freezers at the San Diego Zoo) and are currently awaiting the birth of bantengs--an endangered, slim-horned, white-footed breed of cattle from the island of Java (McGovern53). It is also now possible to take the DNA from cells of an animal that is already extinct, clone it, and reintroduce it into the world.
   If cloning seems like a last resort, it is. In fact, it is a very desperate last resort. Cloning is a very expensive option when it comes down saving endangered animals. Each procedure costs “$6,000to $15,000, even with Advanced Cell allowing zoos free use of its patented process. But that's $15,000 that would otherwise go to, say, training rangers in Congo, or even toward the billions of dollars needed to preserve habitat” (McGovern53). Conservationists also have a problem subjecting their rare animals to the rigors of surrogate motherhood, since it is a very stressful process for the animal. Another big concern is that when the baby animal is born, if its surrogate mother is a different species, this young animal will not learn how to survive, as its own species should.
   Cloning, however, is an easier, procedure-wise, process than other assisted reproduction. In vitro fertilization, for instance, has been successfully done time and again. But the process is much more difficult than cloning. It is difficult to imagine how one obtains sperm from a rhinoceros. Also, “although not all animals are fertile, all have the potential to be cloned. That means cloning could increase the genetic diversity of endangered species and prevent catastrophic inbreeding”(McGovern 53).
   Another advance in technology that has helped conservationists help endangered animals is the use of satellites. For instance, the prehistoric species, the leatherback turtle is in grave danger of becoming extinct. They have an unusual nesting pattern. Females stopped showing up on the Pacific shores and began to lay their eggs in Florida. Scientists set out to find out why. They used a satellite to follow one particular turtle that has nested 10 times in one year. They believe that these turtles are going to fish-rich waters in Nova Scotia, but such theories are hard to determine without tracking following the turtles (Richey 2). By doing so, scientists will be able to better understand the habits of this turtle and other species, and they will be able to determine how to save these animals.
   In Yellowstone National Park an experiment has been initiated to help protect animals from getting hit by cars driving through the park. Radar is being used to detect the wildlife that comes close to the roads. This radar sends a signal to roadside signs, warning drivers that the animals are near. If this new technology works, then it will be implemented elsewhere in order to protect animals and people from collision (A.T. 6).
   We have come a long way in protecting our endangered species.
   Overall, advances in technology have proven to be very successful for the preservation of many species. But how far is too far? This    begs the question: is all of this worth it just to save a few animals. As far as cloning and in vitro fertilization go, is it morally right for humans to intervene in such away? Many believe that by cloning, we are playing God; stepping in where we really should not. According to many news sources and polls, most Americans feel that we should not clone animals at all or force their production of animals if they are not meant to survive. In vitro fertilization allows for scientists to bring together healthy sperm and eggs, creating the perfect animals. But where could this lead? Many are afraid that if we continue to clone animals that it could lead to the cloning of humans. Also, these advances in technology are very expensive, but are it worth the money? As mentioned before, to clone one animal is very expensive. It is also expensive to send a satellite into space only for the sake of tracking animals. Many believe that the millions of dollars put towards saving animals could better be used elsewhere, such as in the defense of our country or education.
   The answer to whether these animals are worth it is clearly: Yes. Most of these species are disappearing as a result of humans. We have grown so much and insist on moving into and destroying the habitats of these animals, driving them out of their homes where they cannot survive. We hunt and we fish for rare animals that we are not supposed to. Technology has really been the reason that so many of these animals are in danger. It is nice to see technology help them survive. By law, we are responsible for the survival of these species. And if these technologies are the best way to keep these species in existence, then it is what we are obligated to do. These animals are worth it.

Word Count: 1,579

Annotated Bibliography

A.T., “Yield to Animals.” Environment. 45. 1 (2003): 6
This is a short article explaining a new study in Yellowstone National Park that has been initiated to decrease the number of animal-vehicle collisions.

Beardsley, Timothy M. "A Toast to Technology." Bioscience. 53. 3 (2003): 199-201
This is a brief article explaining the successes and benefits of teaching endangered birds to migrate south by using light aircraft to lead them there. The birds are released one by one into large groups where they teach the others to do the same.

Begley, Sharon. “Cloning the Endangered.” Newsweek. 16 Oct. 2000: 56-57.
This is an article that appeared in a weekly publication. It explains how scientists have turned to cloning to save endangered species. It expresses both concerns and optimism for this procedure.

Lanza, Robert P., et al. “Cloning Noah’s Ark.” Scientific American. 283. 5 (2000): 84-90.
This is a scholarly article written by members of an organization that does cloning. They explain the first attempt to clone an endangered guar, an ox-like animal, in an ordinary dairy cow.

Loi, Pasqualino, et al. "Cloning advances and challenges for conservation." Trends in Biotechnology. 20. 6(2002): 233.
This is a scholarly article that appeared as a supplement to an article of the same title in the same publication. These authors are the researchers who are currently studying cloning, and chose to add a few arguments for cloning of their own, in addition to what Oliver Ryder wrote in his article.

McGovern,Celeste.” Zoo Science: Cloning the Dead Gets Closer.” Report/ Newsmagazine (National Edition ). 29.21 (2002): 53.
This is a report on the San Diego Zoo and how they have kept cells from post-mortem animals frozen in nitrogen. They plan to use these cells and their DNA to clone some species.

Richey, Warren .“To Help Endangered Turtles, Scientists Try Satellite Tracking.” Christian Science Monitor . 92. 133 (2000): 2.
This is a brief article that describes how scientists are using satellites to track a female leatherback turtle and her habits in order to fully understand this critically endangered marine animal.

Ryder, Oliver A. "Cloning Advances and Challenges for Conservation." Trends in Biotechnology. 20. 6(2002): 231-32.
This is a scholarly article. It explains the successes in cloning mouflon (an endangered sheep) and this may be a way of conserving endangered species in the future. It explains both the benefits and the challenges of cloning for these purposes.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: The Endangered Species Act of 1973. Department of the Interior. 20 May, 2003 http://endangered.fws.gov/.
This is an official website provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior. It provides lists ofthe endangered and threatened species, information on conservation, as well aslinks to laws and regulations concerning endangered species.