Eradicating miseries of nature

Is it ever laudable, or even acceptable, to eliminate any living species? The morality of this concept, along with genetic modification, has been debated before, but is now taken more seriously as our ability to manipulate genes increases. To be sure, it would be exciting to see animals and plants which were extinct living again. However, these are early days, and technology is ahead of application for the moment.

It is, however, within our grasp to eliminate a sprinkling of organisms that cause human suffering. The most obvious and well-known is smallpox. This is due to a virus, is very contagious, highly lethal, and has no treatment, but man is the only host and there is an extremely effective vaccine. It was essentially eradicated by 1977, with only a handful of cultures frozen in major laboratories. These were kept alive just in case somebody found, made or stole some virus and threatened to release it. The idea was that there would still be the ability to make vaccine and do more studies.

The World Health Organisation has just decided not to destroy the remaining cultures, in Atlanta and Novosibirsk, for the above reasons, even though it was pointed out that there were 600 million vaccine doses in essentially immortal storage, should the need arise. It was also noted that the last person to die of smallpox was a laboratory technician in a laboratory accident.

One could safely argue that eliminating the smallpox virus can only benefit the world. Likewise the polio virus, which has very similar characteristics to smallpox. This almost happened, and elimination was expected to be complete within the last decade. However, the vaccination programme was seriously interrupted, mostly in Pakistan, but also in Northern Nigeria and the Middle East. Various Muslim sects have decided the vaccinations are a plot by Western civilisations to either kill them off, make them sterile or give them Aids. There were 82 cases of polio last year, nearly double the previous one, and the resumption of vaccination programmes in the countries mentioned above is not looking promising.

The other significant candidate for elimination is guinea worm, a tropical parasite with the larval stage in shallow water. It causes serious skin infections and a lot of misery. The number of fresh cases had dropped considerably, but there has been a sudden increase recently near the Sudan border, a war zone.

There are over 2500 mosquito species, but just one is responsible for most mosquito-spread diseases, with malaria, dengue and yellow fever accounting for most of these. If you could eliminate that mosquito, these diseases would disappear. But blanket insecticide spraying has not worked, and has been disastrous. Some work with guided, genetically-altered, sterile mosquitoes is promising.

None of the organisms mentioned seem to have been missed, a prerequisite for their elimination. The consensus follows that elimination of highly-infectious species, if it is not accompanied by significant ecological problems, is perfectly justified. In my view This "anti-conservation" is sensible and realistic.

Ian Sutherland is a retired pathologist who has lived and worked in many, predominantly warm countries and has always had an interest in conservation and environmental matters.