Earlier this week we were greeted with the sad news of the death of Sudan, the last remaining male northern white rhino who was euthanased at the age of 45. Two females of this distinct subspecies still remain, both relatives of Sudan, and although there is the remote possibility of preserving the species through IVF, it seems likely that the northern white rhino is to be added to the too long list of animals that have faced extinction at the hands of man's disregard for nature. The northern white rhino has, in fact, been considered extinct in the wild by the WWF since 2008 — Sudan had been kept in a zoo in the Czech Republic until 2009 and moved to Kenya in the hope that the more natural environment would encourage breeding. Unfortunately this was not the case; attempts were also made to mate the two females with the southern white rhino without success. Rhino worldwide are under pressure, and the black rhino, Javan rhino and Sumatran rhino are all critically endangered.
It would be wonderful if the northern white rhino can be saved from extinction using in vitro techniques, and Sudan's genetic material was collected on Monday ‘to support future attempts to preserve the subspecies’. However, this reliance on science to preserve nature worries me — does it fuel the blasé approach people have towards their planet, reinforcing the idea that when things go wrong the scientists can sort it out? Is scientific knowledge enabling us to behave badly?
Another story that has recently come to light, and one that fills me with horror, is that of the singer Barbara Streisand who has had her dog Samantha cloned — she doesn't explain why. One can only assume that she felt her dog was irreplaceable — except by a genetic copy of itself. The two new dogs, Miss Scarlett and Miss Violet, are of course unlikely to be like Samantha in personality, having been brought up in a different environment. This technique is not new (the first dog was in fact cloned in 2005) and has been shown to produce healthy puppies with normal lifespans, however it does seem wrong and an irresponsible use of scientific knowledge. Paradoxically, would it seem more right if such a technique was used to save species facing extinction? Naturally it would not supply the genetic diversity required for a healthy species.
Rather than using scientific interventions to save endangered animals it would be more responsible to change our behaviour to create a world that supports humans living alongside nature harmoniously. We can all help by making small changes to the way we live — for example using refillable bottles for water and taking our own reusable mugs to fill with coffee for our daily caffeine fix rather than using singleuse coffee cups. I am delighted to hear that the BSAVA has decided this year to ban the use of plastic water bottles and will be giving each delegate a refillable water bottle in their delegate bag when they arrive that they can refill at the numerous water refill points. Don't forget to take your reusable cup with you to the show for your coffees though!
We will be at the BSAVA Congress along with Companion Animal, our sister publication for vets. Please come and see us at stand 1002. We will have journals to give away and a great subscription offer for you.
I hope you enjoy this issue.