Skip to main content

Forensic survey of endangered species

DNA traces are being used to monitor endangered species.

What animals leave behind has long been used to track them, whether it is their poo or their foot markings.   Animals leave signs intentionally or otherwise.  They mark their territory, they leave deposits, they rub, scratch, dig, muzzle, lick, and almost everything they do will leave some kind of trace for a time.  Animal tracking is forensic craft.

Just as DNA traces can be left at crime scenes, so animals leave their trace too.  Forensic scientists are able to analyze smaller and smaller biological samples to develop a DNA profile - a person touched an object or weapon, skin cells may have been left behind or from their saliva.

Now, DNA traces left in water are being used to monitor endangered species that would otherwise be difficult to survey.

In a study just published, the authors have used DNA traces to monitor the presence of the endangered Gouldian finch, Erythrura gouldiae, a small bird endemic to northern Australia.

The DNA test for finches and the Gouldian finch-specific test were positive for waterholes where Gouldian and other finch species were observed each morning over 3 days.

When no Gouldian finches were observed for up to 72 h prior to water sampling, the Gouldian test was negative.

The authors say

 "This approach could be developed for broad-scale monitoring of this endangered species, and potentially applied to a much broader range of terrestrial species that shed DNA into water bodies."
This is significant because it enables biologists and conservationists to focus not just on animals that are easily seen or heard, but also those whose trace can be minute.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...