| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Although the Earth maintains this wonderful biodiversity, more than 23% of mammals, 12% of birds, 4% of reptiles, and 32% of amphibians worldwide are listed as "threatened" with extinction by the IUCN-World Conservation Union (www.redlist.org). This is an emergency that we as biologists have the responsibility and capacity to address. How severe is the crisis? One recent paper confirmed the disappearance of more than 100 amphibian species since 1980, with the predicted loss of hundreds of others within the next few decades (Stuart et al, 2004). So, you are not excited about frogs and skinks? Then consider the charismatic, "high-profile" species that are nearing extinction—the Iberian lynx (probably fewer than 200 individuals), the Spanish Imperial eagle (178 remaining pairs), and the Simian wolf of Ethiopia (<400 individuals, all in nature), all of which could vanish during our lifetimes.
It is difficult to fathom the complete extermination of a species or the lost opportunity to discover unique, new knowledge about these unstudied creatures. Our discipline tends to focus virtually all its attention and resources on about 15 total species, believing, I suppose, that reproductive mechanisms are fairly uniform across species. Of course, nothing is further from the truth, as our 30 years of studying diverse species have demonstrated (Wildt et al, 2003). Thus, it always is surprising to me how little we actually know about the reproductive physiology of virtually all species. Although our major journals are filled with fascinating facts on the cellular and subcellular mechanisms of the laboratory rat, we are largely ignorant about the most fundamental reproductive knowledge of wild animals. Although of fascinating scholarly interest, in many cases, these data also are needed by decision makers to prevent extinctions and improve species management.
My career developed more as a result of serendipitous events than clever planning. An appreciation for animals and hard work was cultivated during my childhood on our family farm, after which I completed a BS degree in animal science. With no interesting job prospects, I applied to graduate school, which connected me with W. Richard Dukelow of Michigan State University. Dukelow then (and even now in retirement) was somewhat of rogue—a primatologist in a Department of Animal Husbandry who had an absolute devotion to his graduate students. Although my graduate research was oriented toward the study of cows and pigs, Dukelow relentlessly advocated exploring new avenues in species research as well as the value of being "politically savvy" (an essential skill in the wildlife world). On completing my PhD in 1975, I secured a postdoctoral fellowship at Baylor College of Medicine, where I studied the reproductive physiology of the laboratory dog and cat, species that were growing in importance as models for human disease investigations. During this time, there were several people in our laboratory who were interested in zoos and introduced me to zoo veterinarians, who were, themselves, an emerging, new breed of specialists.
Soon, I found myself working on small projects at the Houston Zoo, which literally was across the street from my laboratory at the medical school. Several special zoo experiences followed, the most memorable occurring during a visit to the National Zoo in 1978. This was my first "wow" experience—an up-close and personal encounter with one of my favorites, a Siberian tiger. As the 250-kg anesthetized beast lay at my feet, swarmed by zoo staff who were collecting body measurements and blood, I peppered these "experts" with questions ranging from sperm numbers to estrous cycle length. My inquiries were met with silence and odd looks. This became an "Aha" moment for me: 1) incredulity that nothing was known, 2) followed by the realization that there was a career to be had here—studying the biology of such unusual, beautiful, and rare animals.
During my remaining time in Texas and during a 3-year stint at the National Institutes of Health (where I was employed to study dogs, cats, and mice), I pursued my budding wildlife avocation, usually at night and mostly at the Smithsonian's National Zoo in Washington. In 1983, I was hired by the Smithsonian to develop the Re-productive Physiology Program, now the Department of Reproductive Sciences, which is composed of 8 staff scientists, 5 postdoctoral fellows, and 10 graduate students. Our 5 most senior staff members have been together for a collective 95 years, a testament to enjoying our jobs.
|
While all of this sounds exciting, if not glamorous, there are serious cautions to be made. First and foremost is financial support. There is no "National Institutes of Health for Endangered Species," and historically, there have been limited sources of funding. Nonetheless, our laboratory has been successful in securing funds from a host of unusual (private and corporate sector) and usual (National Institutes of Health) sources. Because we study unconventional species, obtaining funds requires skills not normally acquired during traditional research training. Second, because of the sheer amount of need across so many species, people entering this career easily can become unfocused, pulled in many directions, and ultimately not as productive as in a traditional career. This is particularly true where generating high-quality publications is concerned, which can be further challenged by few available research animals or populations that are scattered among geographically disparate zoos. We have dealt with this issue by forming vast numbers of partnerships with zoos and field sites worldwide and by developing mobile laboratories where we take the technology directly to the animals. This also means that people interested in studying wildlife must be dedicated to working closely and collaboratively with others—this is not a field for "loners." Furthermore, the ability to contribute to species conservation through basic and applied studies depends on the ability to appreciate and even practice complimentary disciplines, such as animal health and husbandry, population biology, genetics, behavior, and nutrition.
I frequently am asked, "Are there jobs in the conservation world for reproductive-based scientists?" My answer—a qualified "yes"—is based on several observations. Every one of the more than 60 postdoctoral fellows and graduate students who have left our laboratories are gainfully employed. Not all are in conservation science, because in some cases, there were better opportunities in related reproductive areas. Not all are in the laboratory or in the field, because some excelled in the classroom teaching or in dealing with office-based conservation policy initiatives. However, every trainee who completed our program has benefited in at least 3 ways. The first has been in gaining a better appreciation for the world's bio-diversity and the specialization of individual species. The second has been in learning the value of studying whole animals—and in interdisciplinary ways that generally involve many people with different skills but similar levels of enthusiasm. Third, this research area has demonstrated the applied value of scholarly knowledge to the improved management and sometimes the saving of an entire species. In my opinion, there is nothing more important, rewarding—or necessary.
Acknowledgments
The author is indebted to the Smithsonian's National Zoological Park, its Conservation & Research Center, and to colleagues JoGayle Howard, Steven Monfort, Janine Brown, and Budhan Pukazhenthi. Photograph courtesy of Jessie Cohen, Smithsonian's National Zoological Park, Washington, DC.
Footnotes
References
Stuart S, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischman DL,
Waller RW. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide.
Science. 2004;306: 1783
-1786.
Wildt DE, Ellis S, Janssen D, Buff J. Toward more effective reproductive science for conservation. In: Holt WV, Pickard AR, Rodger JC, Wildt DE, eds. Reproductive Science and Integrated Conservation. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2003: 2-20.
Wildt DE, Wemmer C. Sex and wildlife: the role of reproductive science in conservation. Biodivers Conserv. 1999; 8: 965 -976.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
