Symbiotic Betrayal

By now, all sports fans and animal lovers, and most people who glance at a newspaper from time to time, know that Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and three others have been indicted by a federal grand jury on multiple crimes related to a dogfighting operation. That Vick is a remarkable athlete is without question. Whether he is also a deplorable scumbag remains to be seen (my official innocent-until-proven-guilty stance is that the jury is still out; my gut feeling after reading the 19 page indictment is an unqualified "yes").

Regardless, why do I raise the Vick indictment in a blog that has variously covered ecology and natural history, environmentalism broadly and marine conservation specifically, and the intersection between science and public policy? It is because the issue pertains to the relationship between humans and dogs that represents a type of mutually beneficial symbiosis. In fact, in my mind it is the most diverse and unusual symbiosis in all of nature.

"Symbiosis" is a broad biological concept representing any close, long-term interaction between two species. Not all types are to the benefit of both species, specifically the many types of parasitism (e.g., mistletoe that stunts the growth or kills host trees; isopod crustaceans that adhere to the tissues of marine fish). However, in my mind the more intriguing types benefit both species involved, a sort of evolutionary partnership. Marine examples of these mutualistic symbioses abound. Corals are able to form magnificent reefs by housing photosynthetic algae called zooxanthellae, which act as a sort of internal power station. There is an unwritten law somewhere that every dive magazine ever published must contain at minimum three photos (including ads) of a clownfish or anemonefish and its partner anemone. And the terrestrial world is not without its examples, too. The hippopotamus has a somewhat complex symbiosis with the oxpecker, which removes ticks but might also prolong wounds, and a more straightforward (and more funky) one with the black labeo fish, which cleans the inside of the mouth when the hippo is submerged. This is but a sampling of the many and varied ecological partnerships we called symbioses.

But our own symbiosis with dogs particularly fascinates me. Perhaps I am biased as a member of one of the species partners. Still, in exchange for providing shelter, food and other care, dogs have come to provide a wide range of services to people. This diversity has come to rely upon considerable coaching and selective breeding from our end, to be sure. But the origins of the partnership probably lay in a decision on the canid end to come to us. From there it grew, and has now evolved to span a wide array of services:

• Guidance for the blind and disabled.


• Search and rescue in both wilderness and urban areas, not to mention in water.


• Sniffing out landmines and bombs, including during the thick of war.


• Sniffing illegal plant and animal products, such as those at risk for bird flu.


• Hunting (once necessary for our survival, now mostly for our recreation).


• Protection and herding of cattle (part of the heritage of the mutt above) and sheep.


• Personal protection and police work.


• Transportation and draft work.


• Therapy for the ill and elderly (once a service of the mutt above).

Nowhere will you find a symbiosis so wide-ranging. And those who practice the sick, grotesque, and - thank you Sen. Byrd - barbaric "sport" of dogfighting have betrayed a longstanding and productive relationship. If we do not stamp this out across the board (not just as it involves one high-profile athlete) we will perpetrate a gross dishonor to evolution, our historical heritage and, most importantly, our friends.

The root of all evil?

That "money is the root of all evil" is one of our most misquoted sayings, and I am often quick to remind people that the original line from the New Testament (Timothy 6:10) is actually "For the love of money is the root of all evil." The complete quote more accurately places blame for ills done in the name of the almighty dollar on the ill-doer who covets that dollar, rather than on the dollar itself. Indeed, a slip of paper or chip of metal has little potential to do harm on its own and requires a living, breathing person to put it to negative use. Moreover, money can do enormous good in the right hands, as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Richard Branson all demonstrate.

There is, however, something to be said for the misquote given the many instances of people committing nefarious deeds not out of a love of money, but rather using money to achieve power, advance a counterproductive agenda, or otherwise act against the public good. As a recent example, Islamic author Harun Yahya (a.k.a. Adnan Oktar) has produced a new book entitled Atlas of Creation and has distributed a large but unknown number of free copies to institutions across the U.S. and elsewhere. Production and widespread distribution of the book could not have taken place without considerable financial resources, and the giveaways suggest that profit (i.e., "love of money") is not the motive. Instead, the motive is to effect a shift in public opinion. Money made the effort possible.

Now, I am not implying that Mr. Yahya has a sinister motive in producing and distributing the book. However, the simple fact of the matter is that he is dead wrong. That in and of itself is not a problem, except that by perpetrating the argument that biological evolution is a fallacy, he is contributing to the regressive trend in science education that sadly is too common across the U.S., and to a lesser extent other nations. Furthermore, evolution is not merely a theory to be studied and refined within the ivory tower as a primarily esoteric and academic exercise. Rather, as the unifying concept in all of the life sciences, understanding evolution is critical in advancing fields from the micro-level like epidemiology to the macro-level like ecology and conservation biology, fields with enormous and important practical applications.

As a staunch believer in the First Amendment (regardless of whether it is enacted in the U.S. or elsewhere), I would never advocate restricting the right of Mr. Yahya or anyone else to express his or her views. Of course, money allows some, like Mr. Yahya, to do more with their free speech than others. The internet has offset this imbalance to a degree, as discussed by Vice President Gore in his new book The Assault on Reason (and evidenced by yours truly and others who have caught the blog-bug), but the fact remains that with less cash in the bank we will never reach an audience the size of those who can pay for greater advertising and distribution. This is an imbalance we can and must live with.

My biggest problem, however, with the approach taken by Mr. Yahya is that he is addressing a scientific issue but skirting the scientific process. Science necessarily restricts free speech to a degree by requiring that any analysis or interpretation to be published, and therefore made part of the permanent scientific record, meets a high level of scrutiny. As scientists, our collective assumption is that what appears in the literature represents a rigorous analysis of data collected with a sound experimental design and interpreted as objectively as possible, free from bias and prejudice. This does not mean that everything published is definitively "true". "Truth" is a tricky concept in science. From microbiologists to astrophysicists, we are trying to understand complex, interacting systems that are often not able to be directly perceived with our five senses. We rely on indirect impressions of a piece of the system of interest, quantified, analyzed and interpreted as best we can. Because the data often provide an imperfect picture, subjectivity inevitably creeps in, and differing perspectives arise. But we all trust that those perspectives have been adequately critiqued to ensure that, though we all might not agree, the conclusions have been reached in a scientifically valid manner.

Mr. Yahya has avoided the scrutiny of peer review and the scientific process, but is trying to inject his work into the scientific community nonetheless. That, to me, is a huge problem. He knows, undoubtedly, that his interpretations would not hold up, so going through the process was probably never a consideration. They would not hold up because his perspective is rooted not in science but rather in religion, albeit dressed up to look like science. And religion, while capable of promoting solid morals and doing tremendous good, is also capable of tremendous harm. The prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has gone so far as to suggest that it is religion that is actually "the root of all evil". The actions of Mr. Yahya and others that work against reason and scientific progress (and all of the benefits it brings) suggest that he might be right.

Simplistic and shortsighted

My friend Hal sent me a recent opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal that is critical of the modern environmental movement, yet is so full of holes that we should be calling for Dear Liza. A few quick (by my verbose standards) responses to claims in the article:

1. Perhaps the most mind-bogglingly naive statement in the piece is the following: "If cost-effective technologies to boost energy efficiency actually existed, industry would adopt them automatically, global warming or not." While I am attracted to many elements of libertarian philosophy (Dalmia works for the libertarian Reason Foundation), this gives far too much credit to the rationality of the free market. If the statement were true, the EPA would not have needed to cite and fine Wal-Mart for violation of idling regulations, a practice that needlessly burns 2.1 million gallons of diesel fuel each year (note: that fuel costs them money), despite a fairly simple cost-saving and environmentally beneficial solution (turn off the freaking engines!). As a fisheries biologist, the number of examples I have seen of fishermen irrationally outstripping the reproductive capacity of the resources that support their livelihood also challenges the assumption that industry will find the most sensible solutions.

2. The argument against energy efficiency ignores the tremendous savings that can be achieved by improvements in private homes, in addition to those by industry. If our government provided better information on how to make homes more energy efficient, as well as grants, loans and tax breaks to help bring about needed improvements, we could drastically reduce the need for hydropower.

3. On alternative energy sources, the piece states that most "...are still far from economically viable." This is true, but it ignores a huge factor. Dalmia notes that huge subsidies were originally provided to make many hydro dams possible. She fails to mention the subsidies still provided to make fossil fuel use "viable" (but likely adopts the alternative view). If solar, wind, wave and tidal (a.k.a. hydrokinetic), and other sources were given the same government support, these might be more economically viable sources in the near future, if not already. It's become somewhat cliche, but it's still true nonetheless, that if we had the same sort of "man on the moon by the end of the decade" vision and leadership today on renewable energy that JFK provided in 1961 on space exploration, we'd be having a very different debate right now.

4. There are a series of examples of green groups opposing alternative energy developments. The implication seems to be that if environmentalists claim that climate change is our most serious threat and therefore we do not unquestioningly accept all such renewable proposals, then we are obstructionists and hypocrites. This is a dangerously simplistic view. We need energy, and ALL energy sources have environmental impacts. That cannot be avoided. But asking questions about where to best locate facilities to minimize impacts is not only legitimate, it is irresponsible to not ask those questions. Although some will oppose all wind power, for example, if it has any impacts on birds whatsoever, many will want to ask the reasonable question of where to place a wind farm to achieve the optimal balance between ecosystem health and energy production. Indeed, one of the more radical environmental groups provides one of the more thoughtful analyses of a highly controversial wind farm proposal (the controversy stemming less from genuine environmental arguments and more from concerns over aesthetics and property values). The debate does not have to be between low-carbon energy and birds (or salmon - "damn" them?). With sound planning and ingenuity, we can have both.

5. The jab at Vice President Gore is a cheap shot. The progress toward mitigating climate change that Gore is helping to bring about is unprecedented in the history of environmentalism. We'd probably need to go back to Teddy to find a leader of such stature who has put environmental issues at the forefront of public policy. When Gore helps Congress pass a carbon cap-and-trade bill (which will let the free market do most of the legwork toward sorting out the problem), he will have done more than offset whatever greenhouse gases his mansion and cross-country flights are producing.