INSIGHTS

884 22 AUGUST 2014 • VOL 345 ISSUE 6199 sciencemag.org SCIENCE

PH

OT

O:

AL

EX

HO

FF

OR

D/

EP

A/

NE

WS

CO

M

Fauna in decline: Plight of the pangolin IN THEIR REVIEW “Defaunation in

the Anthropocene” (special section on

Vanishing Fauna, 25 July, p. 401), R. Dirzo

et al. discuss the human impacts on spe-

cies decline and extinction. The pangolin

is a good example of these anthropo-

genic effects. On 12 May, about 4 tons of

smuggled frozen pangolins were seized in

Zhuhai, China, making the country’s larg-

est smuggling case of a national protected

animal in the past several years (1). The

pangolin turns out to be “the most traded”

wild animal, due to the large demand for

its scale and flesh (2).

According to the Chinese Medicinal

Pharmacopoeia, roasted

pangolin scale can be used for

detoxification, draining pus,

attenuating palsy, and stimu-

lating lactation (3). Since the

1990s, the price of pangolin

scale has been continuously

climbing, rising from £8.50

to £360 per kilogram (4). In

even greater demand is the

pangolin meat, despite the

risk of infection associated

with eating it. The excessive

consumption has been cata-

strophic for the species, as the

pangolin typically produces

only one offspring per year.

In China, pangolins are

facing the risk of extinction

due to human consumption,

which will have devastating effects on pan-

golins in other areas of the world. Similar

to its cracking down on the smuggling of

ivory and rhinoceros horn, the Chinese

government should strengthen enforce-

ment against illegal pangolin transactions

and ban the wild animal markets. Further

publicity and education are also called

for to put an end to the chase for “wild-

life delicacies.” Finally, developing herbal

alternatives to pangolin scales would

benefit the population. These actions may

be crucial to prevent the extinction of the

pangolin in China.

Yuning Liu and Qiang Weng*

College of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, China.

*Corresponding author. E-mail: qiangweng@bjfu.edu.cn

REFERENCES

1. “Zhuhai border seized about four tons of smuggled frozen pangolins,” Xinhua Net (13 May 2013); http://news.xinhuanet.com/local/2014-05/13/c_1110670956.htm [in Chinese].

2. “The most traded wild mammal—the Pangolin—is being eaten to extinction,” IUCN Net (22 July 2013); www.iucn.org/news_homepage/news_by_date/?13434/The-most-traded-wild-mammal---the-Pangolin---is-being-eaten-to-extinction.

3. S. Z. Li, B. C. G. Mu, Compendium of Materia Medica (People’s Medical Publishing House, Beijing, 1982).

4. Z.-M. Zhou, Y. Zhou, C. Newman, D. W. Macdonald, Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 97 (2014).

Fauna in decline: First do no harmIN THEIR REVIEW “Reversing defaunation:

Restoring species in a changing world”

(special section on Vanishing Fauna, 25 July,

p. 406), P. J. Seddon et al. warn that loss of

animal species can disrupt ecological com-

munities, cause cascading effects, and alter

ecosystem functions. Introduced nonnative

animals can have similar consequences.

Burgeoning evidence implicates nonnative

species as driving biodiversity loss (1–3)

and a host of other ecological disruptions

(4). Whereas some can have positive effects

on ecosystem services, others have dispro-

portionately large negative effects. Risk

assessment of these outcomes is under-

mined by context-dependence and time

lags (4, 5). An introduced species that has

negligible effects in some areas, or whose

population is threatened in its native range,

can have strong impacts when translocated

elsewhere (6, 7). Such species may appear

innocuous for decades—well beyond the

attention span of monitoring programs—

before suddenly becoming problematic (8).

Moreover, their impacts may be subtle, but

nonetheless great, and remain unrecognized

until damage is incurred and containment

is impossible (9). Even carefully planned

introductions for conservation purposes can

have devastating consequences (10, 11).

These considerations are largely ignored

by Seddon et al. in their discussion of

assisted colonization and ecological

replacements—deliberate introductions

of species beyond their native range.

Although Seddon et al. reassuringly cite

new approaches (quantitative risk analysis,

active adaptive management, and struc-

tured decision-making) for managing what

could go wrong, none of the cited refer-

ences offer reliable methods for predicting

impacts of nonnative animal releases.

Despite making considerable progress in

understanding impact (5), invasion science

has not developed a predictive capacity

sufficient to engage in frequent introduc-

tions without harming biodiversity and

ecosystems (7). Thus, risks of unintended

effects cannot be evaluated and weighed

against expected benefits.

At best, assisted colonization is analo-

gous to other human interventions (such

as geoengineering) that are

prone to unpredictable con-

sequences and do not address

root causes of the problems

they are supposed to mitigate

(7, 12). Ironically, in an earlier

article on using nonnative

species for conservation pur-

poses, Seddon et al. (13) rightly

conclude that “the concern is

not the failure to establish the

intended ecological interac-

tions, but rather the risk of

creating new and unwanted

interactions.” Perhaps what is

needed is a Hippocratic oath

(“Do no harm”) applicable to

conservation biologists.

Anthony Ricciardi1* and

Daniel Simberloff 2

1Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 2K6, Canada. 2Department of Ecology

and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.

*Corresponding author. E-mail: tony.ricciardi@mcgill.ca

REFERENCES

1. M. Clavero, E. García-Berthou, Trends. Ecol. Evol. 20, 110 (2005).

2. M. Clavero et al., Biol. Conserv. 142, 2043 (2009). 3. R. E. Gozlan, Nature 435, 1046 (2005). 4. D. Simberloff et al., Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 58 (2013). 5. A. Ricciardi et al., Ecol. Monogr. 83, 263 (2013). 6. C. E. Turner et al., Wetlands Ecol. Mgmt. 5, 165 (1998). 7. A. Ricciardi, D. Simberloff, Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 248 (2009). 8. G. Rilov et al., Biol. Inv. 6, 347 (2004). 9. K. Douda et al., Div. Distrib. 19, 933 (2013). 10. C. W. Benkman, A. M. Siepelski, T. L. Parchman, Mol. Ecol.

17, 395 (2008). 11. C. N. Spencer et al., BioScience 41, 14 (1991). 12. H. D. Matthews, S. E. Turner, Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 045105

(2009). 13. P. J. Seddon et al., Conserv. Biol. 25, 212 (2011).

Edited by Jennifer Sills

LETTERS

Conf scated pangolin scales.

Published by AAAS

on

Aug

ust 2

1, 2

014

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

on

Aug

ust 2

1, 2

014

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

22 AUGUST 2014 • VOL 345 ISSUE 6199 885SCIENCE sciencemag.org

Fauna in decline: Global assessmentsTHE POLICY FORUM “Wildlife decline

and social conflict” (J. S. Brashares et al.,

25 July, p. 376) points to the need for a

formalized, international, multidisciplinary

program with government involvement

that can address the detrimental envi-

ronmental and social consequences of

wildlife depletion. They suggest creating

a working group from the Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment (MA) as a plat-

form. This program is now closed and

has been replaced by an even stronger

body intended to support this kind of

work, the Intergovernmental Platform

on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

(IPBES). Established in 2012, IPBES has

been approved by 119 nations and has

many characteristics of the IPCC. IPBES

has an explicit objective to “strengthen the

science-policy interface for biodiversity

and ecosystem services…” (1). It is conduct-

ing issue-specific assessments as well as

regional and global assessments. It could

serve as a suitable platform for a detailed

global assessment of the natural and social

consequences of wildlife decline, as called

for by Brashares et al.

We believe that such an assessment

is needed, with explicit focus on the

social drivers of illegal harvest and social

instability. Brashares et al. suggest that

clear and enforced local resource tenure is

what is needed to reduce wildlife conflict.

However, this is not always a silver bullet.

For example, both land and resource tenure

are clear and strictly enforced in Kenya,

with a shoot-to-kill policy on rhino and

elephant poachers. Lands harboring rhinos

have secure tenure on both the land and

resources, and they go through a rigorous

process to be established as rhino reserves.

Even those reserves surrounded by lands

that also have secure tenure continually fall

prey to serious poaching events. Tenure and

enforcement clearly are not enough there,

and an assessment would yield much more

rigorous and useful information on what

the key social drivers are and how they can

best be addressed.

Harold Mooney1* and Heather Tallis2

1Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 2The Nature

Conservancy, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA.

*Corresponding author. E-mail: haroldmooney@gmail.com

REFERENCE

1. IPBES, “Functions, operating principles, and institutional arrangements of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services” (IPBES, Panama City, Panama, 2012).

Ailing academia needs culture changeIN HER WORKING LIFE column “The

stressed-out postdoc” (1 August, p. 594),

C. Arnold describes the pressure felt by

many postdocs, in part because there are

not enough jobs available in academia.

The problems they face are a symptom of

a bigger issue: The research enterprise has

become unsustainable in its current form.

Research funding levels/mechanisms, the

peer-review process, and the methods

of training Ph.D.’s are flawed, and these

issues are crippling the pipeline of future,

successful academic researchers (1). We

believe that the value system in academia

perpetuates these issues and thus prevents

positive change.

Universities and individual faculty are

addicted to grant funding and to the cheap

labor provided by Ph.D. trainees, to the

point that funding and access to scores of

underpaid and underappreciated gradu-

ate students and postdoctoral fellows have

become entitlements. University rankings

and faculty promotions are tied to funding

and publications, which are highly political

and not necessarily an accurate reflection

of scientific excellence.

Overall, there is little incentive for

senior academics and higher-level uni-

versity administrators to systematically

admit—much less address—the flaws in

the system. Fixing the flaws must start

with creating the incentives to change the

academic culture and values that have

led to the current unsustainable system.

Substantial changes to funding policies

are the best way to create better incen-

tives, and funding bodies such as the

National Institutes of Health (NIH) and

the National Science Foundation (NSF)

must lead these efforts. Agencies should

find ways to help depoliticize fund-

ing decisions; perhaps the grant-review

process could be more similar to the peer-

review process at some academic journals,

which increase transparency and value

external perspectives. Research funding

should support staff scientists, whereas

training grants or fellowships should

support Ph.D. trainees and postdocs, thus

eliminating the incentive to admit too

many students into graduate programs

just for their cheap labor potential. Tying

Ph.D. trainee career outcomes to fund-

ing decisions would further incentivize

good mentoring and career development

opportunities. Finally, NIH and NSF could

do more to support career development

bridges to nonacademic careers through,

for example, providing funding for intern-

ships in industry and other nonacademic

sectors and for coursework that will build

key transferable skills.

Money talks, and in this case, changing

funding policies and practices is the only

way to drive the culture change required

to save the research enterprise from sys-

temic failure.

Viviane Callier1 and Nathan L.

Vanderford2*

1The Ronin Institute, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA. 2Markey Cancer Center and Graduate Center for Toxicology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

40536, USA.

*Corresponding author. E-mail: nathan.vanderford@uky.edu

REFERENCE

1. B. Alberts et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 5773

(2014).

Let minority-serving institutions leadTHE PERVASIVE AND insidious institutional

racism detailed in the Features News story

about Richard Tapia (“Minority voice,”

J. Mervis, 6 June, p. 1076) is consistent

with what many ethnic minority faculty

have experienced at predominantly white

institutions. Where Tapia falters is in not

attributing as also racist, in addition to

elitist, his statements that “Pedigree is alive

and well…. So if minority students earn

their degrees at minority-serving institu-

tions, they won’t get hired by Stanford.”

Minority-serving institutions continue to

do the lion’s share in producing minority

STEM Ph.D.’s. These scientists are well

qualified and on par with those graduating

from the top-tier schools. The only impedi-

ment to their being recognized as such

and hired by elite, predominantly white

institutions is the intransigent racism that

still haunts the academy. In spite of highly

capable mentors like Tapia, majority insti-

tutions will not be able to fill the growing

need for minority STEM Ph.D.’s without

substantial input from minority-serving

institutions that have been successfully

producing scholars of color for more than

100 years. Rather than dismissing the

accomplishments of these institutions, it

makes sense to support their track record

and learn from their expertise.

Fatimah Jackson,1* Clarence M. Lee,1

Sherese Taylor2

1Department of Biology, Howard University, Washington, DC 20059, USA. 2Cobb Research

Laboratory, Howard University, Washington, DC 20059, USA.

*Corresponding author. E-mail: fatimah.jackson@howard.edu

Published by AAAS