- Email: [email protected]
Kill and let live
New Science Publications
Editorial–
Editor Jeremy Webb Personal Asst & Office Manager Anita Staff Associate Editors Liz Else, Stephanie Pain News Editor Matt Walker Editors Linda Geddes, Rowan Hooper, Anil Ananthaswamy, Helen Knight Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Reporters LONDON Andy Coghlan, Hazel Muir, Paul Marks, Zeeya Merali [email protected] BOSTON US Bureau Chief Ivan Semeniuk David L. Chandler [email protected] Celeste Biever [email protected] Gregory T. Huang [email protected] SAN FRANCISCO Bureau Chief Peter Aldhous [email protected] TORONTO Alison Motluk [email protected] BRUSSELS Debora MacKenzie [email protected] MELBOURNE Australasian Editor Rachel Nowak [email protected] Features Editors Ben Crystall, Kate Douglas, Clare Wilson, David Cohen, Graham Lawton, Valerie Jamieson, Michael Le Page, Caroline Williams Features Assistant Celia Guthrie Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1230 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Opinion Senior Editor Michael Bond Editors John Hoyland, Amanda Gefter, Alison George Opinion Coordinator Eleanor Case Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1240 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Researcher Lucy Middleton Editorial Assistant Nick Christensen Production Editor Mick O’Hare Asst Production Editor Melanie Green Chief Sub John Liebmann Subeditors Vivienne Greig, Ben Longstaff, Julia Brown, Barbara Kiser Art Editor Alison Lawn Design Craig Mackie, David Knight, Michelle Ofosu Graphics Nigel Hawtin, Dave Johnston Pictures Adam Goff, Ludivine Morel Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Careers Editor Richard Fisher [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1248 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Consultants Alun Anderson, Barry Fox, Stephen Battersby, Marcus Chown, Michael Brooks, Fred Pearce, Rob Edwards, Mick Hamer, Justin Mullins, Ian Stewart, Gail Vines, Jeff Hecht, Helen Phillips, Gabrielle Walker, Richard Fifield, Bob Holmes, Emma Young Press Office UK Claire Bowles Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax 7611 1280 US Office Tel +1 617 386 2190 NEWSCIENTIST.COM Online Publisher John MacFarlane Online Editor Damian Carrington Deputy Online Editor Shaoni Bhattacharya, Gaia Vince Editors Maggie McKee, Will Knight Reporters Tom Simonite, Roxanne Khamsi, Kelly Young, David Shiga, Catherine Brahic [email protected] Special Reports Editor John Pickrell Online Subeditor Sean O’Neill Web team Neela Das, Ashis Joshi, Michael Suzuki, Cathy Tollet, Ruth Turner, Vivienne Griffith, Rohan Creasey
www.newscientist.com
070106_R_Editorial.indd 3
Kill and let live Hunting has a place in the conservationists’ battle plan THE idea of hunting down and shooting an animal for sport strikes many people as barbaric. That is doubly true of trophy hunting, where the goal is not food but a handsome head or set of antlers for the wall. Sad it may be, but the balance of evidence is that trophy hunting can help conserve threatened species and their habitats, so for people who care about the fate of wildlife the real question is not whether to allow hunting, but how to manage it. Done properly, trophy hunting can provide a source of jobs and income, and thus give local communities a reason to protect wildlife and habitats that might otherwise be sacrificed to rural villagers’ need to put meat on the table. Countries that can attract jeep loads of camera-toting tourists can get along without trophy hunting: Kenya does not need it, for example. But it comes into its own in marginal habitats that lack lush diversity, such as the arid scrubland of Botswana, and in countries with the uncertain political climates of Zimbabwe and Pakistan. Done wrongly, of course, trophy hunting provides none of these benefits, as foreign operators fly in, shoot, and fly out again with wallets full of cash, leaving little or no benefit to the local economy. Finding a balance between profit for the hunt operator and
benefits to conservation is one of the biggest challenges facing the regulators of hunting. Another challenge is emerging that needs to be kept under close attention: while there is little chance these days of species being driven towards extinction by legal trophy hunting, biologists are just becoming aware that hunters may harm their prey populations in more subtle ways. They may inadvertently be taking the most genetically fit animals, for example (see page 6). Clearly, nations that opt to allow trophy hunting have a responsibility to pay close attention to the details. Surveys by Peter Lindsey of the University of Zimbabwe suggest that, given a choice, the majority of hunters would prefer to book conservation-friendly hunts. However, there is no easy way at the moment to tell the good operators from the bad. One step that might help sort them out is an international certification system that could award accreditation to nations and hunt operators that keep quotas sustainable and funnel a good share of their revenue to local communities. Such a system already exists to recognise lumber products from sustainable forestry. Maybe now is the time for environmental groups to take a deep breath and throw their weight behind a “Green Hunting” seal of approval. ●
Reasons to be cheerful THE new year is a time for reflection and re-evaluation. It is a process that can leave one feeling up and optimistic or distinctly depressed. If you need some reasons to be cheerful, read on. The impact of science and technology has been overwhelmingly positive. In a few hundred years life has been transformed from short and brutish to long and civilised. Improvements are spreading (admittedly too slowly) around the planet. Of course, some discoveries and inventions have led to serious problems, but science and technology often provide ways to monitor and alleviate those problems, from ozone destruction to overproduction of greenhouse gases. And further benefits are coming. To take one example from this issue, researchers have made a drug to treat hepatitis C that should be
affordable even in poor countries (see page 14). Then there is the extent to which cellphones are improving life for the world’s poor, the numerous ideas for harnessing energy from sunlight, that human intelligence can be increased and that a revolution in personal genomics is in the wings. These ideas come from www.edge.org, which asked 160 scientists and intellectuals what they are optimistic about. One way or another the answers should give you a warm glow – either because you agree, or because they make you angry. If you are still left thinking your glass is half empty, check out the submission by Randolph M. Nesse of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He predicts that we will find a way to block pessimism. The consequences may not be all good, but it’s a safe bet that science and technology will come to the rescue. ● 6 January 2007 | NewScientist | 3
2/1/07 4:52:52 pm
Editorial–
Editor Jeremy Webb Personal Asst & Office Manager Anita Staff Associate Editors Liz Else, Stephanie Pain News Editor Matt Walker Editors Linda Geddes, Rowan Hooper, Anil Ananthaswamy, Helen Knight Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Reporters LONDON Andy Coghlan, Hazel Muir, Paul Marks, Zeeya Merali [email protected] BOSTON US Bureau Chief Ivan Semeniuk David L. Chandler [email protected] Celeste Biever [email protected] Gregory T. Huang [email protected] SAN FRANCISCO Bureau Chief Peter Aldhous [email protected] TORONTO Alison Motluk [email protected] BRUSSELS Debora MacKenzie [email protected] MELBOURNE Australasian Editor Rachel Nowak [email protected] Features Editors Ben Crystall, Kate Douglas, Clare Wilson, David Cohen, Graham Lawton, Valerie Jamieson, Michael Le Page, Caroline Williams Features Assistant Celia Guthrie Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1230 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Opinion Senior Editor Michael Bond Editors John Hoyland, Amanda Gefter, Alison George Opinion Coordinator Eleanor Case Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1240 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Researcher Lucy Middleton Editorial Assistant Nick Christensen Production Editor Mick O’Hare Asst Production Editor Melanie Green Chief Sub John Liebmann Subeditors Vivienne Greig, Ben Longstaff, Julia Brown, Barbara Kiser Art Editor Alison Lawn Design Craig Mackie, David Knight, Michelle Ofosu Graphics Nigel Hawtin, Dave Johnston Pictures Adam Goff, Ludivine Morel Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Careers Editor Richard Fisher [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1248 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Consultants Alun Anderson, Barry Fox, Stephen Battersby, Marcus Chown, Michael Brooks, Fred Pearce, Rob Edwards, Mick Hamer, Justin Mullins, Ian Stewart, Gail Vines, Jeff Hecht, Helen Phillips, Gabrielle Walker, Richard Fifield, Bob Holmes, Emma Young Press Office UK Claire Bowles Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax 7611 1280 US Office Tel +1 617 386 2190 NEWSCIENTIST.COM Online Publisher John MacFarlane Online Editor Damian Carrington Deputy Online Editor Shaoni Bhattacharya, Gaia Vince Editors Maggie McKee, Will Knight Reporters Tom Simonite, Roxanne Khamsi, Kelly Young, David Shiga, Catherine Brahic [email protected] Special Reports Editor John Pickrell Online Subeditor Sean O’Neill Web team Neela Das, Ashis Joshi, Michael Suzuki, Cathy Tollet, Ruth Turner, Vivienne Griffith, Rohan Creasey
www.newscientist.com
070106_R_Editorial.indd 3
Kill and let live Hunting has a place in the conservationists’ battle plan THE idea of hunting down and shooting an animal for sport strikes many people as barbaric. That is doubly true of trophy hunting, where the goal is not food but a handsome head or set of antlers for the wall. Sad it may be, but the balance of evidence is that trophy hunting can help conserve threatened species and their habitats, so for people who care about the fate of wildlife the real question is not whether to allow hunting, but how to manage it. Done properly, trophy hunting can provide a source of jobs and income, and thus give local communities a reason to protect wildlife and habitats that might otherwise be sacrificed to rural villagers’ need to put meat on the table. Countries that can attract jeep loads of camera-toting tourists can get along without trophy hunting: Kenya does not need it, for example. But it comes into its own in marginal habitats that lack lush diversity, such as the arid scrubland of Botswana, and in countries with the uncertain political climates of Zimbabwe and Pakistan. Done wrongly, of course, trophy hunting provides none of these benefits, as foreign operators fly in, shoot, and fly out again with wallets full of cash, leaving little or no benefit to the local economy. Finding a balance between profit for the hunt operator and
benefits to conservation is one of the biggest challenges facing the regulators of hunting. Another challenge is emerging that needs to be kept under close attention: while there is little chance these days of species being driven towards extinction by legal trophy hunting, biologists are just becoming aware that hunters may harm their prey populations in more subtle ways. They may inadvertently be taking the most genetically fit animals, for example (see page 6). Clearly, nations that opt to allow trophy hunting have a responsibility to pay close attention to the details. Surveys by Peter Lindsey of the University of Zimbabwe suggest that, given a choice, the majority of hunters would prefer to book conservation-friendly hunts. However, there is no easy way at the moment to tell the good operators from the bad. One step that might help sort them out is an international certification system that could award accreditation to nations and hunt operators that keep quotas sustainable and funnel a good share of their revenue to local communities. Such a system already exists to recognise lumber products from sustainable forestry. Maybe now is the time for environmental groups to take a deep breath and throw their weight behind a “Green Hunting” seal of approval. ●
Reasons to be cheerful THE new year is a time for reflection and re-evaluation. It is a process that can leave one feeling up and optimistic or distinctly depressed. If you need some reasons to be cheerful, read on. The impact of science and technology has been overwhelmingly positive. In a few hundred years life has been transformed from short and brutish to long and civilised. Improvements are spreading (admittedly too slowly) around the planet. Of course, some discoveries and inventions have led to serious problems, but science and technology often provide ways to monitor and alleviate those problems, from ozone destruction to overproduction of greenhouse gases. And further benefits are coming. To take one example from this issue, researchers have made a drug to treat hepatitis C that should be
affordable even in poor countries (see page 14). Then there is the extent to which cellphones are improving life for the world’s poor, the numerous ideas for harnessing energy from sunlight, that human intelligence can be increased and that a revolution in personal genomics is in the wings. These ideas come from www.edge.org, which asked 160 scientists and intellectuals what they are optimistic about. One way or another the answers should give you a warm glow – either because you agree, or because they make you angry. If you are still left thinking your glass is half empty, check out the submission by Randolph M. Nesse of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He predicts that we will find a way to block pessimism. The consequences may not be all good, but it’s a safe bet that science and technology will come to the rescue. ● 6 January 2007 | NewScientist | 3
2/1/07 4:52:52 pm