Why chain ourselves to economic importance of a species as a barometer
on whether we should conserve it? Granted, economic importance is a
good boost for conservation of some species. However, it sure isn't the
only reason to conserve something.
Jason
Paul Cherubini wrote:
Jason L Kindall wrote:
Viewed alone, it might be pretty hard to justify
research on fruit flies to the average Joe (plumber
or six-pack). Connect it with autism or human health
and then it becomes more palatable to the public.
Perhaps Sarah Palin and the average Joe's are refering
to the big research grants that are awarded for seemingly
frivolous projects like the one below dealing with the health
of an economically unimportant, but charasmatic insect:
http://tinyurl.com/2d6r9f
$679,492 Grant to assist professor's study of butterflies
Altizer received the National Science Foundation Faculty
Early Development Career award to study migration and
infectious disease patterns in Monarch butterflies.
Altizer hopes her research will help with conservation. She
wants to know how migration keeps Monarchs healthy.
"People tend to love Monarchs to death," Altizer said.
Keeping humans from disrupting the butterflies' migration
will help keep them healthy.
Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.
--
Jason L. Kindall
Education & Research Director
Ozark Natural Science Center
1905 Madison 1305
Huntsville, AR 72740
Ph: 479-789-2754
Fax: 479-789-2728
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.onsc.us
