An unlikely tragedy occurred in Olympic National Park, Washington earlier this month. A 63-year-old nature enthusiast was stalked, assaulted, and killed by a wild animal inhabiting the national park. The offender was not one of the usual suspects. A four-foot tall mountain goat equipped with two pointed and evidently deadly horns was the perpetrator.

The man was hiking along a popular trail located on the grounds of the national park when he encountered the notoriously aggressive goat. Even before the attack, the animal was known to boldly follow hikers and guard the otherwise peaceful park pathways. In this tragic episode, the man received a violent blow to the thigh and died due to excessive blood loss.

There is a strong tendency to write off animal attacks as the result of risky human behavior or provocation. Perhaps this inclination seems validated when public figures such as the Grizzly Man, Timothy Treadwell, and the Crocodile Hunter perish due to their extreme interactions with wild animals. However, as there was no indication that the animal was provoked in anyway, this instance appears to exemplify the hostility of the natural world. After all, the man did willingly enter an unadulterated natural space devoid of human manipulation, right?

Well, not exactly. In one of the few ironic twists of the story, mountain goats are not native to this region. In fact, these creatures were brought to this area to accommodate and enliven the local hunting experience. Of course this occurred about 80 years ago before the establishment of the boundaries and regulations of Olympic National Park.

However, now that it is no longer permissible to hunt mountain goats, their numbers have grown significantly. The unnatural introduction of this animal has produced serious problems for the community and the park administration. Not only is the ecological balance of the national park jeopardized but the animals seem emboldened and appear accustomed to the presence of humans.

Once it is clear that we have mistakenly introduced a species to a new habitat, should we act to try and reverse the adverse effects of our interference? Historically, the answer has been yes; however, this process tends to be a maddening and complicated affair. Originally, park rangers tried poaching the animals, but this strategy was blocked by animal rights activists based on ethical arguments. The recourse was to tranquilize the animals and airlift them to a different location. The Park Service employed this strategy for years but it served only to disperse the problem.

The Jackson administration in 1832 was the first to set aside large swaths of land to preserve an important natural space and protect it from human development. However, these areas were not legally protected until 1877. Several other areas were set aside including Yosemite Valley and Yellowstone National Park, the nation’s first true National Park, before an order was created to maintain and “manage” these regions.

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson signed into law the National Park Service Organic Act I. This law established that the “National Park Service”, created under the Department of the Interior, shall “promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations… [whose] purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”.

As philosophies and social spirits shifted, it came into question whether this conservation strategy was a viable means of protecting the environment. While it is certainly noble to try and preserve diverse ecosystems, critics of National Parks claim its an “anthropocentric” strategy, meaning it’s simply another way in which humans dominant and control their surroundings. Some contend that conservation initiatives create a schism between humans and the natural world. After all, the idea of a National Park is to literally enclose a region through the established legal boundaries.

Lastly, National Parks are invariably areas which have an aesthetic appeal to humans. They usually contain extraordinary natural formations such as lofty mountains, geysers, canyons, or caverns. While these physical structures are certainly breathtaking, are they the only habitats worth preserving? It is also interesting to note that many National Parks came into existence as they were marketable spaces of tourism. Powerful companies such as the Northern Pacific Railroad lobbied for their establishment. The question is certainly worth asking; should we reserve a handful of places across the map for nature and claim the remaining portions for ourselves, or is there a better alternative?

Posted by Derek on November 4, 2010 at 3:44pm.

Embryonic stem cell research, has been a contentious issue ever since its discovery in 1998. Yet, in recent weeks, it has returned to the forefront of the social debate. A ruling last month from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejuvenated the popularity of this topic. Should the federal government take part in the research and development of embryonic stem cells?

On August 23rd, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, ruled that the Obama Administration’s policy on stem cell research was unlawful. Prior to this judgment, the Obama administration funded certain embryonic stem cell projects, so long as the cells were obtained using private, and not public capital. In other words, the government thought it could support E.S.C. projects as long as it did not directly finance the destruction of embryos. However, Judge Lamberth ruled that these government funds did in fact support the destruction of embryos and thus resulted in a legal violation.

The judge reasoned, “If one step or ‘piece of research’ of an E.S.C. research project results in the destruction of an embryo, the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding,”.

However, as the judge’s ruling is rather vague and open for interpretation, it is not yet clear what this decision will mean for the future of stem cell research. To err on the side of caution and to come into compliance with the court’s ruling, the government quickly cut its cash flow to E.S.C. research projects.

However, on Thursday, a federal appeals court ruled that the government can continue to finance E.S.C. projects while the court considers Judge Lamberth’s decision. So, although the ban has been temporarily lifted, we’ll have to stay tuned to see the long-term effects of this ruling.

In the meantime, these recent developments have revitalized the ethical debate on embryonic stem cell research. On one hand, stem cells may enable scientists to grow organs in a lab, an ideal way to improve the quality and availability of organ transplants. Likewise, E.S.C. may also cure painful conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. However, the individual must consider whether these potential benefits outweigh the ethical implications of destroying a human embryo. For many, this is a question deeply rooted in religious and moral considerations.

Should society pursue embryonic stem cells? Should the government involve itself in the process? If so, should their be any restrictions? What would these restrictions look like and how would they be monitored? A seemingly endless list of sticky questions surround this sensitive topic. Nevertheless, these are questions that we must address now, as stem cells are likely to play role in the foreseeable future of medicine.

This subject is so intriguing and inflammatory for one primary reason. The embryonic stem cell controversy highlights a direct confrontation between scientific progress and certain religion doctrines. The government, the third party in this polarized debate, is hard-pressed to pick sides.

Posted by Derek on September 20, 2010 at 12:54pm.