Venom Doc by Bryan Grieg Fry

Author:Bryan Grieg Fry
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Arcade Publishing
Published: 2016-07-27T16:00:00+00:00

During my undergraduate education, my Scientific Philosophy honors thesis examined how individuals respond to major paradigm shifts. My basic conclusion was that those who did not shift their view in light of new data had the same basic psychological mindset as religious adherents who felt challenged—they displayed defensive behavior, rejecting all new arguments without assessing them with due diligence. That certainly was the case here. The article quoted Kurt Schwenk, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Connecticut, who had no experience in venom research or with Komodo dragons. I found his stark statement that the evidence for venom was “meaningless, irrelevant, incorrect, or falsely misleading” as unprofessionally unscientific as it was deeply offensive. By rudely saying the evidence was false and misleading, he was effectively accusing me and my co-workers of scientific fraud. He displayed a fundamental lack of toxicological understanding in his statement that venom wasn’t necessary to explain the effects of a Komodo dragon bite.

Our central point, which he clearly did not get (either willfully or through simple ignorance), was that the teeth were the primary weapons and the venom was there in a supporting role, to potentiate the blood loss and shock-inducing effects—something that was well supported by our high-quality, peer-reviewed data showing venom components with exactly these toxic effects. I felt it was telling that he could not come up with a criticism of the data itself and seemed instead to be simply making an argument from authority—despite not having any venom research expertise. I tried to be philosophical, but at the end of the day I was extremely offended.

The bizarreness of unscientific, emotional responses took on a surreal quality when, in collaboration with the University of California, Los Angeles bacteria specialists Ellie Goldstein, Diane Citron, and Kerin Tyrrell, we reinvestigated the mouths of Komodo dragons. These are the people who had done the seminal studies of bite-wound bacteria, ranging from bites in prison to bites from wild animals. If indeed Komodo dragons were cultivating bacteria, their mouths should have higher levels than ordinary carnivores, regardless of whether they were captive or wild. In other words, they should be selectively causing microbial blooming. The Los Angeles Zoo and Honolulu Zoo were particularly supportive of the research and let us take samples from their prize animals, for which we were extremely grateful. This is, of course, the ethical justification for keeping animals in captivity—for the intellectual and social benefit. The Los Angeles Zoo even gave us access to hatchling dragons only hours old that had not yet eaten or drunk anything: the most crucial sources of data.

However, other zoos were not so supportive (I will not name or shame them, despite really wanting to). Some ignored our request, while others flatly turned it down and, most staggering of all, some even went as far as ringing other zoos to try to convince them not to be a part of the study. When we submitted the paper, we had the most incredible battle with one of the

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.