Day: April 4, 2002

Debate Over Black Bear Hunt Heats Up in New Jersey

Hunting black bears in New Jersey is illegal, but growing estimates of the number of black bears in the state combined with high profile bear incidents is driving debate in that state over whether it is time for a limited bear hunt in the state.

In the early 1980s, there were less than 100 bears in New Jersey. Nobody knows how many bears are in the state today, but estimates range anywhere from 1,400 to 1,900 bears.

Although it is illegal to hunt bears, plenty of them are still killed by human beings. In 2001, for example, 52 were killed in automobile accidents, 20 were killed by wildlife officials (usually because the bears are aggressive), and four were killed by police and property owners.

In March, for example, police shot a bear that was attempting to enter a home. Later in March, a bear attacked a dog.

In 2000, the increasing frequency of human-bear encounters led for calls to a limited hunt, but that never materialized in the legislature. But estimates that the bear population might be as high as 1,900 has formerly anti-hunt legislators rethinking their position.

Assemblyman Christopher Bateman, for example, sponsored legislation to ensure a five-year moratorium on bear hunting in New Jersey. Now, however, he’s wondering if a limited hunt might not be for the best. “Maybe we need a limited hunt,” Bateman told the Associated Press. “The last thing we need is someone getting hurt by a bear.”

Animal rights activists and environmentalists claim that the number of black bears are being intentionally exaggerated to provide political cover for renewing a hunt, but wildlife officials note that a number of factors indicate that the bear population is increasing rapidly.

Since bears have no natural predator other than humans, it is hardly novel to suggest that the bear population might be expanding very quickly in the absence of any predation.

Source:

Rise in black bear population rekindles call for hunt. The Associated press, March 23, 2002.

The Hidden Role of Animals in Medical Advances: SCID

Animal research plays a major role in many important medical advances, and yet many lay people do not seem to realize this. Why? Because whenever a new medical advance is announced, typically the end product of curing human beings is widely reported, with little background on the numerous animal experiments that led up to the human application.

The BBC reported this week, for example, that researchers believe they have successfully treated an 18-month-old British boy for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID).

SCID is an immune system disorder that affects as few as 1 in 50,000 to 100,000 live births. It is characterized by a severe lack of immunity requiring those born with it to live in sterile conditions. SCID was famously depicted by John Travolta in the television film, “The Boy in the Plastic Bubble.”

The typical treatment for SCID is a bone marrow transplant, but in this case a donor was simply unavailable within the time frame needed. So the young boy became the third person in the world to receive a gene therapy treatment in an attempt to cure the disease. Two other patients received the gene therapy treatment at a hospital in France in 2000.

SCID is caused by a defect in a single gene which makes it a bit easier to tackle. Doctors removed bone marrow from the boy, and then used a virus to carry a copy of the unmutated gene into the marrow. They then reimplanted the marrow into the boy where it began producing cells to fight of disease. The boy’s immune system is currently generating a normal amount of white blood cells.

The doctor who treated the boy told the BBC,

We’re very excited by this — he was incredibly sick, with a nasty pneumonia, a life threatening infection. After his gene therapy, he was running around at home — he’s a little boy now.

How did researchers develop this innovative gene therapy? Largely by proving that their technique would work in mice.

Using a modified form of a virus that causes leukemia in mice, researchers demonstrated that they could deliver the gene to bone marrow cells in mice.

Once it was proven to work there, researchers in France then used this mouse virus to successfully treat the bone marrow of two patients there. The British got non-human primates involved — they took the mouse virus and coated it in a protein from a virus that infects gibbons in an effort to make it more effective.

Whether or not this gene therapy approach will offer these patients a life time of immune protection is not known. But at the very least it will dramatically increase their life expectancy and quality of life. Thanks to animal research.

Sources:

‘Bubble boy’ saved by gene therapy. The BBC, April 3, 2002.

The journey begins: The clinical trials for ADA-SCID. The New Healers, William R. Clark.

‘Bubble Boy’ in Britain Cured Using Gene Therapy. Stephen Pincock, Reuters, April 3, 2002.

Judge Overturns Army’s Affirmative Action Promotion Policy

In March a federal judge ruled unconstitutional an U.S. Army policy that gave preferential treatment in promotion to women and minorities.

The Army’s written policy urged promotion boards to consider “past personal or institutional discrimination” when considering candidates for promotion. A white, male officer passed over for promotion in 1996 and 1997 sued, arguing that the policy was unconstitutionally discriminatory.

In his ruling, Federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth noted that the Army had failed to establish that women and minorities had been discriminated against in the past during promotions. He cited statistics noting that since the 1970s the promotion rate for white and black officers had been almost identical.

“This [policy] undeniably establishes a preference in favor of one race or gender over another, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Lamberth wrote in his 68-page opinion.

The Army has not yet decided whether it will appeal, but since Lamberth framed his ruling very similar to Supreme Court decisions striking down affirmative action programs, overturning the verdict on appeal would be a long shot at best.

And imagine that — the Army having to judge people as individuals based on merit instead of based on their particular group membership. How will the nation ever survive such a radical notion?

Source:

Judge halts an army policy on promotion. Neely Tucker, Washington Post, March 5, 2002.