Saving of animal species must be set against social priorities, peer says
The Times
9 July 1976
Pearce Wright
Sentimental conservationists and people who play at being God when they cannot possibly know enough about the continuing story of evolution were criticized yesterday by Lord Zuckerman, FRS, secretary of the Zoological Society and president of the Fauna Preservation Society.
His closing address to the World Conference on Breeding Endangered Species in Captivity, in London, also included a criticism of the World Wildlife Fund. There were more devastating general comments. He asked: "Who said we have to return rare animals bred in captivity to the wilds? Let us ask how many people's lives are worth sacrificing for the preservation of a species of animal."
Lord Zuckerman set those questions in a social context, saying that conservation of rare species was an ethical question but also an expensive activity, which had to be set against other priorities such as combating starvation or paying for school meals.
Examining the role of zoos, Lord Zuckerman said they would become the repositories for rare species. If there was a choice between maintaining the panda or the oryx and many other species in a zoo or the wilds, he would prefer them to be in their natural state. But he did not see that as the ultimate choice.
What clearly angered him was hindrance to the work of serious zoological gardens and wildlife parks, using their collections for conservation and research, by people in the business of keeping animals in captivity for profit, putting nothing back to improve understanding of animals.
Lord Zuckerman examined the question of why man-made works of art were so valuable and those made by nature considered a cheap source of entertainment. He blamed those making profits as a serious cause.
He contended that until the profit motive was wiped out governments would not consider supporting work with wildlife and activities of zoos in line with that for the opera, or other scientific ventures in space and journeys to Mars, that only spent money and were a waste.
He thought the World Wildlife Fund, which he described as a bandwagon of sentiment, did not like zoos. Lord Zuckerman was obviously disturbed about the factors influencing attitudes in conservation. He was unhappy, for instance, that large chemical companies were now so frightened of producing a new pesticide that might have some effect on humans that no new compounds had been submitted this year to the World Health Organization for safety tests. Before the difficulties over DDT the 30 largest companies submitted about 200 compounds a year.
He maintained that DDT spraying had been fabulously successful against malaria. But the World Health Organization team stopped because the chemical got a bad name and cost money, and because people were idle. Since spraying stopped, Sri Lanka had suffered the worst epidemic in its history.
Asking for a rational scientific approach, Lord Zuckerman said: "I do not think it would have made one iota of difference for scientific understanding if the coelocanth had not been found alive. If I was offered a coelocanth, I would advise the council (of the Zoological Society) to say 'no'. If it was a pair for breeding, that would be different."
He asserted that if he had to choose also between a valuable painting, such as a Leonardo cartoon, and a coelocanth, he would choose the painting.
