Banner
    Wild Salmon, Invasive Species
    By Hank Campbell | June 11th 2012 07:11 PM | 24 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    Sometimes natural is not good.   Actually, a lot of the time natural is bad but we live in in era where anti-science types have a 'natural' fetish, believing anything natural is good.

    But not always. Weeds are natural yet if you leave them alone your vegetables will die.  And that goes for plenty of other invasive species.  Even wild salmon.

    There's long been precautionary principle hysteria that farm-raised salmon - created so we could all benefit from the health effects of eating fish without risking overfishing - would cause disease among the wild population.  Who knew that they were so delicate after millions of years of evolution?  

    Doesn't matter, it seems they have struck first. Infectious haematopoietic necrosis, known as IHN, has been discovered on an Atlantic salmon farm off the coast of British Columbia, but it came from passing wild fish and led to the quarantine of Mainstream Canada's Dixon Bay farm.  At the end of it all, the disease-ridden wild salmon caused a cull of more than 560,000 young, farm-raised Atlantic salmon.

    IHN is native to Pacific waters and Pacific salmon have a natural resistance to it but Atlantic salmon do not and the virus can spread through feces and mucus.  Thus a reason to keep the farm-raised salmon away from the dangerous natural kind. 

    "It basically kills the blood forming cells in the fish, and that includes white blood cells so the fish cannot fight disease, and red blood cells which carry oxygen," Gary Marty, a veterinarian and fish pathologist for B.C.'s Ministry of Agriculture told The Canadian Press. "Both things essentially shut down. The fish dies."

    There is a vaccine for IHN but Mainstream Canada did not vaccinate fish at the company's Dixon Bay farm. I guess that wouldn't be natural. And actual science could allow us to have fish that didn't catch the disease at all but even a thoroughly tested, completely harmless, genetically optimized salmon has been trapped in review due to anti-science Frankenfood hysteria.

    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    I know we've been around this debate before, but I still think that separating out "nature" in that manner doesn't really address the primary point.

    It isn't about "science" versus "nature" or anything else.  It's basically that the concept of "nature" suggests "untampered with and uncontrolled by humans".  As a result, "natural" implies a more fair or less rigged system.  When it comes to being modified by humans, we are invariably drawn to looking for motives.  Is it really good or is someone selling me something?  Who benefits?  The old "follow the money" is what causes all of us to become skeptical whenever we hear about something that is "natural" being subsumed into a human controlled process.

    I suppose a significant part of this comes from the knowledge that, humans are not particularly fair to each other.  We know they will take advantage when they can, and we know many that are less than honest.  Therefore, it is always a loss when we take a process that seemed fair and natural and suddenly turn it over to some segment of humans to control.  It always feels like we've lost something in the process.

    Yes, I get it that Bubonic plague is "natural" in a way that nuclear weapons aren't.  However, I expect that most people would think that dying from Bubonic plague is more "fair" than dying in a nuclear blast.
    UvaE
    We have been lucky so far in that all the deaths from mostly controllable nuclear explosions and accidents have been a small fraction of those caused by the randomness of bubonic plague. 
    Gerhard Adam
    Well, that's not really the point.  If we take the example of starvation, I expect that more people would view starving as a result of drought is more "fair" than starving because you don't have a job.  While it may not be easier, nor make a difference in the long run, we like to think that we can do better when we are in "control" of our own destiny and behavior versus when we feel subjected to the control of other's decisions.
    Since you are using quotes around the word fair, I presume that you are referring to one our early childhood concepts. You know, like ‘cowboys in white hats are good guys’, ‘the good guys always win’, ‘the wicked witch of the west never wins’, ‘my dad is stronger than your dad’, and so on.

    I don’t know if it is true, especially across cultures, but it seems plausible that the ideas of ‘fair’ and ‘right’ are a normal part of the innocence of youth. Most of us in western civilizations are disabused of these ideas fairly quickly. Some, however, don’t ever seem to grasp the fact that bad actors do win, and that ‘fair’ and ‘right’ are purely subjective.

    Considering the choice of the Black Death or radiation poisoning, I’ll take normal old age, thank you very much.

    As for the original topic: Hank, I do get the irony as you present it. Scientists will be hard pressed to replace politics and emotions with facts.

    Gerhard Adam
    Yes, perhaps it is a kind of "innocence".  In part I think it stems from the idea that whatever happens "naturally" isn't done with any malicious intent or objective.  It falls into that category we tend to consider "bad luck".  However, when a man-made event occurs, there is a strong tendency for us to look at who might be to blame.  As a result, we see those events from the perspective of having been avoidable if it hadn't been for some person or another.

    I suppose I shouldn't have been so extreme in the examples.  A point to consider is that "natural" risks are those that we essentially have to contend with all the time anyway.  Therefore, "man-made" risks are those that we feel could have been avoided if it weren't for someone's specific intentions or actions.

    For example, I might catch a disease from any number of sources and that would be viewed as very "natural".  However, it is somehow viewed as "unfair" [i.e. someone is culpable] if I catch an infection while I'm staying in the hospital.  The latter occurring because people feel that that occurrence is due to circumstances that are beyond their control and for which someone should have taken better care.

    We even do things within the context of human activities.  While we may all recognize the risks intrinsic in driving a car and experiencing an accident, we consider it wrong or "unfair" when someone increases that risk by being drunk and driving. 
    Man-made and culpability. Yup, makes a lot of sense.

    Interesting article Hank, thank you for looking at this topic.

    I am the communications officer for Mainstream Canada and I just want to clarify that there are a couple of reasons why we didn't use the IHN vaccine at our Dixon Bay farm.

    First, the IHN virus is rarely a problem for us, even though it can be fatal to farmed Atlantic salmon. The virus only seems to show up in dangerous quantities every 10 years or so, linked to unusually high levels of virus in wild salmon. Most of the time it does not bother our fish. So most of the time it is a very low risk for us to not use the vaccine, which is quite expensive.

    That said, in areas where we have farms near farms operated by other companies, all companies in that area vaccinate our fish against IHN just to be safe. The virus can be devastating to farmed salmon because it can spread so quickly so we don't want to take any chances in shared operational areas.

    Another point about vaccines: we don't always use the IHN vaccine, but we do vaccinate every single fish that comes out of our hatcheries against common diseases they will encounter in the ocean. Again, it's about risk. There is a high risk they will encounter these diseases, so we vaccinate against them. This keeps them healthy (about 90 per cent of the fish we put in the ocean make it to harvest size).

    All vaccination is done by hand, by the way.

    And interactions between farmed and wild salmon here in B.C. rarely have negative consequences. This is one of the cases which is the exception to the rule.

    I also forgot to add that the IHN vaccine which is commercially available is not fully field-tested and there is some debate over how well it actually works.

    Grant Warkentin
    One last addition... there was an outbreak of IHN at salmon farms in B.C. in 2002-2003. There were a number of farms vaccinated against IHN; however, "The IHNV vaccines available at the time of the 2001 to 2003 epidemic appeared to have provided little to no protection in the farm populations that used them."
    Hank
    I wasn't criticizing not using a vaccine for something that happens every 10 years, vaccinating a fish seems like a difficult proposition.  In the never-ever ending gripes about what farm salmon will do to wild populations, I was just noting the irony that wild salmon struck first.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Grant Warkentin
    I understand what you were doing Hank, I was just pointing out some of the facts about the virus and the vaccine, I thought it might be interesting for readers. 

    And yes the situation is ironic, isn't it!
    I would propose a law that addresses the problems we most experience with GMO.

    No GMO can be released into the natural environment (or outside of the laboratory for that matter), unless it can be proven that the GMO will not cross pollinate, cross inseminate or do any kind of RNA or DNA transfer into the natural environment. That would be the safe way.

    Now, getting the GMO engineers to agree and not fight this in litigation would be impossible. They would pour millions into the fight because they know they are decades away from that kind of, hammer-on-the-nail head engineering. They are perfectly happy with the money prospects rendered by hit and miss experimentation,until we get it right. Their goals are to get rich, not foster human knowledge.

    Private gain with no pain, hippies be dammed, is their motto.

    John Ray.

    Hank
    There is no plant or animal in the universe that can pass what you regard as a basic safety metric.  While you may think a wonderfully natural mutation by high-energy cosmic rays - random, no less - is better than a precisely controlled science one, all of science history has already proven you wrong.

    Who are these mysterious GMO engineers you speak of?  Are they the same evil scientists perpetuating global warming, vaccines and that evolution stuff that causes so much trouble?
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    While you may think a wonderfully natural mutation by high-energy cosmic rays - random, no less - is better than a precisely controlled science one, all of science history has already proven you wrong.
    Well, you know that's not true.  A random cosmic-ray mutation [if it were to occur] would take substantially longer to become fixed within a population, if it ever did.  In addition, it would also provide a means for co-evolution to dependent species, etc.  The "precisely controlled science" is specifically about avoiding exactly that scenario.  We don't want pests to be able to co-evolve so we make a radical change to the organism. 

    Of course, we will still create selection pressures on other organisms and to that we have no good answers.  We really don't know what the downstream effects are going to be so the science isn't nearly as "precise" when it comes to those kinds of questions.  One thing that history has proven ... "evolution is cleverer than we are" and every attempt we've made to control it has demonstrated that we always overlook something.  Sometimes it doesn't do any real harm, but sometimes it bites us in the ass. 

    I can't imagine anyone believing that these modifications aren't going to eventually produce undesirable co-evolutionary consequences.  I suspect, however, that there's a fair about of hubris though that believes that we'll have a better grasp of technology to solve those problems then.   It's that kind of blind optimism that makes me uncomfortable.
    Hubris indeed.

    I'm blown away Hank. I don't know what your getting at with the Cosmic ray stuff. I don't recall it entering into the conversation. The engineers are not mysterious. They work for organizations like Monsanto, etc. I don't think they are evil, but hey, you may know more than I do?

    So your saying that global warming is not a genuine natural event that may be sped up by human introduction of green house gasses into the atmosphere?

    "There is no plant or animal in the universe that can pass what you regard as a basic safety metric." ...Of course they do pass the test. You can't get apples by cross pollinating with oranges.

    Your state of open mindedness seems more closed than open Hank. A scientist should have an open mind. Not all scientists who disagree with climate change propose that it is not a real event or that it is not happening. The argument is about how it is implemented and if there is a human element to its function. The data states that things are heating up. I notice things like the north pole melting, etc and the fact that Canada and Russia are preparing a base of transportation operations near the pole for further business when it opens up a bit more. They wouldn't be pouring money into these operations if they thought it was a bunch of baloney. Money talks and BS walks they say and most of them are business men, not scientists.

    I think the proposal for such a law is more or less qualified in the minds of most open-minded scientist and non-scientists. It would cost much to implement and would give us all a bit of peace-of-mind.

    John Hasenkam
    I have no doubt we'll see a GMO disaster at some point, the probabilities point that way because all new technologies create unintended consequences. So does evolution. One way or the other shit is going to happen. There is already some evidence emerging that the precious Roundup is becoming increasingly useless. That had to happen. We have to perceive these consequences in light of the benefits we have derived. 


    GMO is essential to our future, I'd rather take my chances with our technology than evolution's wild gambles. There is something of a Pascal's Wager about GMO technology, if it does create disasters these could be huge so we do need to approach this very carefully. Given the implications for everyone the question that needs to be asked is should proposed GMO specific technologies be allowed to proceed without independent analysis of the technology?

    As to the "natural order of things". Ridiculous.
      
    Gerhard Adam
    As I've said before, we can track nothing nor learn anything if we don't collect data.  Therefore the claims that GMO foods can't be labeled or tracked is a serious problem. 
    Given that the natural food industry has done a good job in the past and is presently handling the demand, I say GMO needs more transparency and independent analysis.

    We have battery technology that can power electric cars NOW, but because of a couple of mishaps, the car industry thinks more study and analysis is needed before we put people in those cars. The reason they operate with such caution, is because of the innumerable law suits they've endured in the past due to faulty equipment. They have scientists and engineers who are just as professional and thorough as the GMO industry and still they made mistakes. The result, of course, is people died and/or were injured. Only a fool or someone filled with hubris would think that in such a short time, the GMO industry has worked out all the bugs in their science. If they had, we would see the results in medicine, which is coming on very slowly to almost non-existent.
    What we are seeing in the GMO industry is an urgency to make profits, not create a safe industry. Remember the Challenger incident? Good engineers and scientist were on that job also. When you mix business, and an attitude of non-concern together, you get bad science and lawsuits up the "yang yang" not to mention the victims of that bad science and mismanagement.

    I haven't a clue what "As to the "natural order of things". Ridiculous.", means.
    Is that intended to be some sort of message? Is it even a complete sentence?

    MikeCrow
    We have battery technology that can power electric cars NOW

    What battery tech is this?
    Never is a long time.
    Hank
    He means for 10 mile trips with a side helping of acid rain from their construction.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    MikeCrow
    If everyone lived 5 miles or less from work, it wouldn't matter! See you're just an anti-battery, big oil shrill!
    Never is a long time.
    We have to remember that GMO is no longer just science. It's a full fledged industry with all the defects that inhabit such industrial pursuits: bad manager's, perhaps some under the table dealings, bad judgment calls, etc..

    It's taken it upon itself to move well beyond the analysis stage. They need to be put back in the laboratory NOW, not later. Does anyone remember the peanut thing with the airlines. Something they served their clients had a peanut gene in it and, of course, not being told of this fact, some people had bad reactions as a result. The airlines immediately took the product off their planes. It was a business executive that sold the airline that product, not a scientist or genetic engineer, some one who knows about as much science as a typical high school graduate.

    So it's not the science that is in question here, it's the industry's rush to profits that is propelling incompletely analyses products and perhaps dangerous science into main stream public lives.That's not bad science that's total disregard for public safety, thinking they can handle the lawsuits considering the high profits that can be made.

    Hank,
    one of the arguments against farm fishing is that they are a monoculture, susceptible to being easily wiped out. The situation you mentioned here strengthens that argument. In fact, it was predictable, in the same way that Nassim Taleb describes in Black Swan.

    Which is why wild salmon needs protecting. Investing in protecting farmed fish is possibly a dead-end, and one of the concerns is that researching and spending resources on farmed fish might take away from what we could be doing for wild fish.