Mad Science, Bad Science

If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. At least, that was the way biologists operated up until the mid-20th century. For most of the history of the scientific study of animals, the only way to get a good look at them was by studying dead specimens, and the only way to get those specimens was to kill them. Naturally, things are different nowadays. Biologists don't go around killing wild animals for research,  and DNA samples have replaced preserved specimens as a source of information. But is it ever acceptable to kill an animal--especially an endangered one--in the wild for the sake of science?

Earlier this month, ornithologist Chris Filardi became the center of controversy when he revealed that he had shot a Mustached Kingfisher, an extremely rare bird thought to have a population of less than 500. Flared claimed that by shooting the kingfisher, he will be providing the scientific community with information about it that would be otherwise unobtainable. Many of his fellow scientists are unconvinced. They point out that a lot more information relevant to the kingfisher's lifestyle could have been learned by observing it alive.

The Mustached Kingfisher has not been seen in the wild for more than 60 years, and none exist in captivity. To kill the first one seen in such a length of time, so the logic goes, is a massive waste of potential information that could be used to save the species. While Filardi has defended his actions, he may well have lost most of his support with the scientific community

A similar controversy surrounds the "scientific whaling" program in Japan. Officially named the Institute of Cetacean Research--which sounds very professional-- its official duty is to conduct sampling surveys of whale populations, with the meat supposedly being sold merely as a byproduct. But it is generally believed that little, if any, scientific value has arisen from this practice, and it is simply hunting in disguise. 

That said, there are times and places where killing specimens is preferred and even necessary. Most deep-sea animals, such as giant squid, cannot survive in captivity and must be preserved as dead specimens for study. But in these cases there is some clear scientific benefit to killing them, because it is essentially the only way to study them at all. With the kingfisher and the whales, on the other hand, alternatives exist. There is no need for scientists to kill their specimens unless it is absolutely necessary.

The Mustached Kingfisher has inadvertently become a poster child for the ethics of killing animals for science. With less than 500 in existence, every individual that dies pushes it closer to extinction.