The Devil Undone: the Science and Politics of Tasmanian Devil Facial
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2013 The evD il Undone: the science and politics of Tasmanian Devil facial tumour disease Josephine Veronica Warren University of Wollongong, [email protected] Recommended Citation Warren, Josephine Veronica, The eD vil Undone: the science and politics of Tasmanian Devil facial tumour disease, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication, University of Wollongong, 2013. http://ro.uow.edu.au/ theses/4182 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] The Devil Undone: The Science and Politics of Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease Josephine Veronica Warren BA (Hons) University of Wollongong School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication 20 December 2013 This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy Abstract The Tasmanian devil is a carnivorous marsupial endemic to the island state of Tasmania, part of the larger continent of Australia, threatened with extinction from a deadly cancer. The research into the cancer, termed Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD), followed a pathway that supported the hypothesis that the cancer was transmissible, passed from devil to devil by biting, called an allograft. By adopting a political sociological approach, I analyse the scientific research into the devil cancer through the concept of undone science, which I expand by developing a typology of reasons, both practical and political, for deficits of knowledge. My analysis initially finds that scientific evidence has not been established to confirm the transmission of the cancer by biting. The devil cancer research has also failed to produce convincing support for the precedent of a dog transmissible cancer. Whilst allograft research was pursued, the competing hypothesis that chemicals used in plantation forestry might have contributed to the disease was neglected. There were many calls for further toxicology studies but to date these have not been undertaken. Due to the devils’ listing as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the scientific uncertainty surrounding the cause of the cancer, the precautionary principle is relevant. Applying it would enable decision makers to seek further scientific studies into the cause of the cancer and to mitigate the harm by further restricting or banning the use of the chemical atrazine used in plantation forestry. I analyse four wildlife cancers, including the Tasmanian devil, to demonstrate that in all cases toxicology studies have been neglected. Close relations between the Tasmanian government and the forestry industry, when operations should be at arms length, have resulted in a conflict of interest in the regulation of chemical use in plantations and the overseeing of the Tasmanian devil scientific research. I recommend that public participation and lay knowledge be incorporated into the future governance of environmental issues. ii Statement of Candidate I certify that this thesis entitled ‘The Devil Undone: The Role of Scientific Ignorance and Politics in the Struggle to Save the Tasmanian Devil’, is entirely my own work except where I have given full documented reference to the work of others, and that the material contained in this thesis has not been submitted for formal assessment in any formal course. Josephine Veronica Warren 20 December 2013 Acknowledgements I would like to express the sincerest appreciation to my principal supervisor, Professor Brian Martin and my co-supervisor Professor Sharon Beder for their constant encouragement, guidance and support throughout the entire process of completing this research project. I would also like to thank Richard Gosden, Alison Bleaney and the many others in Tasmania who contributed their knowledge and whose enthusiasm and dedication helped to maintain my commitment to the project. To my fellow post-graduates and Gayl Vidgen at the Batemans Bay Campus a big thanks for reading and providing helpful comments on my thesis and for sharing the journey. Finally, I would like to thank my family Brick, Rosalie, Troy and Zac for their understanding and patience. Note on Referencing In place of a bibliography at the end of this thesis, full citations are given in the footnotes in each chapter. Ibid is used when citing the previous reference. iii Table of Contents Introduction Tasmania – an island under threat?................................................................................ 3 Theoretical framework…………………………………………………………………5 Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD) science selected for research – the Allograft hypothesis……………………………………………………………………6 An anomaly in the allograft theory: the devils’ immune system……………………....8 DFTD and undone science……………………………………………………………..9 The plantation forestry industry in Tasmania………………………………………...10 A history of contamination of waterways in Tasmania……………………………....11 The need for improved chemical regulations………………………………………...12 Conflict of interest in Tasmanian forestry practices………………………………….15 Scientific uncertainty in DFTD and the precautionary principle……………………..16 Chapter 1 – The Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrissi 1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….18 1.2 Tasmanian devil – what is known?.........................................................................19 1.2.1 Tasmanian devil social habits………………………………………………………...24 1.2.2 Tasmanian devil mating behavior……………………………………………………25 1.2.3 Tasmanian devil feeding habits………………………………………………………25 1.2.4 Tasmanian devil aggressive behavior……………………………………………….26 1.3 The Tasmanian devil cancer……………………………………………………...31 1.4 What is Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD)?....................................................34 1.5 The biting theory………………………………………………………………….39 1.6 Outlook for the Tasmanian devils………………………………………………...41 1.7 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..41 iv Chapter 2 – The political sociology of science and undone research 2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….43 2.2 What is science?......................................................................................................44 2.3 Orthodox methods and conventions of scientific research……………………….45 2.4 The social construction of science………………………………………………..48 2.5 The new political sociology of science (NPSS)…………………………………..52 2.6 Hess’s alternative pathways in science…………………………………………...54 2.7 Internal and external pressure…………………………………………………….58 2.8 Ignorance – a deficit of knowledge……………………………………………….60 2.8.1 Nescience………………………………………………………………………………..62 2.8.2 Non-knowledge (knowable ignorance)………………………………………………63 2.8.3 Undoable science……………………………………………………………………….64 2.8.4 Undone science as negative or positive non-knowledge…………………………..65 2.9 Reasons for undone science………………………………………………………65 2.9.1 Practical reasons for undone science………………………………………………..66 2.9.2 Political reasons for undone science………………………………………………...67 2.9.2.1 Negative non-knowledge or forbidden knowledge……………………………….67 2.9.2.2 Uncertainty in science……………………………………………………………….68 2.9.2.3 Censorship and the ‘chilling effect’………………………………………………..69 2.9.3 Summary of practical versus political reasons for undone science……………..71 2.10 Methodology…………………………………………………………………….72 2.11 Intervention……………………………………………………………………...74 2.11.1 Intervention in the chemical contamination controversy………………………..75 v 2.11.2 Intervention in the proposed pulp mill activism…………………………………..78 2.12 Approach to the DFTD scientific community…………………………………..79 2.13 Review of DFTD scientific literature…………………………………………...82 2.14 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………83 Chapter 3 – The allograft theory 3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….86 3.2 The Pearse and Swift article……………………………………………………...88 3.3 The two claims……………………………………………………………………88 3.4 The precedents……………………………………………………………………91 3.5 A comparison between CTVT and DFTD allograft programs and undone science………………………………………………………………………………...92 3.5.1 CTVT research program……………………………………………………………….95 3.5.2 A chronology of recent CTVT studies………………………………………………..96 3.5.3 The DFTD research program……………………………………………………….100 3.5.3.1 A chronology of DFTD studies…………………………………………………...102 3.5.4 Summary of comparison between CTVT and DFTD……………………………..114 3.6 Review of comparisons between CTVT and DFTD by Murchison…………….115 3.7 Different strains of DFTD……………………………………………………….117 3.8 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………123 Chapter 4 – The science selected for study 4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………...127 4.2 The immune system……………………………………………………………..129 4.3 The Tasmanian devil immune system studies…………………………………..130 4.4 Wildlife cancers and immune systems…………………………………………..134 4.5 Is the lack of genetic diversity in devils a reason for cancer transmission?.........135 vi 4.5.1 The Cheetah precedent……………………………………………………………….138 4.5.2 The role of the majorhistocompatibility (MHC)genes in the devil cancer…….141 4.6 Resistance and the search for a vaccine…………………………………………145 4.7 Cedric and Clinky……………………………………………………………….146 4.8 Sequencing of the devil genome – a conservation project………………………149 4.9 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………153 Chapter 5 – DFTD toxicology studies – the undone science 5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..156 5.2 Why test for chemicals?.......................................................................................157