Credit: Wikimedia
SYDNEY: Australian researchers mourned the death of Cedric, a Tasmanian devil thought at first to be immune to a devastating cancer which is threatening to wipe out the species.
Cedric, who was born in captivity, survived for two years after being repeatedly injected with cells infected with the contagious Deadly Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD), raising scientists' hopes.
But after X-rays showed tumours in his lungs he was put down last week. He was six years old. "He was especially important, because he did produce an immuno-response initially," Dr Alex Kreiss, of the Menzies Research Institute, told reporters in Hobart.
Spread to 70% by biting
"We would like to remember him as the symbol of the fight against DFTD. There are many devils that die in the wild that don't have a name."
Kreiss said Cedric had provided information towards finding a cure for the fatal disease which affects Australia's largest meat-eating marsupial.
Some 70% of devils have already been lost to the infectious disease, which is spread by biting as the feisty creatures mate and fight over animal carcasses.
Finding a DFTD vaccine
"Cedric has played an important part in helping us to understand more about the disease," Kreiss said.
"While this death is sad news, it is only one part of the puzzle toward developing a vaccine against DFTD."
Experts have been gathering healthy devils and breeding them in zoos for the past six years, developing an "insurance population" of 220, but the species was declared endangered in 2009.
Notorious character in peril
The devils first came to prominence when their unearthly shrieks and grunts while devouring corpses of dead animals terrified European settlers arriving in Tasmania in the 19th century.
Some 150 years later, the Devil is best known by "Taz", a wild Warner Brothers cartoon character that now fronts the conservation campaign to save the species.
Are you kidding me?
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong but this article is saying they did these tests by injecting cancer into this poor animal, right?
Problem
You have a problem with researchers doing whatever is needed to save the whole species?
Yes I do
I certainly do when they advertise it. I happen to care a great deal about animals. Much more so then most human beings.
What do you suggest?
Then how else do you suggest the scientists research immunity responses to find a cure/vaccine?
How do you think everyday drugs like panadol were developed? They were surely tested on animals first...
To the first poster
I am someone who cares very much for the well-being of animals. I've even been vegetarian for 14 years now exactly because I'm not comfortable with how livestock are treated in many of today's large-scale farming facilities. In this case, though, I have to strongly disagree with your sentiment. Without a vaccine or resistant population this species may be lost completely.
From the whole tenor of the article it seems obvious to me the scientists in question really do care about these animals. I mean it mentions them mourning its loss as a symbol for all the other wild devils that are dying without such attention. Not on that, but the article specifically mentions that they continually monitored the animal for tumors, and once they were discovered, put it down (presumably to prevent suffering).
And to your point about them "advertising" it: that's exactly the problem with some animal testing (if you've read Peter Singer's animal liberation, you'll know what I mean; some of the horrible images in that book left me reeling for weeks). I think if people knew more about the conditions non-human animals endure, practices might change, but the difference between good, legitimate, humane research and the other kind should be illuminated, so the old blanket excuse of, "animal testing brought is 'this' and 'that", won't work to defend all of it.
I think your heart's in the right place here, but you're mind is sorely misplaced... : )