"New Zealand scientists have found what appears to be a cure for the disease {A fungal disease called chytridiomycosis} that is responsible for wiping out many of the world's frog populations.Chloramphenicol, currently used as an eye ointment for humans, may be a lifesaver for the amphibians, they say. The researchers found frogs bathed in the solution became resistant to the killer disease, chytridiomycosis. The fungal disease has been blamed for the extinction of one-third of the 120 species lost since 1980."
While they only tested the drug on two species, with such great results I'm certain they'll try it on others. The drug they used is inexpensive too! Now all they have to do is figure out how they can use it to save WILD frogs, and if it will have any negative effects on other native speices.
Isn't it amazing, the things that Science can do?
For the entire article, Go Here
_________editing!________________-
Okay! so let's talk about this! What would PETA say? I don't know. There was clearly animal testing going on here, and they are against that, so I say PETA is probably against this. I think they generally go for conservation efforts, but disease fighting? I think that qualifies as a human interference in natural selection.
Think about it. The fungus is clearly stressing the tropical frog population. Stress on populations generally results in (a) extinction or (b) change. Now, because the frogs seem to have no natural defense, and because humans enjoy the presence of frogs, we try to 'save' them. BUT! Is that the natural thing to do? No. The frogs would either die out or evolve some sort of resistance to the fungus.
THIS HAS HAPPENED RECENTLY IN HUMAN POPULATIONS!
With the 1918 Influenza Pandemic, natural selection had an effect on humans. I learned this through one of my biology classes. It altered a gene in our DNA and made population exposed to the flu more suceptable to diabetes and heart disease but less likely to get cancer.
But back to the frogs. Even if they could use the medicine to save the frogs, how effective or safe would it be in wild populations? Would it cause mutations in other species? It will take years of research to determine that, and by then the wild populations could very well be dead, or they have evolved. I'm sure it could be used somewhat safely in captive frogs, so we could probably keep enough alive in zoos and such, but I think the wild populations would probably die out (or evolve.)
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I'm curious what environmentalists and groups like PETA would say about this. If humans are the bane of all natural existence, should they really be helping the frogs? If this fungus is some naturally occuring disease in the frogs, maybe they should be left to die out, the whole survival of the fittest mentality, adapt and grow.
I'm not saying that that's what should happen. I think it's great to save the frogs. Just curious about what they'd say, and that's probably along the lines of what they'd say.
Thank you
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion