The first white men to visit Yellowstone thought they had made a wrong turn into Hell. The air smelled like sulfur. Jets of boiling water shot into the sky, and everywhere on the ground were pools of steaming water and bubbling mud surrounded by splashes of red, yellow, and orange.
Yellowstone Falls |
Fascinated by stories of Yellowstone, Ferdinand Hayden, a doctor and geologist who was partly responsible for the formation of the U.S. Geological Survey, set out in 1871 to see the area for himself. Hayden took with him a photographer and an artist so other people could see what he saw. For nearly 3 months on horseback and on foot, Hayden's expedition studied the Yellowstone regions's spectacular variety of landscapes in Wyoming and Montana — the high falls on the Yellowstone River, the deep blue Yellowstone Lake, and the geysers and hot springs. On his return home, Hayden urged Congress to safeguard Yellowstone for everyone who wanted to visit it instead of letting it be owned by just a few people. As part of his argument, Hayden said that the mountains and valleys of Yellowstone probably didn't contain any valuable natural resources, and even if they did, Yellowstone was too hard to reach for anyone to get the resources out. Hayden was right about many things, but not about that. More than 100 years after it became America's — and the world's — first national park, Yellowstone is still the center of debates about how to use its natural resources. Here is one of the debates. It's a big debate about something too small to see — the unusual microorganisms that live in the intense temperatures of the boiling hot springs for which Yellowstone is famous. Read the "pro" and "con" arguments about what Yellowstone is doing to manage research involving these special biological resources, decide which side you support, and then read what actually happened. |
The pools of steaming water and bubbling mud in the geyser section of Yellowstone are home to colorful colonies of microscopic organisms that thrive in temperatures close to 100° C. These microorganisms, called thermophiles ("heat-lovers"), make enzymes — proteins that speed up biological processes. Scientists are discovering that these enzymes can do remarkable things, such as help make beer, perfume, and paper, as well as make it easier to study the genetic material DNA. You want to conduct research in Yellowstone to see if you can discover anything new and valuable to society that some microbes might do. Your chances of discovering something useful are good because less than1 percent of the microbes living in the hot springs have even been identified. The park also wants to learn more about the mysterious microbes that live in its 10,000 hot springs and suggests that you work out a cooperative research project with the park to study the microbes, where they live, and what they do. But such valuable research costs money. It also costs money to help preserve Yellowstone's hot springs and the still undiscovered life in them. You know that in the past some scientists were allowed to take some microbes from Yellowstone without contributing anything to the park. You also know that some of these scientists later made millions of dollars from the enzymes they discovered, but the park received nothing. You agree to contribute $100,000 to Yellowstone to help support the park's conservation work, and you'll also contribute a percentage of any profits you make from any research you conduct on the microorganisms you find. You promise to collect only very tiny samples while a park ranger watches what you do, and you'll share with park scientists what your company's microbiologists learn about the microbes.
Yellowstone's designation as a national park means that no one should remove any of its resources for any reason — not minerals, plants, or animals, not even a single flower. Yellowstone should be left alone — even if someone might find a cure for a disease or something else valuable to society from research involving the microbes that live in the hot springs. Besides, if scientists are allowed to collect microorganisms from the park, who knows what resources will be allowed to be collected next? Suppose the sampling wiped out all the microorganisms forever? No one has done a study to see if that might happen. What if some of the organisms collected from the park were dangerous or unpredictable? If a company makes money from the thermophiles, what share of the money does the park deserve to receive? But if the park really needs more money to take care of its resources, let the taxpayers pay for it (scientists should not earn money from their research even if they discover something valuable to society — and they certainly do not "owe" anything to the park).
The National Park Service has signed a 5-year agreement with a company that wants to took for useful microorganisms at Yellowstone. The company has agreed to pay $ 100,000 to support Yellowstone's conservation work and up to 10 percent of the money it makes from any research involving microorganisms sampled from the park. The agreement does not affect other researchers' ability to collect and study microorganisms at Yellowstone, and the park still retains ownership of any microorganisms collected. While most conservation groups and park observers have applauded the agreement (noting that scientists who benefit from Yellowstone's conservation should contribute something), some others have said that the terms of the agreement were not completely open to the public and the effect on the environment hadn't been studied enough.
Yellowstone has explained that the first research permit for the collection microbes at the park was issued more than 100 years ago and that Federal regulations for a long time have permitted scientists to collect samples of park resources for research as long as the resources were not harmed. In fact, most of what the park learns about the microorganisms and their hot spring environments comes from these types of authorized research projects (there are more than 100 research projects involving microbes at Yellowstone rightt now, and there is no way to learn about the microbes without collecting samples for study). The park also has pointed out that anything at could be "dangerous" resulting from research must be approved by the EPA or other regulatory agencies before it can be marketed. This is the first time that Yellowstone — or any park — has successfully negotiated a "benefit-sharing" arrangement with researchers so that the park will receive some of the profits that might result from research activity involving park resources. Yellowstone has released the full text of the agreement, including the range of royalty rates, but it has not released certain financial information that the researchers have claimed is protected under Federal law. U.S. Government scientists will closely monitor the project and evaluate data to determine future agreements. The agreement also is being studied by managers of other conservation areas around the world that protect valuable rainforests and other biological resources that are of interest to biotechnology and pharmaceutical researchers.
|| Back to the top || Back to Scientists in Action Front Page ||
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
