I believe the State Government was seriously spooked by the discovery of an infectious cancer in Tasmanian devils.

When in 2000 Menna Jones told wildlife officials that a facial cancer was probably responsible for the demise of a devil population she had been following for several years, it must have come as a tremendous shock. Wildlife staff of DPIWE were already aware of photographs of devils from another location in NE Tasmania with unusual facial tumours going back in 1996.

But still it took the exposure of this serious disease by the local media to get any sort of response from the ‘owners’ of Tasmania’s wildlife — our State Government.

By world standards, the emergence of this facial cancer was very unusual and serious. Our political and bureaucratic gatekeepers were told that this disease was quite bizarre; it was acting like an infectious disease and was invariably lethal; a cancer that passed from one animal to another like an infectious contagion.

It was a shocking image; not the sort of public image synonymous with — ‘be tempted to the Natural State’.

Sure, there was uncertainty about where this unusual disease investigation might take Tasmanian devils and indeed Tasmania itself. And of course there was always going to be a cost.

But what could possibly explain its sudden and catastrophic emergence?

Jim Bacon assured Tasmanians

Our late Premier, Jim Bacon assured Tasmanians that the devil would not be allowed to go the way of the thylacine and committed some funds. Six years after the first facial tumour case was diagnosed, the devil has gone from locally abundant in NE Tasmania and common over much of Tasmania to being listed as vulnerable under Tasmanian Threatened Species legislation.

Last week, DPIWE cytogeneticist, Anne-Maree Pearse and her co-worker Kate Swift briefly reported on the genetic evidence to support a possible transmission theory that Tasmanian Times first to make public in May last year — Why the devils are dying

The finding of a complex but consistently similar rearrangement of the chromosomes in the cancerous cells of 11 animals examined has given support for to the so-called allograft or ‘rotten apple’ theory. This research, published in Nature, did not go into the cause of the cancer and certainly did not disprove the possibility that DFTD has an environmental toxin or cryptic pathogen as a trigger.

Indeed, on an earlier occasion Anne Maree stated publicly that a chemical in the environment may have instigated a genetic change that may have begun the infectious cancer in one or perhaps several devils — the index event. The investigation into cryptic or hidden pathogens as a trigger in this disease is still in its infancy. At an international Wildlife Diseases conference in Cairns in June 2005, several participants in a DFTD workshop, including members of the Tasmanian research group, agreed that was the case and required further investigation.

As with the scientific investigation of any new or emerging disease process, describing the knowledge, communicating the knowledge and sharing the knowledge are paramount. History is littered with examples where secrecy, control, competitiveness and the need to win overtake the original purpose for the endeavour.

Investigations of new and emerging diseases are usually reported quite systematically and methodically. This allows scientists in this field to examine authoritative material and, in turn, this can lead to healthy, collegial relationships that further investigations and ultimately can increase the rate of progress. It is disappointing that the more basic description of the nature of this cancer (its pathology) and its effects on devils and comparison with other related cancer conditions in animals is still awaited.

Terry asked David why the devil facial tumour disease had become so politicised

To some degree internet websites like ProMed and our own Australian Wildlife Health Network do offer this means, but cautious researchers usually wait until findings are peer-reviewed and published comprehensively in science journals. And then there is the matter of who pays for the research and, will it be broad-ranging & independent?

There are numerous examples of research into important diseases that have been hampered and slowed through unnecessary secrecy, delays in publishing important information and a failure to reach out and share biological material and expertise. It is said that the risk of possibly ‘being wrong’ is the reason for this hesitant approach. Again, science history shows several of the more difficult disease discoveries have gone through phases of confusion, hypotheses, partial research, genuine mistakes and unforeseen errors. I would argue that this is exactly how science learns and improves on itself.

Where it not for interest and enquiry by the media, the general public would be unaware of its impact on devils and the long-term consequences to Tasmania’s biodiversity.

A few months ago, Terry Lane, presenter of ABC radio national program, National Interest interviewed David Pemberton, Curator of Vertebrates at the Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery about devils. David said ‘this species [the devil] is in serious trouble’. Terry asked David why the devil facial tumour disease had become so politicised. David suggested in general terms that by delaying and slowing down the scientific research and keeping the budget ‘lean’, it buys time for any government. He explained that by employing this ‘buying time’ strategy any new public ‘problem’ may well go away or might change over time.

By exercising total control over the management of a new public ‘problem’, the stage is politically organised and set; only then can the play be allowed to begin.

The State Government was pushed into doing something, but only when the plight of the devil went public.

But slowly, in the fullness of time, with all due care, after proper consideration, etc, etc. [Thanks for the advice, Sir Humphrey.]

The State Government was pushed into doing something, but only when the plight of the devil went public.

A significant new infectious disease is detected in the world’s largest carnivorous marsupial, and who is asked to lead this important animal disease investigation? Surely the Chief Veterinary Officer of Tasmania? Perhaps with a national wildlife disease specialist or two asked to assist? And the services of an experienced animal disease epidemiologist or two? Maybe an international emerging disease investigator? What about some cancer specialists?

None of the above. As veterinary pathologist with a wildlife disease interest, I could not understand the government’s decision not to allow the investigation of this new animal disease to be overseen & managed principally as a veterinary animal health investigation.

Now after nearly 6 years we have the first peer-reviewed publication on a genetic explanation for a theory of how this tumour could be transmitted between devils. It is still premature for anyone to claim that this is merely a spontaneously generated cancer that just happens to transfer from devil to devil through biting. The experimental transmission studies to prove that theory are still awaited.

If the theory holds true, these particularly aggressive cancer cells will also need to, in some way, evade the immune system of any new devil host they infect. How do they manage that?

Can we really now discount environmental triggers?

Are these cancer cells acting like primordial ‘stem cells’ somehow masking their presence from the defence system of any devil they enter? Is the devil’s immune system disabled or does the cancer, in some way, disable it?

Is the emergence of this cancer all to do with Tasmania’s inbred devils now lacking genetic diversity and hence all clonally very similar?

Can we really now discount environmental triggers or specific endogenous viral gene sequences that can incorporate into the devils’ own genome?

But by keeping the science of the devil facial cancer investigation lean and employing the politically tried and true ‘buying time’ strategy, our government can stage-manage and exercise tight controls. They certainly don’t need the services of too many free-thinking biological scientists; leave that game to the bureaucrat managers & political gatekeepers.

This approach was and is ignorant, unhelpful and wrong. The natural ecology in Tasmania is increasingly unstable and I predict there will be more of these collapses in store for Tasmania. I am not the only pundit say so, as David Pemberton told Terry Lane, ‘the Tasmanian bush is changing very fast’.

Just as this cancer may be derived from the shrinking genetic diversity in Tasmanian devils reducing the prospect of species recovery, so too a shrunken mindset will allow this ecological collapse to continue.

David Obendorf is a veterinarian specialising in the study of animal disease.

The Nature articles: nature.pdf nature1.pdf

Earlier article by Dr Obendorf on possible chemical triggers: Devil disease: the chemical bombshell

The rest: CLICK HERE