IN THE early 1990s DPIWE received anecdotal reports of declines in devils from NE corner of Tasmania (one of the highest density devil populations in Tasmania).
The first known index cases were seen at the Mt William NP in 1996 (photographed by wildlife photographer, Christo Baars). Shortly after this population declined to less than 10% of its historical numbers based on earlier devil studies done by David Pemberton in the 1980s. (see: Menna Jones’ article in the Wilderness News Summer 2003 – Disease Decimates the Devil)
In 1999 Menna Jones contacted me to inquire about tumour-like lesions seen on the face, lips, and gums in a population of devils at Buckland. I suggested she take pictures of affected animals and get a veterinarian to accompany her to the trapping site to obtain biopsies and samples for laboratory diagnostic work up. This was done and the initial diagnosis of these ‘tumours’ by pathologist veterinarian Roy Mason was that they were probably solid cancers derived from cells of the immune system — possibly a lymphosarcoma or lymphoma.
During 2001 – 2002 Menna was doing a long-term trapping study of devils in the Freycinet National Park area stretching from just south of Bicheno to the tip of Freycinet NP. Her trapping and identification of every devil in each of four population cohorts allowed her to track the trends and changes in these populations. To her amazement she found several devils with identical facial tumours in these populations too. Her long-term trap-retrap-identification studies in these East Coast populations were pivotal in bringing this to light.
Through Danielle Wood and other journalists in Hobart the serious new disease in devils began to receive coverage in late 2002 and early 2003. Menna’s repeat-trapping studies and monitoring of changes in the size of these tumours and their effects on individual devils suggested to her and others that this disease was progressive and ultimately fatal.
By late 2002 and early 2003 Nick Mooney and an American ecologist, Marco Restani began a series of rapid ‘snapshot’ surveys of devil populations to assess whether other populations of devils were affected by this disease. As a result of their field trapping and the growing public concern, the State Government agreed that the devil might well be in danger and committed resources to investigate it.
Top guns
The State Government asked me whether this was an important disease and to offer a technical opinion. I offered the view that any new disease conditions affecting large numbers of Tasmanian animals whether in wildlife or commercial livestock should always be taken seriously and adequate resources made available for investigation.
In October 2003 the State Government convened a technical workshop of people from across Australia to discuss the findings on the condition, now described as Devil Facial Tumour Disease. The meeting was opened by Minister PIW&E, Bryan Green, but was not open to the press. The meeting heard from biologists — expert in the life history and ecology of devils, wildlife veterinarians from various institutions, pathologists, wildlife disease investigators and medical oncologists/cytogeneticists.
The ‘top guns’ within DPIWE were in attendance, including the then Minister Bryan Green. In the early phases of this investigation the state’s Chief Veterinary Officer — the officer with significant statutory responsibilities for animal disease control — was involved. He had provided technical briefs to Australian veterinary colleagues and had at his disposal staff with a range of animal disease investigation skills.
At the end of the workshop an all too polished communiqué was delivered; not a document to all but a speech of intention. Bryan Green had nominated DPIWE Secretary, Kim Evans, to chair a Steering Committee on DFTD. The decision was taken to make the Nature Conservation Branch manager to head the DFTD program administering the $1.8M approved by the then Premier Jim Bacon to research the disease.
The Chief Veterinary Officer, Rod Andrewartha, and the disease modelling expertise in DPIWE have been effectively relegated to subordinate service providers to the overall monitoring and tracking of the disease. Even important national bodies like the Australian Wildlife Health Network (AWHN), the Sub-Committee of Animal Health Laboratory Services (SCAHLS) and the leading national veterinarians involved in the Australia’s wildlife & exotic disease preparedness plan were effectively kept to the periphery of the crucial science-based decision-making processes.
The State Government funds have been used to support three teams of trained personnel — (1) monitoring & surveillance of DFTD in free-range populations; (2) captive management and insurance population contingencies and (3) veterinary diagnostic & research.
Dramatic effect
The overall DFTD Manager with DPIWE is Mr Alistair Scott, a non-scientist.
Before the October 2004 federal election, the Howard Government promised $2 million to the DFTD investigation, but I understand there has been no formal application provided to the Commonwealth that details how this allocation will be used. From my contacts with Australian Wildlife Health Network, I was assured that they hadn’t received any detailed research plan on how the State wanted to use the money. Back in August 2003, the Commonwealth Government declined to support a funding application to the Wildlife and Exotic Disease Preparedness Program (WEDPP) stating that ‘the project had little supporting information regarding the level of success, the experimental design and the sampling plans and felt it needs further clarification. The management group agreed the project must have a case description prior to the project being considered for funding. They considered a good starting point would be for the Australian Wildlife Health Network to assist in developing this approach through its co-ordinator, Rupert Woods …
And what about the Tasmanian Devil?
Prior to DFTD the devil population was estimated to 150,000 in 1990 and 130,000 in 1996. The DFTD has reduced the populations in affected areas in the last ten years by between 43,000 and 65,000 animals. ‘The disease has the most dramatic effect in those with high-density populations with up to 100% mortality of resident devils in 12-18 months.’ (DPIWE Website DFTD Reports including Feb 2005).
To date no formal article detailing the anatomical pathology, epizootiology or other science-based hypothesis for its aetiology, the likely potential modes of transmission or pathogenesis of DFTD has been published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal.
In April 2005 the Tasmanian Devil was nominated for listing as a threatened species under both State and Commonwealth legislation, listing DFTD as the main threatening process contributing to the decline in the abundance of the species. In May 2005 the Tasmanian Government submitted its own nomination for listing under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. In late July 2005 the Scientific Advisory Committee accepted the nomination and invited public comment.
Imagine if this devil disease were a human disease
This is a highly unusual and novel disease in an iconic Tasmanian animal. There are very few comparative parallels in either the human or the animal health field. There is no argument that the devil facial tumour condition is without precedent in the world. As Professor Lowenthal, a highly respected medical oncologist stated, there is nothing to compare with this cancer in humans.
Attention of the world
If this were a human disease with this level of lethality it would be receiving the attention of the whole world! Imagine if this was a human cancer killing 50% of the Tasmanian population. The World Health Organisation would be demanding daily updates. Tasmania would be inundated with top-class disease researchers. Every effort would be made to understand this unique contagious condition.
The Co-ordinator of the Commonwealth-funded Animal Wildlife Health Network has repeatedly asked DPIWE’s Devil Facial Tumour management to allow trained epidemiologists to assess the data coming out of field and laboratory studies. Up until quite recently the Network was not even receiving situation reports on the disease from Tasmania. Epidemiological principles and the use of computer assisted modelling tools are routinely used to investigate new and unusual disease processes. This approach can help to speed up investigation into the likely cause and/or triggers of new diseases in both humans and animals. For a malignant cancer to have an epidemiological attack rate and spread pattern that mimics the impact of a highly virulent contagious pathogen within high density populations should warrant a great deal more interest and concern than that which DFTD is currently receiving.
Currently the world’s media is tracking the unfolding spread of the H5NI Bird Influenza strain across Asia and into Russia. There is the concern that if the virus develops the capacity to spread from man-to-man, human mortalities in the millions are likely.
In my opinion, a far greater response needs to be brought to bear. There is an urgent need for a national cooperative response involving multi-disciplinary expertise from the biomedical and veterinary community.
Serious new diseases discovered in humans or domestic animals have originated from wild animal populations. SARS is the latest example. Such experience in disease processes gives the justification why it’s always prudent to investigate all new disease conditions. In Tasmania, wildlife is an important part of our natural environment and the State’s character. Some of Tasmania’s wild animals occur nowhere else — the devil being one of these.
Playing politics with diseases is very dangerous indeed!
In 1994 there were declining resources applied to safeguarding the State’s livestock industries. There are many calls on the public purse but if you play politics with disease prevention in animals or humans, local economies can collapse and the losses in life can be very dramatic. Think of Britain in 2001 with the Foot & Mouth Disease outbreak, or Mad Cow Disease in Britain a decade earlier!
Tasmania as part of Australia needs to be able to handle any significant disease outbreak, what’s more it needs such stimulus to keep it responsive and alert. For these reasons, it makes sense to use Tasmania’s existing animal pathology resources for all significant disease investigations; this devil mystery disease is no exception.
Clearly there are scientific gaps in our understanding of this devil disease to date. The strongest evidence suggests that DFTD transmits as an infectious tumour cell line from devil to devil. To date this has not been tested. If that’s correct, how is it that such ‘foreign’ cells from another devil aren’t recognised and killed off by the devil’s immune system? If there are no cancerous devils in western Tasmanian, is there is any substantial difference of immune function between populations of devils between eastern and western Tasmania. What is the role of persistent organic pollutants and their potential to alter gene function or to act as promoters in viral carcinogenesis?
Seriously belies the clean, green, clever image
The whole situation is one which seriously belies Tasmania’s images as ‘clean, green and clever’, ‘disease free’ and ‘pristine’.
What is reality and what is rhetoric?
With another DFTD workshop scheduled for later this month, it is a time for frank and open review. Tasmania was once the envy of the rest of Australia for its pre-eminence in wildlife disease investigations. The cause, natural mode of transmission and pathogenesis of DFTD are still unproven. Why is it taking so long? Is it stalled for lack of resources, professional expertise or because of politics? With the proper professional leadership and collaboration with others, the inquiry into DFTD could see Tasmania as open and responsive not reactive and hesitant.
There are growing concerns that this disease is really being handled as a public relations exercise rather than at a science level.
Such ‘smoke and mirrors’ tactics ultimately have their use by date. Tasmania and the Tasmanian devil deserve better than this.
Dr David Obendorf is a veterinarian.
And,
SIMON BEVILACQUA: Research too secret, critics say
Hidden disease woes
