Preying for predators - it's the key to survival!

  

I watched a fascinating documentary on the weekend about the African savannah, a grassland ecosystem that is home to the most diverse variety of hoofed mammals in the world. This exotic terrain is typified by hardy trees and shrubs and rolling grasslands that are the mainstay of the herbivore diet of the animal population living there, and it sprawls across some 25 countries in Africa. 

As natural as it may be to some (biologists), it never ceases to make me smile at how delicate even such huge ecosystems are, and how the balance between life and death can depend on factors that are not that obvious at first glance. As much as various species such as elephants and rhinoceros are always in danger of extinction at the hands of poachers, it is unquestionable that it is the presence of a very unnatural species there - mankind - that has had the greatest impact on the savannah. 

The predator-prey relationship is a fundamental to evolutionary biology and is how we got to where we are today; but we both impact it and insist on messing with it in ways that are generally destructive and upset the natural balance of things. To wit, the ongoing issue since the sixties of grassland erosion and gradual desertification of what were once fertile grounds thriving in what are warm, tropical wet-dry seasons. 

This desertification is disastrous not just to the indigenous species living there such as zebra, elephant, black rhinoceros and giraffe, but also to the cattle being grazed there today by Masai farmers. The savannah ecosystem works by nature of the trees and shrubs being rather sparsely spread out, such that abundant light and water reaches the ground facilitating cultivation of a slew of plant life that ultimately sustains not only the herbivores, but also scavengers and decomposers, and the feared carnivores that ultimately control the animal population beneath then in the food chain.

Decades ago, the policy was clear - conservationists actually culled elephant herds in particular because of an apparent overgrazing problem that was believed to be at the root of the observed desertification. The thinking was that due to huge herds of large mammals such as elephants trampling through the savannah, they were actually destroying their own pastures due to overpopulation. In terms of our negative impact on this situation, the key problem perceived by experts was that mankind was killing too many predator carnivores on safaris or via poaching, and this was the root cause of grassland erosion. 

However, the result of that misperception was that after many years of culling elephant herds to manually control their numbers, rather shockingly, it appeared that reducing elephant numbers had been of basically no benefit whatsoever, and man replacing lions and other big cats as top-of-the-food-chain predator did not work - clearing of the grasslands continued as before. So what the hell was going on?

It took some real out-of-the-box thinking and a load of observation to figure out why reducing large animal populations didn't do the trick, and in fact it was not the number of elephants that was causing grassland erosion, it was the fashion in which they were grazing and moving that was at the bottom of it all.  A real bright spark had a brilliant light bulb moment and hypothesised that it was natural selection (by animal predators) that was key; not unnatural selection by two-legged ecosystem-destroying human predators. 

Thus, large herds of animals freed of the normal level and fear of aggressive carnivores kind of became, well, too relaxed and stress-free. So what happened? Evidently, they sort of spread out and just grazed to their heart's content, enjoying long warm afternoons on the "lawn" and rarely having to rush off anywhere. A holiday from those evil carnivores, in effect. Well, whaddya know, it lead to more desertification. 

It turns out, just as the bright spark hypothesised and proved by testing it on cattle on his own grazing lands, that such relaxed and abnormal elephant behaviour hurts the environment. When predators or human herders reappeared, the animals would be relaxed and grazing one minute, then upon the growl of a few big cats, the herd bunched closer together and upon attack would stampede as a collective to escape the mauling that awaited them. 

So what, you say? Well, this thunderous trampling of the ground over compact areas actually has somewhat of a ploughing effect, exposing topsoil and trampling dead plants and grasses into the soil, along with faeces and urine and other "fertilizers", which, along with the work of decomposers, provides serious nutrients to the ground resulting in new plant growth over coming seasons. 

Therefore, the very thing that was thought to cause desertification was in fact grassland's salvation - and it all came down to the presence of predators around them - just not for the reason suspected! As much as we know about biology and evolution, we continue to be educated by it in action. It was not the removal of elephants by carnivore kills that was needed to save the grasslands, it was the herd's behaviour in the presence of that predator that changed everything! Incredible, huh?

There are a couple of lessons here, the most obvious of which is that we can never underestimate the power of natural selection and evolution, and how delicately the existence of so many apparently insignificant components of an ecosystem are actually intertwined together; in this case that comes all the way down to the critical role insects such as termites and scavengers play in fertilising and maintaining an ecosystem populated by huge mammals. 

Perhaps the most important lesson, not only in the African savannah but also in the modern jungles of the business world, is how the presence of predators is actually a good thing. Yes, there will be a few who will get eaten alive as part of the natural selection process, and I would argue that this is something that should happen more often in business - not less. Those who are under-performing should be weeded out and replaced with stronger candidates, not moved sideways endlessly, having learnt little and contributing even less. If you ain't essential to maintenance of the ecosystem which you live and work in then selection should dictate your fate. I mean, look at what happens to even grasslands when the population is allowed to wander aimlessly! 

The major single problem I see in business today is the shuffling around of the same set of local names in some kind of circle of incompetence, from one position to another, and one job to another, never appreciated enough to keep around for long, but always being given the reference needed to get the next position - i.e. to get rid of them. There is no more lethal (pardon the pun!) combination than a weak performer and a weak/weaker manager who is incapable of doing their actual job. This is how people mistakenly become overly (overtly?) cocky and begin to feel they have a right to their job, not that their continued existence in it has to be actually earned. Whether the value being created is by fertilizing grasslands or making the company lots of money is irrelevant - the outcome has to be a beneficial one, for all. 

In business and at work, in total analogy with the carnivores and the herbivores, a perceived threat or competitor or even office enemy is not so much a danger to your continued survival; rather, it is a positive, and it should impact your behaviour in a way that is more beneficial to the ecosystem you exist in. We all need to not get too comfortable in our padded swivel chairs in the office and the boardroom, and having our behaviour tweaked by the ongoing presence or proximity of a "predator" actually can keep us at the top of our game. 

I am convinced that many of those who reach "job for life" status become both bored and less productive; we actually need challenge to be "alive". In analogy with the elephants, it's not being eaten by a lion that benefits the ecosystem most - it is the mere presence of that carnivore and the fear of being eaten alive that modifies the herd's behaviour - beneficially. In other words, we need (more) competitors and predators in our life science ecosystem, not less, and if you don't want to compete then step out of the jungle and if you can't stand the heat then get out of the (jungle) kitchen. Both apply! 

Who would have thought that a weekend documentary about African grasslands and the daily struggle to survive could make me think of the city and its business jungle? Well, you know people, we are still animals after all and as advanced as we like to think we are, it is incredible how similar to animals we often are - particularly when threatened or in the face of stiff competition for rather slim pickings. It's a jungle out there my friends, quite literally, so - back to work!

DIY biology, anyone?!

I read a rather provocative article today that questioned the very validity of the apparently secretive and exclusive world of big time science, with the clear implication not hidden between the lines that it is finally time to take science back from actual scientists and put it back out there where it belongs - in the hands of Joe Public. "DIY" used to be reserved for the home renovation genre, but not anymore! Seemingly we are entering (or have already entered?) the era of DIY biology, where essentially anyone who wants to can let out their inner scientist and get to work on saving the world. 

There are a lot of equally provocative buzzwords being bandied around in that article, and elsewhere, including "DIY biology", "synthetic biology","bio hacking", "hacking science", "distributed science", "kitchen counter science", "citizen science" and even the somewhat radical-sounding "democratization of science"! I find most of these terms humorous at best, and downright hilarious at worst, but then again, I might be biased, being a fully paid-up member of that elite club known as actual scientists! 

At the risk of sounding trite, I would point out that membership of that club does not come on a whim, but rather is a result of a lifelong passion, a decade of post-secondary school education, and many years of higher-level training and 24/7 living in wonderful laboratories in four different countries in the world. That is how one becomes eligible to be called a professional scientist, as opposed to someone who got trained in an entirely irrelevant subject but who may have an interest in science. Perhaps unironically, most of the proselytising about the future of science being in peril and needing Joe Public's engagement comes from either non-scientists or amateur would-be scientists. I do have a solution for that predicament, but more on that later. 

Don't get me wrong, the sacrifice and dedication aspect is not unique to science - lawyers, doctors, dentists, athletes, musicians and a whole slew of other career choices all involve a similar paying-of-dues period that often takes many years, more dollars than that, and even more sacrifice, to get there in the end. But we do it ultimately because we want to, and the journey of getting there is actually a lot of fun along the way a lot of the time, not least because there is a goal in mind and we are working towards it. To hear radical rallying-the-troops hyperbole with the message that the future of science, drug discovery and medicine should now be in the hands of amateurs comes across as disingenuous, if not potentially dangerous. 

The very concept that it's 2015, people, and science can now become something that the untrained and under-educated can be let loose on, is something I find quite ridiculous on a bad day. My primary question for the DIY biology "movement" is - why?! Is someone truly saying that a bunch of enthusiastic kids (even if they were mentored by one or two established scientists) can take on the world of professional science and beat it at its own game - all from the comfort of the kitchen sink? It's quite a ridiculous concept, and essentially an impossible one. You can access all the software, hardware and wetware you want but when you don't have an understanding of even the basics - it's called tinkering, not science. 

Believe it or not, it takes more than one senior scientist to make major breakthroughs, usually. That senior scientist needs an experienced and skilled team to expand on his/her vision, and in the best teams, that vision comes from more than one person as well. There are technicians, research assistants, grad students and postdocs all contributing to the mix but they all have some key things in common at their respective levels - education, training and experience. There is a reason why they are present in a given lab, and the same progress simply cannot be achieved with a bunch of scientific neophytes even if directed by a genius.

So in my opinion, the mere idea that one can put together a whole bunch of "amateur scientists" (a kinder way of putting it!) around a country or even the globe, with one real scientist at the helm, and expecting to get somewhere fast is dreaming in technicolour.  Anyone who ever has been involved in real, hardcore research usually learns the hard way that the really hard questions are often excruciatingly hard to answer. And that's after two decades of schooling in the theory and practice of science. Ditto any other challenging profession for that matter. No serious scientist would even have the time (or patience!) to take on a challenging project, and populate it with a selection of amateurs. 

I can understand that it might be somewhat disappointing to suddenly wake up at 25 or 30, after hating science in school and avoiding it like the plague, to realise that it actually does appeal and it is what one should have focused on. I get that completely, it's something that essentially happens to us all at some point or another. But in correlation with the DIY biology "movement", if I wake up tomorrow and want to be a musician or a lawyer, I have to realise that I am lacking in both credibility and training. I cannot just suddenly create a DIY law practice or anoint myself as the next big thing - the DIY rock star - without actually picking up an instrument and learning how it works and how to play it!

But, as long as I restrict myself to being classified as someone who like music as a hobby, or as an amateur lawyer type, there is no harm in it. The danger arrives if I manage to persuade others to believe that I have expertise in it, and to part with their hard-earned cash either as an investor or as a fee for my services. Using the music analogy, there is one massive divide between someone who plays in a band with friends in the local pub on a Friday night and someone who gets contracted (and paid handsomely) by a record company to record and tour their music around the globe. 

One is a professional musician and one is an amateur with a hobby. Ironically though, the disparity in skill set and raw talent might not be as massive as one would imagine between the two, in music, but it is that massive in the case of science. If R&D and drug discovery was an easy thing, then we would all own pharmaceutical companies, or pharmaceutical companies would save even more money by hiring a few hundred DIY biologists at a cheaper price than hiring all those stuffy, expensive PhDs. Right?!

Things have changed; communication tools and technological advances have opened up the world to us all, and some of the barriers and walls have come crashing down, which is a great thing. Change is good, and it should be embraced. But change in and of itself does not allow us to break all the rules and it does not mean that the future of science is DIY biology. DIY car manufacturing or DIY aeroplanes, anyone? I can hear someone screaming that you can now print a car (yes, I saw it!) but I doubt that Ford or Ferrari are trembling in their factories.

For now, the DIY biology "movement" is a nice little hobby for non-scientists with an interest in science, nothing more. For it to gain serious traction, and to stop real scientists from snickering over it, the challenge is clear - beat us at our own game, do something spectacular (preferably three times), and you never know, we might just look up from the lab bench long enough to take notice. Until then, most PhDs probably will remain insulted by the very idea that someone who went to art school should be allowed anywhere near or let loose in any real laboratory. 

I have zero problem with enthusiastic amateur scientists, as long as they realise that's what they are, they are kept away from real laboratories in the institutions they dislike, and don't self-promote their agenda with outrageous statements claiming that virtualising the complicated process of R&D is the new way to find blockbuster drugs. Disruptive technologies are one thing, but disruptive claims are another, and if those claims cannot be backed up by data and examples (something real science relies on!) then credibility becomes the issue and they become destructive. 

But you know, there is a real solution to this burgeoning predicament that has arisen at least in part due to the popularisation and vulgarisation of science. Young people everywhere who went in other directions earlier in life are apparently discovering their "inner scientist", and want to get in on the action. I don't blame them, because I have always known that science was the best game in town, and we all do have one thing in common - I have also practised kitchen laboratory science - when I was 9 and got my first chemistry set for Christmas! 

Sadly, there is no shortcut to real knowledge plus great training, combined with seasoned on-the-job experience. For those considering the DIY biology trend, I have a better solution - go back to school and get a science degree, or three - like most current scientists did. The DIY thingy is just that for now - a trend; and although it may be cold comfort to some, a PhD is never going to go out of fashion, and it will remain the de facto passport into the real world club of high-level science. As much as the world has changed, and is changing, trends will come and go, but a great education and solid work experience will never be replaced by mere trends or by enthusiastic amateurs. Science and scientific research indeed make the world go round, but the term "scientist" has to be earned, not simply adopted.