Malformed Frogs: The Collapse of Aquatic Ecosystems

Introduction

INTRODUCTION It is always easier to identify problems than to construct solutions. stephen jay gould1 As a cultural phenomenon it began in the summer of 1995 in south-central Minnesota, with school kids on a field trip.2 While exploring a rural wetland , Cindy Reinitz and her junior high school students discovered a large number of northern leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) that were having trouble jumping. When normal frogs with two good hind legs jump they maintain control in the air and land on their hands and their chest. But the leopard frogs these kids were finding had missing legs or missing parts of legs, and when leopard frogs with only one good leg jump, they oftentimes lose control, twist, and land on their backs, exposing the whites of their bellies. Walk along the edge of a wetland with jumping malformed leopard frogs and it appears to your brain as if you’ve gotten punched in the nose—you see a lot of flashes of white. Next to the morning sickness drug thalidomide,3 and perhaps Hooker Chemical Company’s dump site at Love Canal4 (both of which affected humans), no environmental tragedy causing grotesque bodies or body parts has grabbed society’s preoccupation with itself and shaken it quite like the malformed frog phenomenon. Malformed frogs penetrated the American consciousness and perhaps, ever so slightly, its conscience. As expected, there were political ramifications. Between 1998 and 2000, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt created the U.S. Geological Survey’s Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI),5 not so much (as is generally thought) in response to the larger problem of amphibian 1 declines as to the widespread presence of frog malformations and the fear they were causing among society at large. A society in comfort can ignore, even dismiss, science as a tool for creating health and well being. But a society in crisis, frightened and facing illness, not only looks to science for answers, but demands answers from science (this behavior of societies is in striking contrast to the behavior of individuals, who often seek comfort in organized religion). The discovery by Cindy Reinitz’ students was quickly followed by scores of other, similar reports. The malformed frog problem reached a tipping point and became a phenomenon. Society panicked—the State of Minnesota began distributing bottled water to families perceived to be in harm’s way—and turned to science for answers. In his book, “Triangle: The Fire that Changed America,” David von Drehle points out (p. 197):6 “A century ago, the idea of tackling social problems by collecting facts—as opposed to scriptural passages or philosophical tenets—was groundbreaking.” The wilderness advocate and spiritualist Sigurd Olson voiced this same sentiment when he echoed Aldo Leopold in noting (p. 250):7 “Science has made one contribution to culture which seems to me permanent and good: the critical approach to questions of fact.” Indeed, no single idea has changed humanity, or the face of the Earth for that matter, more than the notion of a scientific method. The scientific method applied to medicine8 created not only the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, but also the model of Johns Hopkins that was, in the early portion of the twentieth century, applied to all accredited U.S. medical schools. This model still holds today.9 Modern, scientific-based medicine applied throughout the world has lowered infant deaths, raised life expectancy (mostly because fewer kids are dying, not because healthy people are living longer) and created the human population boom that more than anything else drove both the excitement and the apprehension of the twentieth century. The scientific method at its most basic (and as I learned it in sixth grade, when teaching science in America meant teaching science) consists of: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formation, and (3) hypothesis testing. A simple concept, but it contains some nuances. For example, in a society ostensibly based on faith, the notion that facts trump ideas can be startling ; so much so that we often need reminders to keep our objectivity on course. The famed teacher and author, Norman Maclean writes 2 introduction (p. 137):10 “. . . science start[s] and end[s] in observation, and theory should always be endangered by it.” The agnostic and antagonistic Thomas Henry Huxley (also known as “Darwin’s bulldog”) said the same thing more succinctly when referring to Herbert Spencer’s notion of Social Darwinism (p...