S.Atlantic : Genetic Profiling: It's Time to Invent the Gadget
Submitted by SARTMA.com (Juanita Brock) 06.06.2004 (Current Article)
The idea that genetic profiling, or molecular markers as well as parasitic profiling could be used in an attempt to apprehend poachers is not new.
GENETIC PROFILING: IT’S TIME TO INVENT THE GADGET
By J. Brock (SARTMA)
The idea that genetic profiling, or molecular markers as well as parasitic profiling could be used in an attempt to apprehend poachers is not new. The research began in the late 20th century, though the first application had a significant focus on genetic modifications of certain species of plants and animals for the commercial market. Its use in the detection of locations of fish stocks came as an important off shoot of that work. Genetic and parasitic profiling replaced the notion that the location of fish stocks could be pin pointed by measuring the levels of chemicals, such as PCBs trapped in their blubber and flesh. (Though not being used as much for identifying locations of fish stocks, it is being used to identify ever-increasing concentrations of pollutants that are accumulated in the food chain and is very important research.)
With the arrival in the Falklands of the Nathaniel B Palmer, a research ship chartered by the United States National Science Foundation, the subject has been revived here in the Falklands but with little new to report. One of the researchers on that vessel, Professor Bill Dietrich, is studying the genetic profiling of Patagonian Toothfish in the Southern Ocean and the South Atlantic. He hopes that genetic profiling, or molecular markers will be used in identifying fish that were illegally caught when they are landed in port.
It still remains, as SARTMA reported in March 2003, a viable idea for identifying the location where fish of the same species have been taken. Scientific work in the area of genetic profiling of different stocks of the same species has been ground breaking. It has reached a plateau, in that authorities can begin thinking about using it to apprehend poachers with illegal cargos of stolen fish. What is disappointing is the lack of research and practical application into the types of equipment that can cost-effectively and efficiently test fish for genetic makeup. While this work into identifying genetic make-up of various fish stocks of the same species is still on going, it’s time to think about inventing the mechanism that would test, beyond a doubt, the location where fish in a vessel’s hold were purloined.
Research into apprehension and prosecution of vessels and crew suspected of stealing fish, by using this method of detection still has to be completed. However, because various Patagonian Toothfish stocks are nearly commercially extinct, this research needs to be concluded sooner, rather than later. Legal work needs to be fine-tuned so that genetic evidence is watertight in court. Though much will be learned in the South Atlantic and the well-patrolled waters around the Falklands and South Georgia, genetic profiling of fish in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean is in its infancy. One might be able to bring about a prosecution by elimination – proving that the fish did not come from the Falklands or South Georgia - but it is always best to have the exact genetic information in court.
To say “we are on to something” is putting it mildly. If every landed cargo could be efficiently and cost effectively genetically tested, it would go a long way towards apprehending thieves who are vacuuming a rare species of fish to extinction. Hopefully lessons learned on one species will help other fisheries to apprehend people who are poaching from their economic zones.
|
