Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate your responses on these posts.
On the birds' study, one of the scientists that they interviewed said that you have to sensationalize it if you want to get published by one of the major publications. That's a bit disturbing, even beyond the hype on this particular study.
On hypoimmunogenic cells, the article briefly alluded to part of the problem you describe. They did say that it runs the risk of creating cells with no mechanism for the body to stop them from growing, but glossed over it as a problem that will eventually be solved.
Hypoimmunogenicity remarkably facilitates incurable cancers, teratomas, and infectious disease of every conceivable type. Drug resistance is exponentially rising already, and it is pollyannish to expect this hypoimmunogenicity to be easy to toss into the mix without existentially impacting the problem.
Sensationalism sells, and that's a fact. The use of PR firms does not counter this trend. It is the culmination of it, and it is unlikely given habitat loss that native species aren't being reduced in population. The current problem of replicability of research is an expected result of publication for sensational impact, which strongly suggests the bird study in question is exactly an example of that problem.
I'm glad you made these points on hypoimmunogenicity . It definitely changes my perspective on the article. Thanks!
I agree with this:
Like Todd Arnold said, the discussion just needs more nuance. From what I can tell, there are at least 4 different categories: (i) Invasive species that wildlife managers are actively trying to reduce or eliminate; (ii) Birds that thrive on farmland, whose numbers are reduced because forests and prairies are being returned to nature as compared to 1970; (iii) Native non-farmland birds that are numerous enough not to be threatened as a species; and (iv) Native non-farmland birds with small enough populations that the reduction of numbers threatens the species.
IMO, that last group is the one that should be getting the attention, not the headline number of 2.9 billion birds.
I suspect (ii) are not doing well either. Since 1970 sweeping changes in farmland management have been undertaken in the USA, as across the world. Numbers of Red-Legged Partridge have dropped by ~75% in a decade in France, for example. Declines in insects have greatly reduced insectivorous species, while glyphosate is ubiquitous, and foliage is doused in it, affecting herbivores. If it weren't for hedgerows/windbreaks, we'd have no birds at all in Iowa and Nebraska, I reckon.
When haying was done by hand, birds nesting on clutches of young hidden in the grass were able to flee the scythe. The only species that survive today are those that do not do so, as mechanical harvest of grasses does not afford them a chance to escape anymore. [I am not advocating returning to hand mowing. Just raising the blades to 6" or so, which leaves enough depth of stubble to allow almost all birds to survive by crouching, an instinctive reaction of prey species].
Glad to know I have been an impetus to think.
Thanks!