Flu: no sign so far that the human pandemic is spread by pigsSIR — Further to your Editorial

‘Animal farm: pig in the middle’

(Nature 459, 889; 2009), the

World Organisation for Animal

Health (OIE) would like to clarify

what is understood so far about

how animals are associated with

the human influenza A/H1N1

pandemic.

Although the human H1N1

virus contains gene sequences

that have been identified in

influenza viruses from swine,

these are not present in exactly

the same combination. The OIE

has encouraged its members

to intensify surveillance of pigs

for infection, but there has

been no evidence so far that

swine are playing any role in the

epidemiology or in the worldwide

spread of the virus in the human

population. It is likely that we shall

never know the specific origin of

this pandemic virus.

As you mention, the OIE has

campaigned against calling

the human disease ‘swine flu’.

Although the World Health

Organization (WHO), the

UN Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) and

the OIE have since agreed

officially to rename the virus

‘pandemic (H1N1) 2009’,

common use of the misleading

term ‘swine flu’ is in danger of

continuing. This initially prompted

several countries to ban import

of pigs and pig products or to

destroy all their pig populations,

without any benefit to public

or animal health. It could cause

further economic harm, in the

same way that the H5N1 ‘avian

flu’ crisis of 2004 unnecessarily

triggered a drop in people’s

consumption of poultry products.

Such an unjustified disruption of

trade would affect small farmers

and animal producers around the

world, more than a billion of whom

are already living in poverty.

In 2005, the FAO and OIE set

up a joint network of expertise on

animal influenza. The network,

OFFLU, was created to help the

WHO obtain rapid access to

circulating animal viruses for

the early preparation of human

vaccines. After the emergence of

the pandemic virus in humans,

OFFLU called for laboratories

worldwide to aid public health by

publicly sharing gene sequences

of influenza virus identified in

swine. As a result, it is proposed to

expand the current OIE reference

laboratories for avian influenza to

cover all animal influenza viruses

and to increase research on the

behaviour of these viruses at the

human–animal interface.

The OIE will continue to

advise its members and the

public on the control of potential

zoonotic diseases, for example

Helping young scientists to speak for themselvesSIR — As you indicate in your

Editorial ‘Cheerleader or

watchdog?’ (Nature 459, 1033;

2009), the quality of science

journalism could be improved by

better communication between

scientists and the media. We

should encourage this valuable

skill in scientists at the outset.

I help an international team

of high-school students to

manage an online journal, Young

Scientists, which is entirely

written by people aged 12–20. To

our knowledge, Young Scientists

(www.ysjournal.com) is the only

peer-reviewed science journal for

school-aged students. Articles

range from reviews of current

hot topics to scholarly pieces of

original research.

Many youngsters are now

involved in scientific research,

and at an increasingly early

age — as demonstrated by the

proliferation of science fairs

around the world. Sadly,

communication of all this

promising work suffers because,

once these bright young

scientists have exhibited and

gone home, their work goes with

them. They need more

opportunities to publish and

share their ideas — before

science journalists who are not

scientists try to do their

communication for them.

Science journalism is making

increasing use of online media,

which includes social networking

sites. Who better to embrace it

than our young scientists? If we

can engender in them a critical

perspective on the way science

is reported and encourage them

to participate in the process

themselves, then we can look

forward to a generation of

scientists proficient at weighing

up evidence and articulate in

communicating it.

Christina Astin Physics Department, The King’s School, Canterbury, Kent CT1 2ES, UKe-mail: cma@kings-school.co.uk

Small but effective moves towards a greener China SIR — Your Editorial ‘Raising

the standards’ (Nature 459, 1033–1034; 2009) reports on

the pressure being imposed by

non-governmental organizations

on China’s local governments

to provide the public with more

information about pollution. There

is encouraging evidence that even

a small organization can have an

impact in this domain.

Ten years ago, there was hardly

any environmental enforcement

by civil society or by the markets

in China. In 1999–2000, the

World Bank collaborated on a

pilot programme with the Chinese

Academy of Environmental

Planning, Nanjing University,

the Zhenjiang Environmental

Protection Bureau in Jiangsu

Province and the Hohhot

Academy of Environmental

Sciences in Inner Mongolia. This

experiment, aimed at publicizing

information about environmental

performance, was run in Hohhot

and Zhenjiang. Although the

programme was halted at the

end of the pilot phase in Hohhot,

it was sustained in Zhenjiang.

Despite the top leadership’s

intention to clean up China’s

environment, the evaluation

system is biased towards

economic development. A

push from the bottom is badly

needed to attract the attention

of local governments to the

environment.

The Pollution Information

Transparency Index now has wide

geographical coverage, and efforts

are continuing by the Natural

Resources Defense Council

by strengthening veterinary

infrastructure and stepping

up surveillance and reporting

capabilities in all countries,

regardless of their trade potential.

Bernard Vallat World Organisation for Animal Health, 12 rue de Prony, 75017 Paris, Francee-mail: b.vallat@oie

683

NATURE|Vol 460|6 August 2009 OPINION

CORRESPONDENCE

683-684 Correspondence.indd 683683-684 Correspondence.indd 683 3/8/09 17:00:283/8/09 17:00:28

© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

and the Institute of Public and

Environmental Affairs in Beijing.

So we have every reason to look

forward to more informed public

participation in environmental

issues, stimulating local

governments to embark on

a path to a greener China.

Wanxin Li City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China, and Tsinghua Graduate School at Shenzhen, Shenzhen, Chinae-mail: wanxili@cityu.edu.hk

Human uniqueness and the denial of deathSIR — Marc Hauser’s Horizons

article ‘The possibility of

impossible cultures’ (Nature 460, 190–196; 2009) carries an implicit

assumption that cardinal aspects

of human uniqueness arose by

positive natural selection because

they were beneficial to ancestral

hominins. But this may not be the

whole story.

Among key features of

human uniqueness are full self-

awareness and ‘theory of mind’,

which enables inter-subjectivity

— an understanding of the

intentionality of others (see, for

example, N. J. Emory and N. S.

Clayton Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 87–113; 2009). These attributes

may have been positively selected

because of their benefits to

interpersonal communication,

cooperative breeding, language

and other critical human activities.

However, the late Danny

Brower, a geneticist from the

University of Arizona, suggested

to me that the real question is why

they should have emerged in only

one species, despite millions of

years of opportunity. Here,

I attempt to communicate

Brower’s concept.

He explained that with full self-

awareness and inter-subjectivity

would also come awareness of

death and mortality. Thus, far

from being useful, the resulting

overwhelming fear would be a

dead-end evolutionary barrier,

curbing activities and cognitive

functions necessary for survival

and reproductive fitness. Brower

suggested that, although many

species manifest features of self-

awareness (including orangutans,

chimpanzees, orcas, dolphins,

elephants and perhaps magpies),

the transition to a fully human-like

phenotype was blocked for tens of

millions of years of mammalian

(and perhaps avian) evolution.

In his view, the only way these

properties could become positively

selected was if they emerged

simultaneously with neural

mechanisms for denying mortality.

Although aspects such as denial

of death and awareness of mortality

have been discussed as contributing

to human culture and behaviour

(E. Becker The Denial of Death; Free

Press, 1973), to my knowledge

Brower’s concept of a long-

standing evolutionary barrier had

not previously been entertained.

Brower’s contrarian view could

help modify and reinvigorate

ongoing debates about the

origins of human uniqueness

and inter-subjectivity. It could

also steer discussions of other

uniquely human ‘universals’, such

as the ability to hold false beliefs,

existential angst, theories of after-

life, religiosity, severity of grieving,

importance of death rituals, risk-

taking behaviour, panic attacks,

suicide and martyrdom.

If this logic is correct, many

warm-blooded species may

have previously achieved

complete self-awareness and

inter-subjectivity, but then

failed to survive because of the

extremely negative immediate

consequences. Perhaps we should

be looking for the mechanisms

(or loss of mechanisms) that

allow us to delude ourselves and

others about reality, even while

realizing that both we and others

are capable of such delusions

and false beliefs.

Ajit Varki 9500 Gilman Drive, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0687, USAe-mail: a1varki@ucsd.edu

Mystery ape: a call for taxonomic rigourSIR — The Essay by Russell

Ciochon on ‘The mystery ape

of Pleistocene Asia’ (Nature

459, 910–911; 2009) and the

accompanying News story ‘Early

man becomes early ape’ (Nature

459, 899; 2009) announce that

Ciochon has changed his mind

about the taxonomic assignment

of a 1.9-million-year-old hominoid

partial jaw. But on what evidence

is this reassignment based?

Whereas Ciochon and his

colleagues originally considered

the fossil on the Homo line (W.

Huang et al. Nature 378, 275–278;

1995), Ciochon now thinks it

represents a “mystery ape” and

that there is a group of them out

there waiting to be discovered.

Although the News story

included a photo and illustration

of the fossil, I was unable to

discern any evidence in either

piece for taxonomic justification

of the reassignment. I’m not a

hominid expert so I’m not

qualified to agree or disagree;

I would just like to know if there

are any anatomical characters —

‘synapomorphies’, in systematic

parlance — that form the basis for

this revised judgement, as one

would expect for any taxon. If this

is merely going with what other

people thought, it is unclear why it

Mystery ape: other fossils suggest that it’s no mystery at allSIR — Russell Ciochon, in his

Essay ‘The mystery ape of

Pleistocene Asia’ (Nature 459, 910–911; 2009), makes passing

reference to the Late Miocene

ape Lufengpithecus, which is

known from Lufeng in the Chinese

province of Yunnan. Ciochon then

immediately discounts the

significance of Lufengpithecus

because “the age was wrong”.

This assumption, however, leads

up a blind alley.

Ciochon and his colleagues

initially ascribed the teeth of a

fossil found at Longgupo — in

neighbouring Sichuan province —

to Homo (W. Huang et al. Nature

378, 275–278; 1995). Now he

proposes a “mystery ape” to

account for the Longgupo

specimen and other similar

material he recently observed

in southern China.

He dismisses the possibility

that these remains belong to

descendants of Lufengpithecus.

Yet it seems very likely that they

do. The fauna recovered from

Lufeng and Yuanmou, also in

Yunnan — which have produced

abundant fossils of Lufengpithecus

— have also produced faunal

remains directly ancestral to the

Stegodon–Ailuropoda fauna of

Pleistocene southern China

(Z. Q. He and L. P. Jia (eds)

Yuanmou Hominoid Fauna;

Yunnan Science and

Technology, 1997).

As both the Pleistocene

apes Gigantopithecus and Pongo

of southern China assuredly

had Miocene antecedents, then

so did Ciochon’s mystery ape.

Given their morphological and

dimensional similarities, there

is every reason to suspect

that the mystery ape is none

other than a descendant of

Lufengpithecus, as originally

proposed (for example, D. A. Etler

et al. Hum. Evol. 16, 1–12; 2001).

Mystery solved.

Dennis A. Etler Anthropology Department, Cabrillo College, Aptos, California 95003, USAe-mail: deetler@cabrillo.edu

is considered newsworthy.

Could one not certify what

synapomorphies this fossil

possesses, and place it at

that particular node on the

phylogenetic tree? Uncertain

characters could then suggest

further refinement if more

information comes to light. How

can one know that there was a

“diversity” of Pleistocene mystery

apes in southeast Asia without

this kind of systematic rigour?

Kevin Padian Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USAe-mail: kpadian@berkeley.edu

“Agents can be made to behave something like real people: prone to error, bias, fear

and other foibles.” Joshua M. Epstein

684

NATURE|Vol 460|6 August 2009OPINION

683-684 Correspondence.indd 684683-684 Correspondence.indd 684 3/8/09 17:00:293/8/09 17:00:29

© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved