pandemic, it might be that we learn to take
seriously the idea that humans aren’t apart
from the natural environment, but a part
of it, says Steve Unwin at the University of
Birmingham, UK. He is a veterinarian who
works with wildlife regularly infected by
pathogens from humans. “We often put
humans at the end of a chain, but we are part
of a web of spillover. Pathogens don’t know
directions,” he says. That is well understood in
scientific circles, but we will only get better at
reducing the risk of pandemics if this realisation
spreads to governments, too, he says.
Beyond that, we need to fundamentally
rethink our interactions with animals
and how we are changing their habitats.
“Nature is unpredictable. We tend to get
very narrow – you know, we’ve got to stop
SARS-CoV-3,” says Redding. “But actually, we’ve
got to think broadly about how we interact
with animals and how we disturb landscapes.”
His research suggests that misplaced
responses to the covid-19 pandemic – such
as a backlash against bats that led to their
culling – would simply disturb environments
and make matters worse. A simple positive
step, however, would be to stop our removal
of predators that check the numbers of
disease-carrying species such as rodents.
Ecological restoration – creating more
protected areas, allowing forests to regrow –
is also key. The UN has designated this the
Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Now
we need governments to step up and take
action to make that happen. “One of the
big frontiers is to what degree we can
restore habitats,” says Keesing.
Decisions that individuals make in all parts
of the world can play their part, too. As Daszak
points out, encroachment of people into
biodiverse areas is largely to supply demand
for goods in richer countries, be it palm oil from
Malaysia and Indonesia or meat from cattle
ranches in South America. “We are sleepwalking
into these disasters. We just need to open our
eyes about the decisions that we make,” says
Redding. “People consuming make decisions
that impact the likelihood of future spillovers.”He suggests shifting to more plant-based
diets as one step people can take. “It’s all the
choices that we make: what we eat, what we
wear,” says David Quammen, author of the
2012 book Spillover. There are signs some
governments in richer countries are stepping
in the right direction, putting checks or
bans on the import of goods that disrupt
ecosystems. In November, the UK passed
a law to that effect. Pressure is on the
European Union to do similar.
For now, research on the links between our
destruction of nature and emerging diseases is
growing fast. It is also nascent and sometimes
woolly: Redding likens the science to where
we were in the 1970s on climate change. But
we don’t need to wait: there are a multitude
of other reasons to protect habitats and
biodiversity, from the fresh water they provide
to the carbon they store. It is rather like the
point made by a famous 2009 cartoon, where
a delegate at a climate summit asks: “What
if it’s a big hoax and we create a better world
for nothing?”. As Redding puts it: “What’s
the downside of trying to better protect
ecosystems and keep them more intact?” ❚Adam Vaughan is chief reporter
for New Scientist“ The covid-19
pandemic
was inevitable
and will
happen again if
decisive actions
aren’t taken to
protect nature”
FLETC
HE
R^ &BAYL
IS/
SC
IENCE
PHOT
O^ LIBRAR
YThe horseshoe bat
(Rhinolophus affinis)
harbours the closest
known relative to
the SARS-CoV-2 virus6 March 2021 | New Scientist | 45