New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Conservation for the People

Pitting nature and biodiversity against people makes little sense. Many conservationists now argue that human health and well-being should be central to conservation efforts

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In 2004 the World Conservation Union placed three vultures—the long-billed, the slender-billed and the Oriental white-backed—on the critically endangered list. Populations of all three reached nearly 40 million in India and South Asia in the early 1990s but had fallen by more than 97 percent. The reasons for saving these vultures from extinction could be framed in familiar terms: we have an ethical obligation to save the world’s biodiversity for its own sake. But the reasons could also be outlined in a less familiar way.

For a long time, observers did not know what was causing the vultures’ decline. Some speculated the culprit was habitat loss or pollution. Several years ago researchers discovered that the birds were being killed by an anti-inflammatory drug, diclofenac, commonly administered to cows. In bovines and humans, the medicine reduces pain; in vultures, it causes renal failure. As the vultures have disappeared, hundreds of thousands of cow carcasses customarily left for the birds have festered in the sun, where they incubate anthrax, according to some reports, and are consumed by dogs. Because of the ready food supply, the feral dog population has exploded—and with it the threat of rabies. Thus, the vultures’ fate may be linked with that of millions of people; saving the vultures from extinction would protect people from dangerous disease.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe