“You can look at [healing soil] as an old wives’ tale and decide it’s all just superstition, or you can check into it thoroughly to see if there’s anything in the soil that produces antibiotics. I prefer to check.”

– Jerry Quinn in “Nature’s Pharmacy” in Smithsonian Magazine

To paraphrase Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman, the problems of academic work are almost never in what investigators are attending to: it’s in their assumptions. This is a critical point. Let’s look at a specific example.

In Viruses Vol. 6, No. 12, Dec 2014 on p. 5105, an elegant discussion of species-specific immunity to phocine distemper virus (PDV) follows up on the virulent epidemics that have killed so many seals in the North and Baltic Seas (and that the Centers for Disease Control has been tracking, Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol 10, No. 4, April 2004). The intricacies of the immune responses detailed in the Viruses review article would have been unimaginable half a century ago. The data are many, protean, and reported with clarity. Is there a problem with the information presented? I doubt it.

But let’s look at what this sophisticated approach left out.

At first, the authors seem to say nothing about environmental factors. But wait! Buried near the end of the article is this statement: “Higher mortality was seen in the fast-growing European populations where animals are not likely to be in poor condition, suggesting that other factors such as immunogenetic differences or immunotoxic effects of persistent organic pollutants may be at play.” What?

In reference #200, by Hall, Jepson, Goodman, and Härkönen, several statements jump out as relevant to the big picture: “The most compelling evidence for an effect of contaminants on harbor seal immunity was reported following an experiment in captivity… immunity was found to be depressed in the contaminant-fed group.” And, “The effects of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) exposure on innate immunity in harbor and gray seals [affected] harbor seals at the higher exposures.”

The related conclusion? “Risk assessment models that also incorporate interactions with anthropogenic factors, such as environmental contaminants, will indicate where efforts to reduce exposure should be directed.” No mention of the tendency of fishermen to win the competition for a catch by killing harbor seals. We are left to guess.

Back in the Viruses article, the statement is made that “extinction risk is understandably more serious for populations that are declining due to other factors.” Tracing this to reference #223 leads to the conclusion by Lonergan, Duck, Thompson, et al. that: “Further investigation will be required to determine whether the effects are natural or anthropogenic.” But what is truly natural in the Anthropocene? The PDV epidemics seem to be traced back to damaged harbor seals who live in polluted waters. Or, to put it in academic speak, more studies are needed.

But where will the big picture be published? Where is the journal Imperilment by Humans of Life on Earth that puts together the work on terrestrial to aquatic spread of phocine distemper virus with the poisoning of humans by humans?

Let’s hope that emergence gets its journal. If you’re interested in starting one, join the Doctors of Life International community on Evolve Medicine—take all the courses and find like-minded, action-oriented peers who value a living future above all else.