Endangerment and Likeability of Wildlife Species: How Important are they for Payments Proposed for Conservation?

This paper examines empirically the relative influence of the degree of endangerment of wildlife species and their stated likeability on individuals' allocation of funds for their conservation. To do this, it utilises data obtained from the IUCN Red List, and likeability and fund allocation data obtained from two serial surveys of a sample of the Australian public who were requested to assess 24 Australian wildlife species from three animal classes: mammals, birds and reptiles. Between the first and second survey, respondents were provided with extra information about the focal species. This information resulted in the dominance of endangerment as the major influence on the allocation of funding of respondents for the conservation of the focal wildlife species. Our results throw doubts on the proposition in the literature that the likeability of species is the dominant influence on willingness to pay for conservation of wildlife species. Furthermore, because the public's allocation of fund for conserving wildlife species seems to be more sensitive to information about the conservation status of species than to factors influencing their likeability, greater attention to providing accurate information about the former than the latter seems justified. Keywords: Conservation of wildlife species; Contingent valuation; Endangerment of species; Likeability of species; Willingness to pay

No evidence for association of ataxia-telangiectasia mutated gene T2119C and C3161G amino acid substitution variants with risk of breast cancer

Background There is evidence that certain mutations in the double-strand break repair pathway ataxia-telangiectasia mutated gene act in a dominant-negative manner to increase the risk of breast cancer. There are also some reports to suggest that the amino acid substitution variants T2119C Ser707Pro and C3161G Pro1054Arg may be associated with breast cancer risk. We investigate the breast cancer risk associated with these two nonconservative amino acid substitution variants using a large Australian population-based case–control study. Methods The polymorphisms were genotyped in more than 1300 cases and 600 controls using 5' exonuclease assays. Case–control analyses and genotype distributions were compared by logistic regression. Results The 2119C variant was rare, occurring at frequencies of 1.4 and 1.3% in cases and controls, respectively (P = 0.8). There was no difference in genotype distribution between cases and controls (P = 0.8), and the TC genotype was not associated with increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 1.08, 95% confidence interval = 0.59–1.97, P = 0.8). Similarly, the 3161G variant was no more common in cases than in controls (2.9% versus 2.2%, P = 0.2), there was no difference in genotype distribution between cases and controls (P = 0.1), and the CG genotype was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval = 0.85–1.98, P = 0.2). This lack of evidence for an association persisted within groups defined by the family history of breast cancer or by age. Conclusion The 2119C and 3161G amino acid substitution variants are not associated with moderate or high risks of breast cancer in Australian women.