ty — this is important to realize. Both compounds were totally un- 

 foreseen in chemical structure and therapeutic action. What 

 nature holds in store will take centuries to discover. Preserve it 

 now, and we will continue uncovering the likes of FK 506 and iver- 

 mectin. Allow it to vanish, and we will forever be impoverished. 



To the extent that the Endangered Species Act provides a means 

 for monitoring the decline of biodiversity in the United States and 

 a mechanism for saving important habitats where species are 

 threatened, the Act fulfills a vital function. In my judgment, its re- 

 authorization should be a matter of the highest national priority. 



The current hearings, I understand, are intended to focus on 

 plants, and specifically on the medicinal value of plants. I would 

 therefore like to deal briefly with several questions that are often 

 raised in connection with the Endangered Species Act, questions 

 that are particularly relevant to plants, and need to be addressed 

 in chemical terms. 



Why, for instance, should more than one population of a plant be 

 saved? The answer is that, at different portions of their range, or- 

 ganisms tend to differ genetically, and consequently, chemically. 

 Compounds produced by a plant in New England may be absent 

 from its relatives in Georgia. Preserving more than one population 

 of a species is prudent to maximize the chance of discovering new 

 chemicals. 



Why, one is also asked, should a species be preserved in the wild? 

 Could it not be maintained in an artificial setting? Species in un- 

 natural settings may not produce all the chemicals they synthesize 

 in the wild. Plants, in particular, may produce specific compounds 

 only when induced to do so by certain environmental factors, such 

 as infection, parasites, or grazers. Compounds that they produce 

 when thus challenged are often the very ones likely to prove useful 

 to humans. There is, therefore, no appropriate alternative to pre- 

 serving species in the wild. 



Does a plant lose its value once it has been examined chemical- 

 ly? Does it matter if it then becomes extinct? Our chemical knowl- 

 edge of organisms is never exhaustive. Any species contains hun- 

 dreds of compounds of potential interest. In our chemical searches 

 today we find only what current technology enables us to detect 

 and what our state of knowledge tells us to seek. Even species that 

 are well known chemically are bound to contain unknown sub- 

 stances discoverable only by future techniques. Species, in nature, 

 do not become chemically obsolete. 



Species will need to be preserved also for their intrinsic genetic 

 worth. Genes, nowadays, can be envisioned as transferable items. It 

 is becoming increasingly possible to transmit biological capabilities 

 from one organism to another by transference of genes. Genes 

 which in one species, say a plant, encode for production of a hard- 

 to-synthesize medicinal, could some day be transferred to a readily 

 cultured microbe, which would then become the vehicle for indus- 

 trial production of the compound. If for no other reason than to 

 keep such genetic options open, species need to be preserved. Bio- 

 technology is only now coming of age. We are only beginning to ap- 

 preciate its long-range promise. 



My final point concerns some remarkable recent scientific find- 

 ings which suggest that gene flux, the transference of genes from 



