Unbeknownst to me, my Save the Guinea Worm Foundation website was stirring up controversy last week among some of the more powerful and influential members of the world's public health industry. A friend just forwarded me a copy of a lengthy email exchange between members of the World Health Organization and the CDC, who were apparently concerned that it represented a crackpot voice of opposition preparing to tilt at their windmills.

I read the messages with a growing sense of incredulity. A whole gaggle of folks at WHO appeared to have been completely fooled by the site. Since the language and mechanisms of nonprofit public health world were among the site's soft targets, I felt a measure of pleasure in the fact that the Foundation had come across as believable to those inside the system. In their eyes, the clunky 1997 design of the old site may have served to accentuate its crackpot authenticity.

What was most fascinating was one expert's treatise that the Save the Guinea Worm's fundamental issue -- that our decisions about which species deserve to live are based entirely on latent self-interest -- had a certain validity. Apparently, WHO has considered the possibility that their Guinea Worm eradication efforts might run afoul of a United Nations resolution forbidding the destruction of an endangered species. They had managed to avoid this problem by agreeing on an ethical end-run around the issue -- supposedly, it didn't run afoul of the UN resolution because only the species of Guinea Worm that infects people is being destroyed -- but even the writer clearly felt they were winking solemnly at each other as they said this. Clearly there continued to be some concern that the issue would come up again in a public forum.

Shortly afterward, a member of the email exchange reported -- with almost palpable relief -- that on further research, they had discovered the Foundation might not be entirely credible.

After the magic of having fooled so many people began to wear off, I began to get a bit peeved. It sounded like some very intelligent people had chosen to turn a blind eye to the issues involved in destroying the pathetic Guinea Worm. Anyone willing to take on the mantle of custodian for the world's species shouldn't be shrugging off extermination lightly. Clearly they did not support the UN resolution that all animal species must be protected, because they were busily nuking the last remaining members of one of them. If we can all agree that animals that cause disfiguring diseases should be purged from planet earth, then let's just say that, instead of undermining and rendering useless a resolution that might otherwise be a powerful statement. Moreover, it appeared that the intelligent and powerful people who had debated my site were shitting where they were eating.

It reminded me of when I went to a presentation on the city's efforts to combat rats. After reviewing the many means by which rats were being trapped and poisoned, one of the council members in attendance mentioned that he was also working to strengthen the District's laws against animal cruelty. I can accept the idea that some species' interests rub up unpleasantly against those of humanity, but it was pretty clear by then that urban rats are only marginally different from the other, cuter animals we see as pets. As unintentional as our relationship with them may be, rats depend on nurturing feedings (in the form of our constant trash excreta) much the same way that Fluffy and Fido depend on their daily stinky bowl of Friskies. Let's not delude ourselves about our benevolent global leadership until we're prepared to debate why one animal that depends on us deserves protection and another does not.