::: Welcome to Conservation Genome Resource Bank for Korean Wildlife :::
 
17_c.gif ¹®ÇåÁ¤º¸
17_c.gif ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°°ü·Ã ÀÚ·á ¹× ¼Ò½Ä
17_c.gif Á¾Á¤º¸
17_c.gif º¸ÀüÀ¯ÀüÇÐ/º¸Àü»ý¹°ÇÐ ÀÚ·á
17_c.gif ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°ÀÇÇÐ ¼Ò½Ä ¹× ÀÚ·á
  - õ¿¬±â³ä¹°ÀÇ ´ë»ó
sound.gif °¶·¯¸®
sound.gif ÀÚÀ¯°Ô½ÃÆÇ (¿¾³¯ °Ô½ÃÆÇ)
sound.gif °ü·Ã»çÀÌÆ®
sound.gif ÀÚ·á½Ç
sound.gif Ã£¾Æ¿À½Ã´Â ±æ
¾ß»ýµ¿¹°ÀÇÇÐ ¼Ò½Ä ¹× ÀÚ·á

View Article
Name
  ¿î¿µÀÚ 2005-02-15 13:27:23 | Hit : 11995 | Vote : 4997
Subject   [ÀÚ·á] ³ì»ö ¼öÀÇ»ç
Á¦¸ñ : "Should the Vet, and Not Just the Wellies, be Green?"

The paper by Marc Artois and colleagues in this issue of The Veterinary Journal (Artois et al., 2001) lays down a challenge to veterinarians individually and as a profession. That infections of wildlife can have
consequences for public and/or livestock health is a matter of fact. That infectious diseases of wildlife can have conservation consequences is equally obvious. Furthermore, these are issues of great public interest – badgers and bovine TB and the role of
wildlife in FMD transmission are both politically charged issues in the UK as we write. Yet the scientific effort to understand infections in wildlife is (with a few exceptions, of course) often small-scale,
reactive and devoid of veterinary input. Worse still, when veterinary input is there, it is often perceived as being biased towards support of the animal industries rather than independent and science-based.

Àüü ¹®¼­ º¸±â : ¹Ù·Î°¡±â
 Prev   [ÀÚ·á] ¿µ±¹¿¡¼­ Àü¿°¼º Áúº´ÀÇ ÀúÀå°í·Î¼­ ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°
¿î¿µÀÚ
  2005/02/15 
 Next   [ÀÚ·á] Çؾç»ý¹°ÀÇ ½ÅÁ¾Áúº´-±âÈÄ¿ÍÀÇ ¿¬°ü¼º ¹× Àΰ£¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ¿äÀÎ
¿î¿µÀÚ
  2005/02/15 


Copyright 1999-2024 Zeroboard / skin by daerew
151-742 ¼­¿ïƯº°½Ã °ü¾Ç±¸ ½Å¸²9µ¿ »ê56-1 ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ ¼öÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ 85µ¿ 802È£
Tel 02-888-2744, Fax 02-888-2754, E-mail cgrb@cgrb.org

Copyright © 2002-2004 CGRB All Rights Reserved