Pathetic. More concern with money that does not belong to the pathetic scientist because it went to save the life of a species that is not endangered. And where is your humanity? There is an example of why we do not give money to idiots like these.They are morons to start with. They have no humanity, and frankly do not care about anything but their own projects and their own pockets. People like Kusler should beware. Someday the many's needs will outweigh her own. What are you going to do then.

Rather than complain it would have been more producttive to catch the public spirit and guide it in the right direction to be even more productive. Instead the author has completely thrown away such an opportunity.

Researchers asking other researchers what the priorities are is all well and good but I, and my money in my pocket, still does not even know what they are. It's this sort of public failure yet again which makes people just say scientists sometimes live in ivory towers.

What an interesting debate - here is my take on it from a keen conservationist in England.....

If, as human beings, we ain to do only what is "Sensible" and "Right" then we have to start questioning much that we hold dear. Where is the sense in sitting and watching a sunset - would it not be better to do some overtime and devote the money to chartity? What was Beethoven thinking of spending all that time writing his symphonies when he could have been out helping the poor? How can it be sensible to spend time and money learning to hit a golf ball or watch a rugby match when all the effort could be put into doing good in the world. The answer to all these questions is that as the human race deserves some fun!

One last thought to try and put the the debate into perspective - there are infinitely more people in the UK who have heard of Happy Feet the "New Zealand Penguin" than have heard of Wayne Linklater, the senior lecturer at the Centre for Biodiversity and Restoration Ecology, Victoria University. There must be a lesson in there somewhere!

The author has totally missed the point. Rescuing this particular penguin was not "about" saving a living organism from extinction: it was just a normal animal rescue. Any animal rescue organisation will tell you: once you start you don't stop. Vast amounts are spent around the planet on rescuing kittens from drains, dogs from locked houses, cows from ditches etc etc etc. And cats and dogs are certainly not endangered species!! This whole penguin adventure brings back to the forefront of peoples' consciousness the need to protect other species, and the need to be quicker to seek information on the best way to deal with animals that are stranded. It took 4 days for this bird to be rescued, 4 days during which it was swallowing sand - hence the medical treatment. People will know better and act faster next time. That will save money. As a species humans can be very slow to learn, so media exposure speeds the process. Next time it could be 100 displaced penguins.You never know.

Human beings are not on any list of endagered species - far from it - yet the sums that we lavish upon oursleves are disproportionate to our needs (or at least, in regard to those of those of us who are fortunate enough not to live in the 'developing world'). In fact, we are akin to a blight upon our planet and our deeds are all that we have to salvage ourselves. At least actions like this - showing compassion when 'reason' may suggest another course of (in)action - shows how some of us try to add value to our world. Shame on you.

I don't think it's helpful to criticize people's efforts to rescue and rehabilitate wildlife. I think it would have been more helpful had professor Linklater used this opportunity to write about what individual humans can do to conserve the natural resources of this precious planet. Habitat loss, invading exotic species, pollution of air, soil and water are all caused by humans. If he's a conservation expert, use this opportunity to teach us how to conserve and save this planet for all life on earth. The thousands of dollars spent on rescuing "Happy Feet" exist in the first place because people donated them specifically to save "Happy Feet" and it's their choice how they want to spend their money. If HF hadn't swum onto Peka Peka beach the money to rescue him would not have been donated so it's a moot point to argue that it could have been put to better use. People donated to save HF specifically, not towards anything else. HF brought joy to thousands of people, many of them children and that's priceless in my humble opinion. The world would be a sad place if no individual wildlife is rescued because it's more important and worthy to keep our eyes and efforts only on solving the big issues alone. Where's the humanity in that? In order to save the natural resources of this planet, the cooperation and agreement of every person, corporation, and government will be required. Good luck to professor Linklater and to us all for we'll need lots of it to achieve that!

Wait so let me get this straight, just because the animal is not endangered, we're supposed to ignore it and let it suffer? I will agree that nature reserves definitely need more money, but suggesting that we ignore a hurt animal of any kind to obtain such funds is not going to help your cause.

I am glad there are more crazy, emotional folks in New Zealand than Dr. Linklaters. Before I go out and cull some human beings (not an endangered species) - no, I would never do that, really, Happy Feet unwittingly has probably done more to make people, children especially, aware of the world around us than our dear Dr. Linklater is entitled to parsimonious with his own cash; he has no right to dictate how others spend it, number 1. Secondly, on the 'scientific' and 'rational' front. Do we know ALL there is to know about Emperor penguins? I am deeply interested in biodiversity and understand there are many endangered species but saving one attractive bird does not stop us caring or doing ecological good for other creatures, less attractive to humans. Happy Feet may well sow seed that will save, in Linklater's eyes, more deserving cases. I think God loves all creatures and does not walk the earth with a calculator in his hand.

Dmitry #42 , your comment is particularly offensive. Are you saying the value of an animal life is the same as the value of a human life? And that $30,000 is as equally well-spent on a bird as it is on a human? That's some odd 'rationalising'.

KiwiCanuck #40, are alcoholism and cigarette smoking diseases? As to what diseases, what about bird flu?

On a different note, Linklater raises some valid points that that the other news sources haven't covered. Interesting to see some of the more rationale counterpoints in the comments sections.

I have to say that logically, what Wayne says makes sense. The many outweigh the few. Rehabilitating a single penguin when that money could be put towards helping bunches of other endangered species isn't as smart and sensible as the dopamine in your brain makes it feel.