Well, finally, here we go!
The cool thing about running your own blog is that you can pretty much say what you want and get away with it. Well, that’s over! If you disagree, don’t let me get away with it! You can’t learn if you aren’t challenged and, guess what, neither can I!
I’m pretty much an over the edge animal lover. Yes, I know I’m a carnivore, but I keep thinking that the problem is a general lack of respect; respect for the life that is given up so we can have our tasty tailgate, yes; but more, a lack of respect for the sentience of these creatures that we steward. So a couple of years ago, I’m sitting in Dr. Mike Ellerbrock’s class on life science ethics and they start talking about a new type of chicken that is “being developed.” It has no nervous system (so no pain?), no head (so no brain, thus no fear?). It’s basically a sack of edible “chicken.” As you can imagine, the discussion as to the ethics of such a move got pretty interesting!
As the class contemplated whether this approach was right or wrong, I began drifting into my materials engineering life. Couldn’t we create a true simulant to mimic the behavior of disease, tumors, whatever, in the human body? Couldn’t we be the ones who challenge the strong and mighty “animal sacrifice” industry that lobbies strongly in Washington for the experimentation and destruction of life for the sake of medical advancement? Especially when that advancement doesn't seem to need the type of data that is being generated.
Why must we force sentient being to undergo torture, or even just neglect, so we can feel better, live longer, wear nicer make-up, play football in a better helmet, etc.? We’re pretty clever. Why not come up with a simulant for our body parts and love our fellow creatures? Is “sacrifice” worth the cost?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAfter I posted this comment I just clicked on the name which was "Unknown" then Edit profile ant the top right corner and I was able to change my name. you can also add your VT email so you can get notified with the blog activity.
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to post without leaving your name, please create an alias. However, if you are using the blog as an assessment, I'll need to know your "code name."
ReplyDeleteFood for thought
ReplyDeleteAdamantium is a fictional, indestructible metal alloy that was used for wolverine's claws in the X-men series. This alloy bonded to wolverines bones and was able to be controlled by him. If we had the opportunity today to create such a substance, what would that ideal substance be? and why?
What could it be used for?
An excellent question, if I could create something like that I would of course want it to be a very strong metal. I was looking in to it and I think I would want it to be Titanium because its light weight, so I'd still be able to swim, but it would also have great strength too.
DeleteI think really the only market for that type of idea would be for people that just want to be super boss and awesome. I would of course use it for myself because of how boss and awesome I would like to be.
If the substance had the same healing capabilities as Wolverine then it would have a much larger market and everybody would want it. I'm not sure how the healing capabilities would fit in to Materials Science Engineering.
A titanium alloy would probably be the ideal choice. Having a coating of ceramic would be beneficial to help with repetitive wear.
DeleteWhat's the environment that houses his claws? If it's bone, wouldn't a ceramic coating on the titanium wear down the structure?
DeleteDoes it have to be metal alloy? How about graphene that is about 200 times stronger than steel.
DeleteGraphene, an extremely thin structure of pure carbon, has apparently the ability to interact with DNA
and might be applied in “modeling” cell membranes. It would add strength to claws and reduce their size.
I would like to comment on the argument methods used in your previous posts. Throughout the entry you claim that animals are sentient but fail to back this up with evidence. You should strengthen your arguments by adding some sort of definition of sentience and then explain why that definition should be applied to animals. If you want to really strength your defense you should also explain why sentience precludes an entity from being tortured.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Brad! I'll give this some thought and provide a reply base in fact rather than on the deep emotion I have for this topic.
ReplyDeleteI think if the proper amount of work and research funding was put into finding a solution, a platform that simulates 95-99% of human characteristics related to disease interaction could be created. That doesn't seem too obscure of a goal to me, but the problem I have is how you would simulate life in that platform. By life I mean the dynamics of an entire functioning human body working as one and also the stresses placed on the body by simply being alive because that may have an effect on how treatment is received by the body.
ReplyDeleteFor example, a tumor simulation platform may only include a model limited to only one part of the human body where the tumor is located. The drug or treatment being tested on this platform may react differently when passed into the entire human body as opposed to just the compromised part of the body. Even if a materials platform was created to mimic the entire body, eliminating the above concern, how do you simulate living stresses in that platform? Stresses include body movements and body processes like digestion, blood flow, inflammation, waste removal and many other things that would be difficult to simulate from a materials perspective.
To generate a complete solution you are talking about making a combination of a hard and soft humanoid robot to mimic the entire system. This would be a huge undertaking involving many disciplines of engineering along side of materials engineering. Not only would the compounds that make up the tissue, bones and organs have to be extremely true to human form but the controls of the internal systems would have to be accurate as well. The internal systems would need to be controlled electromechanically and I don’t think the controls technology is available to mimic such natural and complex systems. Achieving a goal like this seems to be pretty far off, but this would be a cool project to work on though…
When it comes to animal cruelty and experimentation I can agree that the arguments can get pretty heated. Hearing about the development of a chicken without a nervous system or even a head disturbs me a little. I do not believe that I would ever be for that type of study. Although I am ignorant about the situation and I would need to do further research to have a better understanding.
ReplyDeleteMy father owned and worked a chicken farm when I was younger. I remember the environment they lived in. The chickens were happy, healthy, and very much alive. My father's farm was relatively small, 3 huge chicken houses, but I believe that this atmosphere can be achieved on a larger scale. I sometimes think that the animal cruelty argument can sometimes be blown out of proportion. I am in no way saying that I turn a blind eye and do not see that animal cruelty is actually going on. Animal cruelty and experimentation is so vast with so many different a mean types.
When referring to your statement "Couldn’t we create a true simulant to mimic the behavior of disease, tumors, whatever, in the human body?" I do not just think about the simulation of disease or tumors. I think about the simulation and implementation of possibly creating and developing working synthetic organs, bones, or even the nervous system. As a materials engineer I would love to research these possibilities. Creating a material that would be strong enough and last long enough to be a whole bone( ex. femur) in the human body with no probability that the material would be rejected or decay would be amazing. Or even the possibility of having synthetic skin or muscle is something to also think about. I am going to be cliche here and say THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS! :)
It seems like through evolution or creation that the materials that make up our organs and bones are so perfect that they themselves may be the only solution when synthesizing our bodies. So as a materials engineer would you try and derive the exact composition of a bone and replicate it, or would you try to find a substitute material that can achieve the same means?
DeleteThat's a really good question to ponder. I would say that both would be really interesting. I am not saying that it would be feasible or even economical to study and research but I did find this pretty interesting article about growing bone, http://www.physorg.com/news98967973.html
DeleteIt has to do with stem cell research which I believe has a ton of potential. I also found another article referencing bio-active ceramics. The article is a little tricky to read because it is an actual experimental study analysis but still really interesting, http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=be_papers
as for my opinion on which I, as a materials engineer, would prefer to look at would be the possibility to create a substitute material to replace bone. I think if you look at the possibility to create the exact composition of bone may be more leaning to the bioengineering field with stem cell research on their side.
Finding synthetic substitutes for our body parts will be soon be humans’ goal. For now, despite successes in medicine and technology, human bones, for example, are still subject to damaging osteoporosis. The bones are being treated with drugs that supposed to strengthen them and “fill in holes.” The treatments are not 100% effective and are questioned lately. Since finding the perfect filler for the bones that would really interact with it seems to be a problem, a synthetic bone might be a solution. The problem is how this artificial part will be able to connect in perfect way with organs, tissues, nerves and not be rejected by the body.
DeleteThis first blog I am writing is in response to the blog on the edible "sack of chicken" that is currently being developed. Dr. Folz, would you show us the link to the site where you found this information, because it is extremely fascinating and I would like to read about it myself!
ReplyDeleteApparently there is questionable ethics in the development of this new science. Without being able to see the article on it, I would have a more thorough opinion, but from what I know now, I cannot really see a problem with it. From what Dr. Folz's blog stated, the "sack of chicken" that is being made is simply a headless, organless growing mass of chicken muscle tissue. I do not see how this is really causing any sort of harm or pain to any chicken, unless of course some chickens were inhumanely slaughtered in order for scientists to discover this new method of growing chicken tissue, or if some chickens have to be treated inhumanely in some other way in order to extract some of their organs or tissue to grow these "sacks." Otherwise, these lumps of chicken muscle tissue are no more of an animal than a plant, ethically speaking. With no organs or brain, it is just growing tissue, and can thus feel no pain. The value of life of these sacks of tissue are no greater than your average tumor.
Depending on the cost and efficiency to create these sacks of chicken tissue, this could be a huge change for food production in our world. Hunger could be drastically reduced in our own country and all of the health issues that go into raising chickens could be completely erased. Inhumane overcrowding and slaughter of chickens would no longer have to happen. The chicken species might dwindle a bit though, since their only purpose would be to make eggs, at least until we develop a way to artificially grow egg yolks. After that, the only thing chickens would be good for would be getting in the way of traffic on your typical caribbean island.
Actually, Alex, I don't have an article. It was discussed in a class I took in the Ag department on life science ethics that was taught by Mike Ellerbrock.
DeleteAs for the industry, I'm not sure how far down the industry would drop. There probably are plenty of people who wouldn't want to eat the "faux" chicken, but maybe production of high-volume chicken farms would be able to change their focus and still make a profit.
I read a book in high school that dealt with the last topic, a synthetic "simulant". The name of the book was Walden Two and essentially there is a great debate between the two main characters on what would or should be done if such a simulant that allowed us to feel happy all the time. One character argues that it would end all human suffering and essentially eliminate any problems humanity would ever experience. The other character argues that all these things the simulant would eliminate is eliminating all the things that define humanity: pain, suffering, and the joy that comes with overcoming such problems. From a materials standpoint, I believe such a simulant is impossible to make without drastic side effects, if at all. While feeling happy all of the time seems great, I doubt anything humans could scientifically synthesize could truly make us happy. I feel the closest we could ever come is some sort of vegetative state similar to a morphine numb.
ReplyDeleteYou all have some excellent input/thoughts on the pros and cons of developing an unfeeling food source. Let me throw out another idea about this concept: Is it the same as cloning?
ReplyDeleteIf indeed this sac-o-chickin has no sense of itself, is it simply the same as drugs that are synthesized? For example, we take aspirin, but people used to drink willow bark tea as it is the source of natural 'aspirin.' Is it just another synthetic input to sustain our bodies? The genetic engineering that has gone on for many years in the meat industry has changed the structure of the bird, chicken, significantly. It is no long the same chicken you'd see in the wild. This same analogy can be made with the other meats we breed for production of sustinence. So, is it really something, that as Jimmy suggests from Walden Two, will just desensitize us to or distance us from the reality of life's components that make us human - joy, dispair, elation, anger, etc.?
I think it may be closer to dealing with a plant than anything else. It would be made up of organic compounds (proteins, lipids, amino acids), basically anything our bodies normally assimilate to support homeostasis. Plants react to different stimuli in their environment though- without the need for a central nervous system or any kind of central intelligence- tropisms I think they're called (Photo-tropisms, for example, would be a reaction to a specific light source or frequency- think how sunflowers track the course of the sun throughout the day). I'd imagine the 'genetic diversity' (I assume they'd operate on the same basic self-replicating DNA and RNA sequences as a real chicken?) would be far less varied than in natural (non-synthetic) populations (simply due to the efficiency of evolution and natural selection when compared to synthetic reproduction). I guess the lack of genetic diversity would move it closer into the realm of cloning...?
DeleteAfter reading Jimmy's post about Walden Two, I began to think more about the negative effects of this "faux" chicken. At first, I believed the chicken had potential to solve many problems. The two main benefits I saw were a seemingly endless source of food and a solution to many of the ethical problems related to the chickens' living conditions. Once I started relating this situation to the situation in Walden Two where the two characters debate if a stimulant that causes humans to be happy all the time should be given, I began to think of the slippery slope that this new synthetic chicken could potentially cause. Once we begin artificially creating livestock where will we draw the line? Will this eventually lead to the creation of a similar organism that is human-like so we can harvest it for organs?
DeleteIn response to what Jennifer in my opinion accurately called a "slippery slope", I believe that the whole question is not only ethical but practical as well. While we'd all like to be optimistic and believe that a cloned chicken will provide the same nutrition, sustenance, and even taste as a real chicken, the reality is that 99 times out of a hundred there are two drawbacks for every positive that a synthesis provides. The real question we should address is where do we draw the line? If we go completely natural then we'd have to give up things like basic medical care (tylenol, pacemakers, etc.) but if we try to synthesize everything then we may compromise true humanity. What is the perfect middle ground?
DeleteIn response to the chicken tissue and other sources of synthetic material that desensitize us to what makes us human:
DeleteI do not think that these synthetic foods and drugs desensitize to make us human. In fact, I think that the development of these synthetic foods and drugs is exactly what makes us human! Sometimes we fear we are losing touch with our world around us because our human interaction with our planet is so drastically changing due to how advanced our technology is becoming. This is what I believe due to the difficulty of people to understand and deal with how fast our species is evolving. Our race is becoming more and more intelligent with each passing decade and our technology is becoming more and more advanced. There is nothing we can do to keep in touch with ourselves as humans than to participate in the advancement of ourselves as a species and to try to improve ourselves as a human race. Embracing new technologies such as these synthetic foods and drugs can only improve our race. (As long as there is not something that can harm us from these synthetic foods. But analyzing and improving the technologies in these synthetic foods and drugs to prevent that harm will help improve it)
-Alex Bulk
Have any of you watched Star Trek - Next Generation? There is an episode in which the "sentience" of Data (android) is questioned. It all came down to whether he was an "it" or a free-thinking individual in charge of his own fate.
DeleteJennifer, your comments about the slippery slope make me think about that episode. At what point are we creating "slaves" and at what point in these entity's evolution do they stop being machines (or just sacks of meat or just mice or just monkeys) and become being who possess some level of rights?
I feel like this synthetic food source is unique from cloning because, while both share the similarity in that no natural-born animal dies, in one case you are clearly harming a creature with capacity for thought/pain.
ReplyDeleteNow, I had to research a bit to make sure I had my general grasp on modern cloning correct, but it would seem that killing a clone is still killing a living creature. As juvenile as it may seem, an overriding theme of the first "Pokemon" movie dealt with cloned organisms and their space in the world. The movie concluded that clones had just as much right to the space in this world as the original beings.
It begs comparison to the legions of Stormtroopers in "Star Wars" that are slaughtered by the thousands. The idea of killing a clone is only assuring on the surface, when the ethics behind it still clearly parallel the death of a natural living being. It worked so well in Lucas' in Star Wars to make the good guys' deaths look more tragic, watching a uniform faceless army terrorize the plucky rebels.
We humans have control over animals, not the other way around. Animals are subject to testing and any harm that is
ReplyDeleteassociated with it because it is, so far, the easiest way to do it. Some humans are subject to testing too, as volunteers.
There are announcements in newspapers and TV looking for volunteers to test a new medication or
medical treatment. The testing done on animals works to their advantage too because new medications
are being developed for treating diseases in livestock, for example.
It would be ideal if we would not have to conduct testing on animals. Some researchers attempt to come up with
mathematical algorithms and computer programs that will be able to provide needed testing data
without using animals. It is likely in its early stages and we need new medication etc. now. By the way,
creating a “nerveless, fearless sack of edible chicken” would require try and error method on alive
chickens as well. Unfortunately, not all animals are treated as our treasured pets. For now, some of them will become
lab animals and suffer to help make our human lives better.
I agree with Thomas. We as humans do have dominance over the creatures that are in this world. We have been using animals since the beginning of mankind to survive and develop in this planet, so in many instances one can’t say it’s inhumane to take advantage animals for our benefit. However our society’s scientific advancements now allow us to use these animals as science experiments to benefit society in more advanced ways that require some type of “torturous” procedures. I think it is acceptable to test animals when the end result would be, for example, curing a child's terminal disease and relieving that child from their suffering. Personally, I would not consider a headless, nerve-less chicken a chicken. I also doubt this type of chicken would have the muscle control to lay eggs or perform other typical biological functions. Therefore this “sack of edible chicken” would be almost like fruit growing on a tree. I would personally much rather eat regular chicken and find the idea of this chicken quite gross, but what if this type of technology could feed masses of starving communities in less fortunate areas of the world? One would have to consider the possibilities of the benefits outweighing the controversial aspects of this technology. If the suffering of a few chickens could take care of the starvation of millions of humans, one would have to seriously consider letting a few chickens undergo the more than likely torturous experiments. I think that animal experimentation is acceptable as long as the end result benefits society and outweighs the required sacrifices.
DeleteI have conflicting views on the idea of industrializing food production to the point of breeding "sacks of chicken." The human side of me insists that this practice is disgusting, cruel, and perverts the idea of farming chickens. The logical side of me views this as another way humans are evolving. As a species we evolve faster through the use of technology, if this means we find ways to breed livestock more effectively then so be it.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the original theory of creating materials that replicate human tissue to study, diseases, tumors and physical detriments. If someone could clarify, my basic thought process is that diseases react in specific ways according to the biology around them, so if we create a material replacement, won't it be lacking the necessary bacteria and organic structures?
ReplyDeleteAs for the industrialization of food. It's a logical progression. Same as the meat-packing industry in the early 1900s. The I feel that the ethical debate is almost moot, as Nick Meligari pointed out, they'd basically be like plants. No one has issues with the mass production and genetic control over plants, so why should it cause concern with a meat product equivalent?
Your thought process is correct, that is why we are so far away from being able to simulate disease in a non-living platform. Replicating human tissue and organs in terms of materials is just one part of the entire process. Other organic compounds in the body would have to be simulated along with the processes and fluid flows that keep us alive. Then once you get to that point of refinement you just have a sack of thoughtless human.
DeleteI really like the plant analogy too, and I think the right amount of testing would be done so that the sack of chicken would carry more than 95% of the same nutritional value as a real chicken eliminating the "gross" factor because it is almost the exact same thing.
Everywhere I go to eat, I am always ordering chicken. My family, friends, and boyfriend always shake their heads while sarcastically stating, "What a surprise! Amber is ordering chicken again." As far as thinking about the processing of the chicken and how it made its way to the delicious form in front of me, the thought never crosses my mind. I do not know much on the topic of the development of this new type of chicken, but I feel that if I knew more about it I might change my mind when asked, “What would you like to order?” The new process may not cause pain to the chicken, because it really isn’t one so I don’t see how it is unethical in that sense, but what about the human? How can eating a “developed” chicken be healthy for a person? I understand industries need to meet the demands of a growing society, but what happens to the traditional American farmer when this is developed? Coming from a family of farmers, there has to be another way to go about this in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe farming industry would have to evolve just like every other industry has. Our population is growing rapidly and will soon exceed the capacity of our earth in terms of available land to produce food supplies. Farmers would have to become the producers of this simulated form of food if it actually became a fully developed and consumed product. I'm also sure some people would still prefer the "real thing" so the need would not completely disappear.
DeleteA couple of things to consider, from my perspective:
Delete1. We're already eating "developed" chicken! If you want to eat a "real" chicken, as nature developed them, order a Heritage Chicken from Frank Reese's farm (http://www.goodshepherdpoultryranch.com/). Their legs are actually designed to support their bodies and their breasts aren't a disproportionate size for a bird. I doubt any of the chickens we eat today could actually fly even a few feet.
2. When I was a child, raised on a 500 acre farm in Kentucky, we ate food flavored with meat. In other words, meat was eaten sparingly and lots of vegetables and whole grains were the bulk of our diets. We ate "real" butter and cheese and cream that we made from the raw milk from our cows; we ate eggs and fresh cornmeal. Wow! Was it good!
Make no mistake, in most instances, the "real thing" is gone already!
Diane
There is just something about eating a chicken that has neither a brain nor a nervous system that does not seem healthy. Many people prefer their food to be "natural" both for taste and health reasons, and this would seem very unnatural. After reading this post, the biggest question I had is how this is even possible? I don't understand how the developed chicken would be able to grow to a mature size worth harvesting. How can a animal lacking both a brain and a nervous system not die immediately? After all these parts control involuntary actions such as breathing. Also without a head the animal would not be able to eat and therefore grow to a size we would eat. This theory just does not seem possible.
DeleteI agree Tyler, I guess the farmers can still be farm. It would just be a different style. They would have to adjust to a new style of farming.
DeleteDiane, I guess I have never really thought that I was eating "developed" chicken, but that makes complete sense. I have been told that chicken has steroids in it,which actually effects growth in children. My mind can't grasp that the "real thing" is gone, but it all tastes the same to me, and it's so good! =)
Matthew, I am with you, it doesn't seem natural or healthy,but we eat it everyday and we just do not realize it! It's so hard to believe!
Is it still a chicken if it has no nervous system or brain? It may look like a chicken and taste like a chicken, but I don’t think that necessarily makes it a chicken. However, this does not necessarily mean that this practice is okay. My natural response is to think this is horrible. However, if it prevents the potential pain and suffering of many chickens maybe it is a good thing. Essentially this offers a method to grow chickens like they are plants. We don’t mind genetically engineering plants and killing them. Is this chicken that different from a genetically engineered plant? You talk about making a true simulant of things in the second part of your post. Perhaps this is the closest we can get to a “true simulant” of a chicken.
ReplyDeleteI think most people would like to make a true simulant to mimic the behavior of disease, tumors, whatever, in the human body. However, this may not always be possible and it might be costly. If this is not possible then we may need to do something else. Few people would choose not to test medical applications on mice when it could save human lives. As long as we are not unnecessarily callous in our decision making then it seems like it should be okay to use animals only when it is the only option.
Goodness gracious! Genetically Engineered Chicken sacks? The advancements I'm sure are a far way off still but this still blows my mind. Are we really putting this much money into getting rid of suffering that chickens suffer? The detail and processes in the sciences of developing synthetic genetically modified livestock would take an incredible amount of time and money that would outweigh the benefits, in my opinion. Yikesss
ReplyDeleteExisting power grids lose an estimated 5 percent per 100 miles of transmission. A room temperature superconductor could virtually eliminate these losses. Needless to say, this would also have a large impact outside of electrical infrastructure. How close are material science engineers coming to developing such a material?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete