Clostridium Botulinum is a bacterium regularly found in
nature. The Bacterium is commonly found in foods such as raw fish, and soil
reared foods (i.e. vegetables that haven’t been cleaned properly). This
bacterium regularly produces a neurotoxin called botulinum which is a very
potent and deadly to humans, requiring a very small concentration for causing
death.
The effects of the neurotoxin
work by causing a release in neurotransmitters such as Ach (acetylcholine)
which serve a variety of functions (one of them being the facilitation of
muscle contraction). This in turn causes a condition called flaccid paralysis
where the contraction of every muscle in the body is hindered (the first muscle
to fail usually being the diaphragm, so you can imagine how unbearable it may
be). The toxin is also commonly found in honey but in concentrations that are
at levels to affect infants (the reason why babies can’t have honey). The
condition that emerges from this is called floppy baby syndrome.
With all that being said, the world of scientific research
has a method of testing the toxicity of the mentioned toxin in rats. Lab rats
are simply raised and tested with the toxins at very different concentrations.
When the concentration of toxins are high enough the rat will go into a state
of flaccid paralysis and ultimately die, however if the rats are injected with
a specific concentration toxin and survive they are allowed to recover and
tested again with different concentrations.
My question: Do you guys think that we should be continuing
with this form of testing because it helps to find cures and treatments for the
human race at the expense of different forms of life? Or should we invest in
finding methods of isolating different materials that can mimic biological life
even though this may be very costly and unimaginable to some?
Denis, here is my opinion. And remember this is just my opinion and can be up for debate: I am a strong believer in Darwinian theory and survival of the fittest. When we test on rats and kill them in order to find cures for the same diseases that plague our own race, we are simply killing to advance our race. The more we come up with newer pharmaceutical technologies to fight off diseases, we are simply evolving as a race in order to overcome other species. These species include the diseases we are killing and also the rats that we need to test on. Many of us may feel regretful and sorry because we are killing another species that is a mammal, but just as another species evolves much more slowly and develops a survival technique that results in the death of another species in order for that species to survive, we are just doing the same.
ReplyDeleteAlex, while the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest applies to every species (including our own), i believe it is much more loosely applied to humans vs. "non"-humans since we have a much greater advantage in comarison to other species. In our world, survival of the fittest has become more of a system which applies between humans instead of among species (i.e. social evolution, economic evolution...).
ReplyDeleteHumans have the gift/curse of knowledge and independent thinking thus making us able to analyze the system of this world with much greater sophistication. With this advantage humans have the ability to surpass the system of survival that every other species abides by therefore survival itself isn't the issue here. The issue is that humans are able to manipulate the system of survival at the expense of other species, which in my opinion takes humans out of the position of seeking survival and into the position of distributing it or taking it away. In other words "playing god" for lack of a better phrase.
The problem that i have with the belief: "its just survival of the fittest" is, we as humans have the ability to use some form of judgement to discriminate between right and wrong. In this case what is right and what is wrong?
If we are "special" in terms of survival and cannot be grouped with other species of animals in terms of survival of the fittest, then we should have the same consideration in death. Meaning, the death of a human is much different and cannot be grouped with the death of another species. By following your argument, this would make the live of a human more valuable than the life of another species therefore justifying the use of this type of testing.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Just because we are more sophisticated and have a larger advantage of survival does not justify our actions and neither does it place more importance on our lives. It does however give us a greater responsibility of using the power that we have to compassionately find a solution to problems without the use of torture, because in the end this is a form of cruelty. But because it's for the good of humans, its a justified form of cruelty??
ReplyDeleteWith your argument we could also argue that the survival of a mentally incapable person would be much lesser than that of a mentally capable person. Does this mean that a mentally capable person's life is more valuable?
We as humans have a biased opinion of believing that our lives are worth more than the lives of other sppecies making us prone to believe that we have no limits when it comes to tampering with "unimportant" life.