Would you rather snap its neck in half?

So we’ve all seen those quirky animal rights activists on TV, throwing paint on fur jackets and burning down testing sites, fighting to the rights of rodents and the like outside laboratories that make our lives easier by finding new medicines and cures by experimenting on these meaningless animals. These people protest against testing on animals, yet almost any product or medicine that you or I use was tested, at some point, on a lower life form. Take simple behavioral patterns for instance: no one would ever know anything about conditioning in the human psychology without Pavlov’s dogs

In an editorial in Nature magazine , the PETA-esque people are back at work trying to find more humane ways to kill rodents that are used in experiments. They offer what seems more humane ways to kill the animals, like breaking the poor things’ necks or gassing them with more expensive anesthesia instead of the current carbon dioxide that is used in mass animal terminations. The main argument is that the animals feel the instant panic that humans feel when they inhale mass amounts of carbon dioxide, yet I beg to differ. The hard fact is that we cannot talk to these animals and ask them if they are okay while they are dying and therefore cannot fully ever believe that they experience the same sensations as humans, therefore, until technology allows a clear sense of the “emotions” of these animals, the cheapest and fastest way of getting rid of the rodents should still be the carbon dioxide.

Granted, technology is well on its way to forming a picture of the mind and feelings of animals but it has not yet accomplished this task. Even PETA states that animals differ from humans in such a way that it’s inadequate to test on them, yet if they are so different from humans, how do we know that they have the same emotional capacity of humans and therefore should be treated the same? If a rat has 99% of the same genes of humans , they are obviously more helpful to do medicinal experiments on than a fruit fly and many of the same effects that drugs may have on a human will affect onto the rat so a researcher can see what the effects would be on a human through the rat. The main problem is that if rats do have that much genetic similarity with humans, then can’t they feel the pain as humans do? There has not been enough research to guarantee that they cannot feel the pain, but the overwhelming idea is that the pain is so momentary that the advantage of having tested the animal far outweighs the disadvantage of the animal having suffered such a trivial amount of time.

The research industry is ardently trying to find simpler, cheaper, and more humane ways of doing animal testing and hoping to find ways to eliminate the use of animals all together, but until that day comes, the animals must be used. Animal rights activists, as sited in the Nature article, are just calling upon a more humane way of dealing with the used animals once their purpose has been fulfilled; yet this more humane way will cost the researchers much more money than, in my opinion, is worth. Granted, these animals did not ask to be bred for research purposes, but they also wouldn’t have ever been alive if they hadn’t been bred for research. The most cost effective and humane way, until research proves otherwise, is to gas ‘em with some carbon dioxide.

Not only are alternatives more costly, they also cause researchers undue squeamishness. Grabbing a rat and breaking its neck is effective to kill the rat, but the researcher has to do that thousands of times to get rid of the tested rodents and that can damage the human psyche. Although it would bring the ‘cruelty’ to the forefront and give researchers hands-on experience with the ‘suffering’ of the animals, it would be time consuming and grotesque. Some activists say that scientists should be able to kill the animals with their bare hands, since that is more ‘humane’. If animal rights activists are so passionate about animals being treated the same as humans, wouldn’t they be just as passionate about making the death penalty more ‘humane’?
If scientists did protest to this manual annihilation, they’d be forced to try alternatives to animal testing that would not suffice. An artificial, fleshy bit of material would never substitute for live tissue that can fully encompass the effects of medicines and other products. Though the material would help to see if a certain make-up matched someone’s skin tone, in the laboratory it would not be sufficient for proper testing, especially where medicines are concerned.

When I put on my Crest Whitestrips or wash my hair with Herbal Essence, I’m not looking at labels to see if they’ve been tested on animals or not, and my best guess it that you aren’t either. But that’s not the issue. The real issue is how to take care of the animals that have been tested on. Most carbon dioxide mass rodent euthanasia’s take 10 seconds , and though some have lasted for 4 minutes, the vast majority are over quickly and are extremely effective. Why do away with a common practice that has not been substantially proven to cause mental anguish to a bunch of rats when it works almost perfectly and is effective? I see no real reason, until the activists can provide concrete evidence saying that the rodents suffer to the same degree a human would, and once that happens, I’ll buy the rodents a round of anesthetics to humanely kill them.

Oink For Organs!!

Watching someone slowly die has to be one of the hardest things to witness. Hurricane Katrina and September 11th showed us the difficulties of death. Though these disasters have passed, there are the daily health battles that people fight inside to stay alive. A burden to families and a race that America is still running is the amount of people in dire need of an organ transplant. Nowadays with all of the new medicines and technologies, people are surpassing the average age making the need for livers, kidneys, hearts, and lungs, skyrocket as their systems begin to fail.

Unfortunately, people die everyday because there are not enough donors to cover the long list of recipients waiting for a transplant. Families have no choice but to miserably watch their loved ones die when they may have actually had a second chance at life. As from the nonprofit United Network for Organ Sharing, there are around 80,000 people currently awaiting a transplant. Consequently, more than 5,000 of those people die each year before their time comes. That adds up to about 18 people each day.

Until recently, people on the donor list only hoped that their names reached the top before it is too late. In a Boston Herald article, scientists, including Dr. David Sachs of the Transplantation Biology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital are currently finding new discoveries that may help save many people’s lives and lessen the amount of organs needed. Xenotransplantation, the use of animal organs in humans, is the new method proposed hoping to help some of the ill individuals.

However in the nature article, Daniel Salomon of the Scripps Research Institute calls for other ways the research funding money should be spent. He as well as other opponents call the idea unrealistic and unlikely arguing that the money be used for treatable and preventable diseases. Salomon claims that the possible unknown viruses that may develop and the problems they may cause are too risky to use on humans. His coworkers claim that porcine endogenous viruses can affect the human cells and lead to bodily infections. Because the human immune system eliminates foreign bodies, Salomon sees this as a possible threat. Salomon worries about the consequences associated with the immunity of humans and pigs will lead to far too many more negative outcomes than positives. From a political viewpoint, Salomon also contends that allowing the trials to continue may persuade other countries to become involved in the research.

Salomon only thinks pessimistically about the health related components of the organs. Understandably, there are some diseases at risk such as HIV, but some researchers respond to discovery as if HIV has not already been here. Pig organs do not necessarily mean more HIV. Of course, like all drugs and discoveries new to science, there are some side effects. When we take cold medicines and prescription drugs, do the labels not warn us of some of the potentially dangerous effects? Yet we still take them because we hope that they will make us feel better and give us the benefit it promotes. Just think of all the saved lives in the future due because of a team who watched so many people die and decided to make a change. Though the research may not be fully reliable yet, technology used for the testing Xenotransplantation is not “dead” as some may claim. It can only get better if and only if federal funding allows and the team looks beyond destructive criticism such as Salomon.

So many people will benefit from this research if all goes according to plan. Doctors will carefully plan surgeries so that the organs will function correctly. Knowing that the doctor took his time would mean that the patient gets the best results with their new organ. With only one organ available, what happens if the doctors do something wrong and the organ malfunctions? This would not be a problem if the pigs become useful because the all of the extra organs would rid doctors of their worries. Not only would this satisfy the availability of organs but it would also help some patients who experience HIV or Hepatitis B. Therefore, you see, there may be a possible win, win situation for those worried about diseases!

With other research teams giving the MGH team a hard time, you would think that federal funding would provide the scientists who try to help change the world with money. Needless to say, some are even as pessimistic as Salomon. The slow income of funding impedes the progression of success. Who has the right to say that the idea will never work unless they continue to try to do better each time? In 2004, the scientist put one of the kidneys into a baboon that lived for 83 days. Although the baboon did not live a full year, those 83 days show that it may be possible to trick the immune system.

Our futures may very well be in the hands of these special pigs and belittling the aspirations of the scientist too soon may mean more lives lost. Reducing the number of people on the waiting list seems likely with this innovation in science. The progress made by the scientist increases each year as the team more breeds pigs that lose one of the sugar molecules that would originally trigger a response in the immune system. If the gene GGTA1 no longer shows up in the immune system, many people will not have to worry about going without an organ. In a few months or years, these engineered pigs will be able to remove all the GGTA1 genes and progress towards salvaging the lives of many desperate patients.

Who knows. Pig organs may very well become the best kidneys, livers, or lungs available to man. The number of lives affected by the success of this research gives some hope to families who thought their time would never come. Although no one has been able to do it yet, the sky is the limit in the future of pig parts for people. It would more than a relief to the families to know that their family member will spend more time with each other. While the time has not yet arrived, in the future, pigs may serve as more than a side to a breakfast plate.

Citations:
Fargen, Jessica. (2006 Oct 29 ). Hog-wild for Pig Organs. Boston, Boston Herald.
Retrieved February 5, 2007. http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=40b02eb8fb408555088a83b43bc82632&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkVb&_md5=b2c62b32e10c3fd62d2e4e3fa91911d4.
Lemonick, Michael D. (2002 Jan 14). Pig parts for People. Academic Search Premier,
159(2). Retrieved February 5, 2007. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=2&sid=15ff3ede-61fd-43db-a6c8-4f75c6417d0d%40SRCSM1
Nature. (2000 Aug 17). The trials of Xenotransplantation, 406(661). Retrieved February
5, 2007. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/full/406661a0.html
Pictures:
Atschool.eduweb.co.uk

Schwicky.net

News.bbc.co.uk

Strange Signals to Outer Space

Oh my goodness! The aliens are all going to come shoot lasers in our ears and suck out our brains through straws! Or at least, the author of the Nature article entitled “Ambassador for Earth” is laboring under that impression. Now, honestly, the wording is nowhere near as Apocalyptic as I made out and based on the current alien lore it’s actually a common fear that extraterrestrial civilizations would probably be militant or at least that contact with any such “advanced” beings would be intellectually detrimental to the human race. The issue truly under question in the article is whether or not SETI (one of the most credible organizations searching for extra-terrestrial intelligence) should shift their focus from listening for radio waves that are alien in origin to sending their own. The excitement also comes along with recent development of a French satellite that can pinpoint planets around distant stars, essentially rendering the human race capable of aiming our own communicative attempts at isolated places where we think there may be other intelligent beings.

The common belief about extra-terrestrials is that they are excessively militant and frequently visit Earth in their spacecraft that utilize technology that is millions of years ahead of our scientific comprehension. They also abduct millions of people from their cozy beds at night, take them up into the Great Beyond in their ridiculously advanced spacecraft and probe, prod, and otherwise violate them. Now, I watch Star Trek and The X-Files as much as the next person… probably more, in fact, being the nerd that I am. But when you look at the facts—the way the extra-terrestrial hysteria coincides almost entirely with the Cold War, for example—you realize that all of this mayhem and mania about creatures coming from the sky and treating us the way that we treat lab rats was really a cultural outlet for the omnipresent threat of utter annihilation. For almost forty years of, not only American history, but World History the human race was on the cusp of extinction: with the simple push of one button an irreversible chain of events would have led to a nuclear holocaust. And the best place to vent all of this anxiety about things falling from the sky? Why, make things fall from the sky! In the form of flying saucers and creepy little creatures with bug-eyes, large heads, and a penchant for probing. Of course paranoia about creatures from other worlds goes back to the late 19th century and, in fact, appears almost anywhere in the past 100-some years whenever a society needs to release its fears of invasion, war, or other imminent peril. Yet the widespread beliefs and common conceptions that are currently disseminated throughout our culture come almost entirely from this Cold War paranoia.

What was the point of telling you all of that? Well, in all reality I don’t think any alien civilization would be millennia ahead of us in terms of technology: centuries, perhaps, but not millennia. If anything they’d either have the same technological capacities as us or be in a completely different (and probably less advanced) evolutionary stage. This is, of course, presuming that the ideal conditions for life exist on the other side of the galaxy in any way similar to ours. That being said, since most of the planets in the universe formed at or around the same time, it would be safe to assume that the elements that eventually led to intelligent life forms as advanced as ourselves would also evolve at around the same rate on other planets. Assuming that there are other life forms in the universe as intelligent as we are (which is, honestly, a safe assumption since to assume we are the only sentient beings in the infinity of the universe is incredibly egocentric) they would also have to be at a stage in their intellectual development that would allow them to hear our transmitted radio waves. Basically, the thought that some warmongering aliens are going to fly over and destroy us just because they know that we’re here is a ridiculous concept. If we can’t fly over and destroy them billions of lightyears away, why do we think that they could do so to us?

If these aliens could truly receive our signals and also return them it would really only serve as a massive intergalactic Instant Messenger. It’s doubtful that any other civilization in the universe would be capable of long-distance deep space travel. Even if they had this capability, the Nature article states that it would take decades for our message to reach their planet even traveling at the speed of light, and it would probably take centuries for any extra-terrestrials to actually physically reach Earth (excluding the possibility that they have developed Warp drive, in which case it would take them only a few years at Warp 9.2… what an unpleasant trip). And given that it would take so long for these beings to reach us, I’m sure we’d detect them while they were on their way and be able to either establish contact with them once more and ascertain their intentions or (at the very least) be able to prepare ourselves in the defense of our home planet. Unless of course, they’ve also developed a Cloaking Device in which case we’re just screwed.

Seriously, I think that SETI should go ahead and start shooting radio waves at promising planets. I would love to see the beginnings of an intergalactic conversation (though I won’t, since any message would take just as long to return and therefore there’d be about a 50 year lapse between replies). I see no immediate danger in sending such a message at all (though admittedly, if I’m completely wrong and Mulder’s UFOs show up the next day to blast us to bits… well… Chris Carter can say “I told you so.”) The sooner we begin to transmit deliberate messages into the cosmos, the sooner they can reach their destination and the more of us nerds will still be alive by the time we receive a reply in seventy years. And that would be truly awesome.



“Ambassador for Earth” Nature 443, 606 (12 October 2006) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7112/full/443606a.html

Image 1: A comically rendered book cover for H.G. Wells’ novel The War of the Worlds. The plot focuses on large mechanized “creatures” who shoot destructive laser-type beams at pretty much everything that they see and destroy it instantly. The novel was written in 1898 and fits into a sub-genre of literature known as “invasion literature” which reflected the growing anxieties in Western Europe before the First World War. Orson Welles’ 1938 radio adaptation also caused a considerable amount of panic when people actually believed that aliens were invading the world, reflecting again the considerable world tensions of the time period. It should be noted that, despite the strange looking green creepy creatures on this cover… there aren’t any creatures in the novel. Just machines.

Image 2: This is a poster from a movie that was also called “Grave Robbers from Outer Space.” Just, don’t ask. It was directed by Ed Wood, known infamously as the worst director ever and starred Bela Lugosi, Vampira, and Lyle Talbot. One example of the extent of craptasticness displayed by the movie is during a graveyard scene when a fake headstone falls over and it was deemed “fine” and left in the final picture. The premise of the movie was that aliens are resurrecting dead humans as zombies and vampires in order to stop them from creating what is metaphorically an atom bomb. Despite showing the strange eccentricities of a select few in Hollywood, this 1959 cult classic further illustrates the Cold War paranoia, both of unknown beings coming from the sky and the threat of annihilation from our own technological advances (mainly nuclear weapons).

Image 3: A scantily clad extraterrestrial featured as a dancing slave in a particular memorable Star Trek episode. While most Cold War era texts dealing with aliens saw them as a strange and frightening threat, Star Trek embraced the possibility of peace and cooperation between species. Other instances of the advocation of tolerance in Star Trek include the Japanese helmsman Lieteunant Sulu and the Russian navigator and security chief Ensign Chekov, as well as a black Communications Officer: Lieutenant Uhura. Aliens, in this case, were stand-ins for Soviets, Blacks, and all other groups who were fighting for equal rights and fair representation. Essentially, the point was that if the human race can get along with aliens than they can get along with each other.

Image 4: The X-Files not only embraces the lore of the Cold War alien hysteria, it expounds upon it. The “little grey men” can not only travel to our planet, abduct us, modify our memories, collaborate subversively with the U.S. government, and unleash deadly plagues amongst the human race, they can also shapeshift, take on the appearance of pretty much anybody and (as shown here) play baseball. X-Files aliens jive generation X and the underappreciated nerd who was coming more and more into the mainstream during the 1990s thanks to the advent of computers and the internet. What better to plot about on rudimentary message boards than the government cover up of the Roswell Incident? Is there anything more solidly nerdy in the entire world than a paranoid fear of the Man and aliens put together?

Enough Biodefence?

When did Noah build the ark? Before the storm. He didn’t wait around while the rains began. So too should be the case concerning the United States’ attitude about bioterrorism. Without a first-rate plan of action, a biological agent’s release on a mass scale would render us defenseless against major consequences.

In light of the “shrinking” world due to globalization, increased communication as well as travel ease, bioterrorism remains a major concern for state security officials. Bioterrorism has the potential to affect every aspect of our daily lives. Our food, our water and the air we breathe; biological agents have the ability to infiltrate nearly every man-made structure and can cause severe, mass-scale damage as well as result in the death of millions (Atlas, p. 465). However, the author of the editorial entitled “Enough Biodefence” proclaims that biodefence is over-hyped and that the United States is spending too much money on defense, a tendency that could cause us to overlook other threats. He blames the country for allowing the Bush administration to enact biodefence measures without proper criticism. His major points deal with the overabundance of biodefence centers as well as facility location.

“Are we overdoing it?” That is the basic question one may ask concerning biodefence. I would argue that we, as a nation, are not "overdoing" biodefence. At lest ten nations have biological weapons capabilities and not all of them are what we might consider stable countries (Henderson, p. 1280). Therefore the potential for harm is very real. Bioterrorism is a serious threat; one that many experts agree is much more likely than the “loose nuke” theory that floats around in security circles. The terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo already carried out a biological attack on the Tokyo subway system and defected Soviet scientists have claimed that the Soviet Union has “stockpiles of smallpox, anthrax and other deadly agents” (Atlas, p. 260). Getting these agents is considerably easier than acquiring the technology and specialization to effectively create a working nuclear bomb. For example, the Soviet Union’s collapse left numerous biological facilities vulnerable to break-ins. That these facilities have deadly agents is a fear for many. Also, corruption within that region makes the selling of biological agents an easy, secretive and real possibility (Henderson, p. 1280). Considering the pandemonium created by the SARS outbreak or, similarly, the bird flu breakout that found its way to Europe, the reach of a bioterrorism attack is much wider than that of a nuclear explosion. Nuclear weapons get the most hype out of the three weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear) because they create the most immediate and disturbing images, but biological weapons are the ones that are the most feared because we are least prepared for an attack by these weapons. Think about it. Chemical spills, fires at plants, etc. occur more often than does a release into the atmosphere of deadly biological agents. Most cities, and particularly major cities, have protocols in for chemical spills.

On the other hand, biological attacks would be hard to detect because a chemical release could be quiet, colorless, tasteless…you get the picture (Henderson, p. 1279). Unlike a nuclear explosion that would eliminate most victims quickly, biological warfare is a slower process that not only has the ability to spread farther, but also affect the morale of a population where members keep asking “Am I next?” resulting in a terrified, unproductive and standstill population. During a biological attack, chaos or inaction would hinder any defensive response.

The author of the Nature editorial argues that the threat is not immediate, insinuating that these weapons are hard to acquire. This is not true. Many of the naturally occurring agents such as plague, anthrax and botulism do occur naturally, and although a level of expertise is needed in order to identify strains that are deadly enough to cause widespread problems, it is possible. That said, while an average Joe may not be able to acquire these agents, terrorists groups such as Al-Qaeda with the money and expertise could buy these agents on the black market and use them against the United States or another enemy. The threat is very real (Henderson, p. 1281).

So what biological agents are the most threatening? According to one author, smallpox and anthrax are the two most viable threats. Scientists are aware of the potential threats these two agents can cause because of studies done on affected populations after accidental releases from certain facilities. The fear of smallpox is that virtually everyone is susceptible. Smallpox vaccinations are not available because the disease was eliminated years ago and in the case study 30% of those infected died. There is also the fear of secondary breakouts, estimations as high as ten secondary attacks (Henderson, p. 1281).

Similarly to smallpox, anthrax would be virtually impossible to detect before mass infection if released into the air. Individuals could show signs of infection in as little as two days and as many as eight weeks, giving the disease a large infection opportunity. The disease, although more lethal than a cold, would leave the victim with cold-like symptoms, such as headaches, fever and cough, thus making an outbreak hard to diagnose. Individuals infected usually die within 72 hours and the fatality rate is 80%. Even scarier: there are no civilian stockpiles of anthrax vaccine (Henderson, p. 1282).

The author’s second aspect concerns the idea of building such facilities within populated areas. While this is a valid question, I believe that an urban biodefence center is more beneficial than potentially dangerous. The author alludes to a potential attack on such a facility. While possible, a successful attack is highly unlikely. First, these buildings are not going to be shacks erected in the middle of Time’s Square with a sign that says “Biological Agents Inside!!!” These facilities will be some of the more protected buildings in the world, considering their contents. Thick walls, access codes, restricted areas, cleaning areas; you name it, these buildings will have it. As long as the buildings are properly structured so that there aren’t any cracks from which the agents can escape, everything should be OK. Not to mention it would probably be easier getting the agents from another country than breaking into one of our facilities.

Also, large facilities will need to be staffed by many employees and will need to be near policy makers and other resources, only found in big cities. While some laboratories are located in the desert, these usually deal with forces (such as electro magnetic pulse bombs and highly explosive materials) that, if located in cities, would cause a lot of destruction. This is not the case with biological agents.

Not only would these facilities need to be close to resources, but in the case of a biological attack, response teams and experts working at the facilities would need to be as close as possible. Imagine the slow reaction time and potential escalation of an attack in New York City if the experts are located in Area 51. Quick response times are crucial in such attacks.

So, in response to the editorialist's question as to whether we are overdoing biodefence, I would say “No.” Considering the reality of the threat and the number of agents that can be used against the U.S. (ricin, plague, smallpox, etc.), the number of facilities cannot be described as “more than needed.” Each facility can only do so much and because there are so many threats, many facilities are needed.

Also, while the argument that biological facilities within highly populated areas pose serious risks to the population may have some legitimacy, the right procedures and security measures could ensure a safe base of operations within an urban area. During a crisis, experts working at the facilities would be needed immediately and because the destruction that EMP bombs as well as explosives cause is much more dangerous for cities during testing, they, not biological agents would be the real hazards for facilities within a city.

Atlas, Ronald M. “Review: Countering Biological Weapons' Grave Threat." BioScience (Mar

“Enough Biodefence.” Nature, 11/2/2006, Vol. 444 Issue 7115, p2-2, 1p; DOI: 10.1038/444002b.

Henderson, Donald A. “The Looming Threat of Bioterrorism.” Science