In lab.s many organisms are used for experiments of behavioral sciences and other thing, there are many catagoriies of this , some seem to B OK some are not good, what's Ur opinion???
1. killing microbes
2. killing higher organisms like mouse or rabbit etc. - for feeding other organisms
like snakes- this is OK as the snake would have eaten some other mouse in wild , so we don't disturb nature.
- for other types of studies eg.
infecting mice or even monkey with some pathogen to understand the symptoms and other thiongs OR tumerizing some mice to get some research done.
I think, that research may save many human and even animal lives so we should do that in a limit.
We kill microbes every day when we clean our room/house. So 1) doesnt count. Bacteria and microbes have no feelings. If we did no experiments on yeast, e coli etc then we would have very little to learn in biology. Also fruit flies (Drosophilia) are ok also. A lot of what we know about genetics comes from experiments on drosophilia.
I agree with you on the higher organisms. If you read some of the research papers on tumours in mice etc. It sounds awful, but you have to remember that this could lead to better cancer treatment or a cure.
I agree with Chris4-killing bacteria doesn't count. Killing mice and rabits, in my opinion, is also not a problem since we aren't affecting the environment with the killing of 20-30 mice or rabits.
A few years ago, a species of rabits were brought to Australia from Europe. because they have no real predator they spread at an allarming high rate. So they used a virus that killed 99.8% of them. Was that wrong? Killing so many rabits upsets nature, buit through nature they wouldn't have been there in the first place
I think, human benefits are more important than mice or rabbit. (unless you kill the whole mice or rabbit on the earth ,of course. )
How charged with punishment the scroll
I am the Master of my fate
I am the Captain of my soul.
I also think that research may save many human and even animal lives so we should do that in a limit. But what the europian rabitkillers have done is doubty[ similar to faulty,my word]. Killing them in natural way and in natural conditions eliminated the heavy job of finding and killing and then disposing them. But, in nature things may go out of control,
the virus may create some deadly problems even if we have taken much care in choosing, introducing etc. the virus, what do U think ? ? ?
It may, but it didn't. From what i recall, when it wa first released it killed 99.8%. The second time, about 50%. Third time, 20-30%. Now, it may kill one or two rabbits:):)
I draw the line at Mike... or maybe Steve.
I think that SARS is different with Avian influenza dissease..or perhaps I was wrong??
Q: Why are chemists great for solving problems?
A: They have all the solutions.
Actually, the virus evolved - a much milder version was favored (spreading among wild rabbits is much harder than spreading among the penned rabbits that supplied the virus), and the milder strain acted as a sort of vaccine against later attempts. There was probably a shift in the rabbit population toward some virulence resistance, but rabbits, as fast as they reproduce, still don't match the evolutionary rates of a virus.
The mortality rates were also strictly local, and a high morbidity/mortality viral strain doesn't spread very far.
Also, SARS is not avian influenza, and influenza is one of the rare viruses that affects several disparate species - notably pigs, fowl, and people. The number of disease organisms with a broad range of hosts is very small - most are limited to species or maybe families. They occasionally do make a jump (and often are not well-suited to the new host, causing lots of nastiness), but in the vast majority of cases evolve toward much less virulence.
Is it right for me to assume that the death/mortality rate of the rabbits due to the virus introduction be just as rapid as the rabbits exponential growth? For example since they reproduce so fast, should the virus spread and kill them just as quickly...? i hope that makes any sense, im having trouble putting my question into words
wisdom=the anti-venom for failure
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest