Login

Join for Free!
119306 members


Ethics of Killing ! ! !

Animals!

Moderator: BioTeam

Ethics of Killing ! ! !

Postby 2810712 » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:51 am

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???
Catagories-
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.

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby Chris4 » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:02 pm

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.
User avatar
Chris4
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:56 pm
Location: UK

Postby MrMistery » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:19 pm

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
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)


Postby Poison » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:21 pm

I think, human benefits are more important than mice or rabbit. (unless you kill the whole mice or rabbit on the earth ,of course. :lol: )
It matters not how strait the gate
How charged with punishment the scroll
I am the Master of my fate
I am the Captain of my soul.
User avatar
Poison
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Turkey

danger

Postby 2810712 » Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:10 am

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 ? ? ?

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby MrMistery » Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:53 pm

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:):)
They evolved
Regards,
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)

harm ecology

Postby 2810712 » Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:08 pm

Yeah, MrMistry, the harm to rabbits has reduced ,but there might have been the danger of that virus adversely affecting other environmental factors, isn't it ? ? ?

:)

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby defensivor » Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:14 pm

I do agree with 2810712, the virus was design to infected the rabits but as the high rate of evolution of virus ,it may adapt till can infect other mammals, the good example is SARS (Avian Influenza)
defensivor
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:33 pm

Re: Ethics of Killing ! ! !

Postby sickstan » Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:53 pm

2810712 wrote: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???
Catagories-
1. killing microbes
2. killing higher organisms like mouse or rabbit etc. - for feeding other
hrushikesh


I draw the line at Mike... or maybe Steve.
sickstan
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:18 pm

Postby victor » Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:17 pm

defensivor wrote:the good example is SARS (Avian Influenza)


I think that SARS is different with Avian influenza dissease..or perhaps I was wrong?? :wink:
Q: Why are chemists great for solving problems?
A: They have all the solutions.
User avatar
victor
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Yogyakarta, Indonesia..

Postby Darby » Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:10 pm

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.
Darby
Viper
Viper
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: New York, USA

Postby 123Herpatology » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:18 am

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
123Herpatology
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:38 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Next

Return to Zoology Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest