March 16, 2005 at 10:51 am #530
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.
March 16, 2005 at 4:02 pm #20537Chris4Participant
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.
March 16, 2005 at 9:19 pm #20558MrMisteryParticipant
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
March 16, 2005 at 10:21 pm #20566PoisonParticipant
I think, human benefits are more important than mice or rabbit. (unless you kill the whole mice or rabbit on the earth ,of course. 😆 )
March 17, 2005 at 7:10 am #20586
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 ? ? ?
March 17, 2005 at 6:53 pm #20616MrMisteryParticipant
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:):)
March 17, 2005 at 8:08 pm #20619
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 ? ? ?
April 30, 2005 at 1:14 pm #21919defensivorParticipant
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)
June 2, 2006 at 2:53 pm #49368sickstanParticipantquote 2810712:
I draw the line at Mike… or maybe Steve.
June 2, 2006 at 3:17 pm #49369victorParticipantquote defensivor:
I think that SARS is different with Avian influenza dissease..or perhaps I was wrong?? 😉
June 2, 2006 at 9:10 pm #49389DarbyParticipant
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.
June 20, 2006 at 10:18 am #50314123HerpatologyParticipant
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
June 20, 2006 at 4:37 pm #50325DarbyParticipant
They are 2 different but related things – mortality rate versus reproductive rate. On a rabbit farm, mortality exceeds reproduction, and they pretty much all die, because the virus spreads in its original nasty form. The viruses eventually kill all of their hosts, but a milder variant would have exhausted the host supply too, if more slowly.
Out in the fields, where hosts are not locked up in close quarters, viral variants that are less nasty, that can keep bunnies moving and spreading their milder viral offspring, will be the long-term survivors, but over such a short time scale that the rabbits’ reproductive rates won’t matter that much (it won’t take them too long to replace the deceased, though).
Did that make it clearer?
June 23, 2006 at 2:44 am #50420LinnParticipant
As long as the animal is treated as humanely as can be. And when not being "experimented" on they shpould have comfortable, clean living conditions. And if experiment may cause pain of course they should be given painkillers. And never treated roughly.
June 26, 2006 at 10:35 am #50549123HerpatologyParticipant
yah much clearer thanks darby
June 27, 2006 at 11:06 am #50606NavinParticipant
What do you guys think of the killing of insects like butterflies or dragonflies for a specimen collection?
June 27, 2006 at 5:07 pm #50625vk4vfxParticipant
The Rabbit problem here in Australia years back was shocking they caused mass desertification and erosion thus changing the whole ecosystem, the first biological attack was the Mixomytosis virus many years back until the rabbit built up a resistance, this virus caused terrible flu like symptoms.
The Colici virus (prob incorrect spelling) was next that affects their ability to reproduce. With these types of viruses I wouldn’t be to concerned about them mutating and affecting us humans as evolution has given us a sort of built in species barrier it can not cross although that statement is not entirely correct as it has happened before e.g. CJD & BSE and many more.
June 27, 2006 at 9:48 pm #50646alextempletParticipant
What about the most natural killing of all, hunting?
July 20, 2006 at 12:05 pm #51796mkwajeParticipant
whew.. To kill or not to kill… there is no clear line when to stop. It probably is up to the one who will do the deed. We can say that’s bad, or that’s ok but then in the end its the effect of the deeds that matter.
July 21, 2006 at 3:55 am #51874shyanParticipant
all animal testing in labs should be outlawed-people ae not worth the suffering those animals go through. besides, who are we to favoure one species over another?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.