Biologists sometimes damage ecosystems in order to study them. For example, researchers have fogged rainforest
trees with insecticides to search for undiscovered species that fall to the ground when poisoned. Others have deliberately
added phosphates to natural lakes to study the eutrophication process. What is your ethical position on such studies?
Should they be banned, or is the knowledge gained worth the harm they cause?
What will be an ideal response?
ANSWER: There are two possible perspectives in answer to this question, both equally correct.
Possible "pro" answer: It is often difficult, if not impossible, to glean information from
living systems without disassembling them or altering their normal function. These studies
are ethical, because the knowledge gained is well worth the limited harm caused. Damage
to one ecosystem may yield information that will prevent similar damage from occurring to
many other similar systems. For example, phosphates are now banned from detergents in
Florida because they caused eutrophication in the Everglades. Without research, the
connection between eutrophication and phosphates could not have been demonstrated.
Possible "con" answer: Biologists, more than any other scientists, should respect the
natural world. Especially now, when so many systems are stressed from human activity, it
is not ethical to deliberately cause widespread destruction. It will certainly take longer to
gain knowledge this way, but the alternative is unacceptable. Pollution, overpopulation,
and global warming are bringing the planet near the breaking point, and we must do
everything in our power to reverse these trends. Ethical limits that already exist for human
and animal experimentation should be extended to ecosystems as well.
You might also like to view...
Hemophilia is a genetic disease that has plagued the royal houses of Europe. The disease allele is recessive and X-linked. Queen Victoria was a carrier, and her granddaughter Alexandra married Nicholas II, the last czar of imperial Russia
Alexandra was a carrier for hemophilia; Nicholas was normal. Their son, Alexis, was afflicted with the disease. Alexis and his four sisters were killed in 1917. What genetic traits were possible for the four sisters? A) None of the four sisters carried the hemophilia allele. B) At least one of the sisters was a carrier of the allele. C) All four sisters were carriers of the hemophilia allele. D) At least one of the sisters had hemophilia like Alexis.
Which is not a characteristic of the gymnosperms?
A) Cones B) Seeds C) Pollen D) Flowers
What are the three stages of photosynthesis? Which stages require light and which do not?
What will be an ideal response?
In a 3-D double helix model of DNA, the center consists of ____.
A. deoxyribose sugars B. nitrate groups C. nucleotide base pairs D. phosphate groups E. sugar–phosphate backbones