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?
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...
Consider the following mtDNA sequences obtained from chimpanzee and humans in the following geographic regions: Chimp: ATGCGCATTCAATG China: ATGGGCTTTCAATC Ethiopia: ATGGGCATTCAATC England: ATGGGCTTTCAATC Kenya: ATGGGCATTCAATA
Which of the following statements is NOT correct: A. These data depict a higher level of sequence divergence between human and chimp than is to be expected based on overall levels of genetic similarity between human and chimp. B. These data are consistent with the multiregional hypothesis for the origin of humans because the Asian and European sequences are more closely related to each other than either is to the African sequences. C. These data are consistent with an "out of Africa" hypothesis for the origin of humans because the Kenya and Ethiopian samples exhibit an ancestral character state at position 7. D. The African sequences represent older evolutionary lineages than the European sequences because they have one polymorphic site.
The researcher determines that an average nest incubation temperature of 32 – 33?C results in the birth of male crocodiles, while higher and lower incubation temperatures result in female crocodiles. What is the most likely explanation for this phenomenon?
A. Since this phenomenon is influenced by an external stimuli (temperature), it cannot be attributed to changes in either the genome or the proteome. B. Incubation temperature changes both the crocodilian genome and proteome. C. Incubation temperature results in a change in the crocodilian proteome. D. Incubation temperature results in a change in the crocodilian genome.
Why is it believed that RNA was the first informational molecule to evolve?
a. RNA molecules can replicate into DNA molecules. b. RNA molecules are more central to modern inheritance than DNA. c. RNA molecules degrade more slowly in solution than DNA molecules. d. RNA molecules are much simpler structures than other macromolecules. e. RNA molecules are able to function as both enzymes and substrates for their own replication.
The membrane that contacts the endometrium
of the uterus is the
a. amnion. b. allantois. c. chorion. d. yolk sac. e. umbilical cord