Some people argue that animal experiments are misleading. How does one know that an animal’s response to a drug would be the same to a human’s? Also, the stress animals endure from being caged up may affect the experiment making the overall result meaningless.
Nevertheless, others would claim that animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against polio, measles, meningitis etc…They believe that animals and humans are similar and there are no differences between the two that cannot be factored into tests.
Another topic I will be evaluating will be the field of ‘Cryogenics’.
The whole idea of cryogenics dates back to the ancient Egyptians where they practised the art of ‘mummification’, hoping that the person will go onto an afterlife.
As scientific developments go, bodies are now frozen solid in liquid nitrogen. Scientists and patients alike are hoping that one day in the future, technology would have advanced to the extreme of reviving a ‘dead’ patient.
This has sparked off many conflicts with society having mixed opinions about cryopreservartion.
Some argue that it is impossible to bring a dead person back to life. Many religious arguments support this by stating that God is the only one that takes away life as it is God’s will. Bringing someone back to life is against God’s will and therefore, a sin.
Others would say science is advancing tremendously. They would argue that as many as seventy patients have been preserved and another eight hundred have already made the preparations to have cryopreservation when needed.
People concerned about the effects of cryogenics may argue that it is uncertain as to what the future will be like if they do manage to revive a dead patient. The changes occurred may be very different and may have uncertain effects upon the patients.
To respond to these others may say that if they are able to bring someone back to life, and then there is a high chance that the world will be a perfect place to live in. Bringing someone back to life will require scientists putting a lot of time and effort into their research. If the world was full of problems, they wouldn’t be able to cope with doing it.
For my last topic, abortion has been the centre of controversy ever since it was legalised in the 1960s.
Many people are against abortion as they believe it is no different from murder:
“…at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother…”
(www.abortionfacts.com)
Religious views state that all humans were born in God’s image. They are God’s creation and so killing a baby even in the womb is a sin.
However, some say that it is up to the woman what happens to the baby, it is her body, so it is her choice. In some cases, people condone abortion if the woman was raped. She never asked to have a baby or have sex, so she shouldn’t be able to live with the memory of the attacker.
If a pregnant woman had committed a crime and was sentenced to death, she would have to give birth first. This is so the baby doesn’t have to die by the actions of its mother. So if a woman was raped, why should a baby die by the actions of its father? This is another argument those against abortion would use.
In addition, many may say that a foetus has no feeling, so aborting it won’t be painful. This is a common misbelieve as it is proven that a foetus can feel pain nine weeks after conception.
A scientist, Dr. Joseph Fletcher claimed that although an embryo is a human, it is not quite a person, and so does not have as many rights. He also said:
“…an individual is not truly a person unless he has an IQ of at least 40…”
-Dr. Joseph Fletcher
(www.prochoice.org)
In conclusion, I believe that the development of scientific technology has raised a lot of ethical issues, particularly in the field of medicine.
Animal experimentation has been largely effected by scientific technology. I believe that animal experimentation is wrong and that animals have just as much right as humans. Also, the fact that they are being used for trivial matters such as cleaning products makes their suffering unnecessary.
But on the other hand, although scientific advances cause conflicts, it is also continuing to advance as scientists have started to find alternative ways of testing. One new form is using tissue culture which is testing on cells rather than a whole animal. Improved computer technology has also meant they can test computer generated animals which is just as effective.
In addition, I believe that cryogenics is a sign of how fast science is developing. I think that in the future they will be able to revive dead patients. This is because if people many years ago experienced technology today and thought it was ‘magic’ then it will be possible for us to look in the future and see the changes in the same type of extreme. I also think it is a good idea of accessing people to the future for medicinal purposes. If a person is ill and there is no cure for it today, then maybe in the future they would have developed a cure. I also think that cryogenics is something new and a sign of how fast science is developing.
On the other hand, I believe that bringing people back to life is playing God. Who’s to say on the future if a person is dead or not? It will create a lot of confusion and as not many people will be ‘dead’ it could cause overpopulation.
Abortion has caused more conflict than the two above. I believe that abortion should never have been made legal. It is no one but God’s choice to decide who shall live and who shouldn’t. I also think that if the mother didn’t want the baby, she should have to go through the pregnancy as a reminder to be more careful. Only after the pregnancy will is she allowed to give the child up for adoption as there are many couples that cannot have children.
To conclude I believe that science is developing rapidly. Many conflicts that have arisen from the three topics is caused by society not yet getting to grips with it.
Words: 1,307
Alina Hussain
SC2001019254
