BIOLOGY 121, Section 123
September 2006
[Instructions for the study-group assignment may be found here.]
1. Epidemic diseases have long acted to control human populations, particularly when we have lived at high density in unsanitary conditions, e.g. the Black Plague in medieval European cities. In the past century or so, we have finally become able to control most of the classical epidemics (typhoid, cholera, influenza). What change(s) in human culture contributed to this control, how, and why? Can we safely conclude that diseases will not regulate human populations in the future? Explain.
2. In many postcolonial nations (Australia, Canada, etc.) governments are seeking specific ways to make up for past inhumanities committed against indigenous peoples. For example, because some groups of North American native people claim that their ancestors were able to harvest resources from the land and sea sustainably for thousands of years, governments are receptive in negotiations to requests for unrestricted future access to resources (trees, fish, whales) for these groups in their traditional tribal areas. Assume that governments do recognize such rights: why would they, and what biological consequences might ensue? What role would technology play in your answer?
3. In India, tigers Panthera tigris can become pests, attacking livestock and occasionally attacking and killing humans. However, the presence of tigers attracts vital ecotourism dollars from Western travellers. Tigers must be “controlled” to ensure the health and economic welfare of local people; effective “control” could mean (among many other methods) building better fences around livestock, patrolling outlying villages and their surrounding forests, or even actually culling tiger populations. Not controlling tigers will be costly (dead cattle and people), but controlling tigers will still be costly (fences, patrols, lost tourism income). How can India maintain both tigers and tourism? Design sets of control methods which you think will balance the two needs. How could they be best explained to the world community?
4. When we possess (and/or are developing) technologies which allow us to reduce suffering, should we always use them? Genetic diseases in humans cause a great deal of suffering (for the afflicted, and those close to them), and impose a heavy cost on society (in direct medical costs and less direct social consequences). We can today, or will soon be able to, identify afflicted and at-risk individuals, even before they are born. Some people say we should terminate pregnancies with afflicted fetuses, and even consider terminating at-risk fetuses, or counsel at-risk families to reduce the chance they will reproduce, all in an effort to reduce human suffering. Is this biologically (evolutionarily) sensible? To what extent can your answer to that question influence your view of human rights and patients’ rights?
5.
If you were an athlete, you would no doubt be
striving for the best diet and training you could get to take you farther and
faster… but think biologically: is there a limit to how much we could improve
the athletic performance of humans? Assume, for example, that there are no
limits; how would we need to alter the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of
humans to create new record-breakers? Assume now that there actually are
limits: are they set by training, by genetics, or by both? How can you tell? Be
prepared to defend your answer(s).
6.
Every spring, in the media and out on the ice
floes as well, a great fuss erupts over the Newfoundland seal hunt. Harp seals Phoca
groenlandica of 2-5 weeks of age are collected by hunters, who often
dispatch the animals by striking them on the head with heavy clubs. It is
important to deal with the seals harshly and at close range, since wounded
animals will seek shelter in the sea and die pointlessly there from their
wounds. (Shooting is considered too inaccurate when done from small boats, and
damage to the body of the seal pelt must be avoided at all costs.) Setting
aside any emotional or ethical response you may feel about the suffering of baby
seals, what information would you require to be convinced that the quota
(325,000 animals allowable in 2006) is sustainable? Will removing large numbers
of young seals from the population annually be likely to have a major, or a
minor, impact, and why? How does human harvesting relate to other sources of
seal mortality? On a different level, you might wish to compare information on
the seal hunt from Canada’s Department of
Fisheries & Oceans to that from sources such as Greenpeace or PETA
(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Why do they differ?
7. Men are not from Mars, nor are women from Venus, but human females and males do seem to differ in their decision-making regarding issues related to reproduction (from flirting and dating to marriage and child-rearing). There even seem to be standard complaints: “why don’t men ever show their emotions?”; “why do women send men mixed signals?”; “men won’t help with housework!”; “women are so demanding!”; you’ve probably heard (or uttered!) these and others. Can such complaints relate to “real” biological differences between females and males? How “real” are these differences, anyway? Remember that if you are ever to evaluate your ideas, you will need a way to test them.
8. Is homosexual orientation “natural” for humans? You may believe that this question is either not open to scientific inquiry, or at least politically too-hot-to-raise… nevertheless it offers us a chance to consider interesting issues. Sexual orientation of any kind could arise from only a few possible causes: “hard-wired” genetic programming, in utero experience (i.e. exposure to the chemical environment), postnatal experience (social forces from family and/or peer group), conscious (or unconscious) personal “choice”, or a combination of two or more of these. Many organizations claiming to represent the homosexual community are known to deny (largely, or even completely) the “postnatal” and “choice” causes, and to hold the view that homosexuality is a natural human state, of equal biological standing with heterosexuality. Can you think of convincing methods to test this assertion? How plausible do you find the idea that homosexuality could be inherited? Be prepared to defend your answers; morality-based arguments are not acceptable.
9. Much publicity has been given in recent years to the apparently systematic mistreatment and degradation of women in some cultural traditions (e.g. the fact that women in some Islamic countries are not permitted to earn driver’s licenses or to go out alone in public, or the widespread practice in Africa and elsewhere of so-called “female circumcision”, more appropriately referred to as mutilation of the external genitalia). We in the West live today in a society which has achieved mostly equal standing for females and males. [If you disagree with this statement, you are invited to nominate any less gender-biased modern or historic society; few exist.] But by male-female equality, do we really mean “male-female interchangeability”? Should females and males always receive identical treatment or opportunities? Could there be valid “biological” reasons for giving a negative answer to this question, or are all our opinions coloured by social factors? (If the latter, then what is the origin of “social forces”, if not from human biology?!)
10. New books are being published all the time concerning the intelligence, the culture, even in some cases the supposed “spirituality”, of dolphins, chimpanzees, and elephants, animals we might reasonably imagine are among the most “advanced”. Clearly all of these species have large brains, complex social lives, and considerable communicative abilities, but most serious biologists would quite rightly stop short of giving them human-like status or rights (not because it’s impossible for them to be “like us”, but just because it’s difficult to test or prove). What criteria would you require to be satisfied before you were willing to ascribe “human-ness” to non-human species? Why?
11. “Genetically-modified organisms” (GMOs) have become the bêtes noirs of many activists. GMOs are often agricultural crops, either directly or indirectly in the human food supply pipeline, so this concern is not surprising. Are some types of GMOs likely to be more dangerous to us than others? How, and why? The GMO-development approval process is managed largely by non-scientists or by corporation-employed scientists, and is subject to ratification by politicians. Is this a desirable situation, and if so, how? If not, be prepared to suggest alternatives to the current system, and to defend them. [Bear in mind that GMOs are already well-established components of our diet, so it actually is a question of managing a real problem and not considering a merely abstract one.]
12. How DNA degrades over time is better understood now than when the first “Jurassic Park” film was released. The current view suggests that although the re-animation of dinosaurs is out of the question, the reconstruction of more recently extinct taxa (e.g. moas, about 200-400 years; woolly mammoth, a few thousand years) may be feasible. Would the pursuing of novel molecular techniques to do this (cloning, nuclear transplantation, etc.) really be a good use of research effort? Explain your reasoning. What consequences would you predict for the organisms (and the people) involved, and would these consequences be acceptable?
13. Life for most people in Western culture has become pretty comfortable and predictable, to the point that both organized and impromptu adventure-activities are now popular. Whether it’s cave-diving, or free-climbing, or street-racing, more and more people seem willing – even eager – to risk their health or their very lives in pursuit of the thrills provided by risky activities, and to view the activities as hobbies no more remarkable than coin-collecting or tennis. Why? One line of argument is to look at brain chemistry, and the supposed lack of a suitable balance of neurotransmitters, and you should look into this so you are aware of the mechanisms. Another more interesting and controversial line of argument concerns function: is there a need to demonstrate risk-taking success for social dominance reasons, much like a tribal hunter killing a lion with a spear to show that he should lead? Is thrill-seeking an outcome of boredom? A boundary-seeking reaction to the relative laxness and openness of modern Western culture? A rebellious response to societal authority figures like disapproving parents? How would you test the strength of those possibilities? If you think that adventure activities are harmless and valid pursuits, what justification can you provide for your view?
14. Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is much more than just an intermediary in protein synthesis. In fact, it can code for proteins on its own, it can in some cases self-replicate, and it can sometimes catalyze reactions. Thus it seems plausible that an “RNA world” might have been an evolutionary predecessor of modern (DNA-based) biochemistry. (Freeman speaks briefly about this in Chapter 4 of the textbook.) Critics of this theory have pointed out that RNA is very difficult to work with, showing a nasty tendency to curl and twist to the point of inactivity. Find out more about the arguments for and against the theory; how plausible do you find an “RNA world”?
15. “Unfair” forms of performance enhancement have been much in the news recently (for instance, steroid use in baseball leading to questionable breaking of records). Biologically speaking, however, where could we draw the line on “unfairness”? Is insulin treatment an unfair advantage for a diabetic athlete? What about a marathon-runner who banks a blood-donation a month before a major competition, then has the “extra” blood transfused back into her/his body a day or two before the run? (It’s the athlete’s own blood, right?) And isn’t it also true overall that genetic variations among individual human beings mean that training will be less effective for some people than for others…? Try to come up with a set of biological rules (or at least principles) to make sense of this situation around “fairness/unfairness”.
16. Imagine a world occupied by life-forms whose inheritance system is not particulate (as we see in DNA-based organisms on Earth), but instead based on the “blending” of traits in reproduction. Could these organisms be said to have genes? How would their inherited information be expressed in phenotype? Speculate what such a world would be like in terms of the following: biodiversity; species interactions; niche specialization. [NOTE –you’ll have to be pretty ambitious to tackle this question!]
17. Given the speed of “progress” in genetic research today, the time may not be too far away (maybe even within your reproductive lifetimes) when we “design” children according to our preferences for their appearance and capabilities. Assuming (for the moment) that there were no significant ethical issues involved – though part of your research into this question is to understand and evaluate what these ethical issues would be – and that everyone thought it was a great idea, what practical difficulties would you predict in implementing genes-to-order human breeding? Towards what “targets” (i.e. desirable sets of characteristics) would you expect people to go? Who would have access to the technology, and what results might arise from differential access?
18. Should fossils (like the Tyrannosaurus rex named “Sue” by its discoverers) have ever been put up for sale? Should we pay to protect “heritage places” like the Amazon rainforest or the Great Barrier Reef of Australia from developers? What role do you think money should play in science? The reality is that research work is often expensive, and there is a limited pot of money available to support it, so many excellent ideas go unstudied. What priorities would you set in determining where money for science should be spent? Can we realistically expect more money for research in the near future, and if so in what topics of study, and why? Explain your answers.
19. The United Nations educational and scientific organization (UNESCO) adopted, at Budapest in July 1999, a declaration on how science should be used in society (you can read the full text of the declaration at this link). It recommends, among other things, that all peoples of the world ought to have free access to all new discoveries and advances in all branches of science. Does this seem a realistic goal to you, considering that 99% of research spending is by Western governments and corporations? What does it say about intellectual property rights? Shouldn’t those who pay for research reap the rewards of their investing? Explain.
20. We know that evolution (by natural selection and by other mechanisms) is all about tradeoffs, compromises, and “checks-and-balances”, so it has often been thought that the result of all the evolutionary forces’ operations should place nature “at equilibrium”. When we look at the long-term history of life, however, something of a paradox emerges: species number varies dramatically over time. How can this apparently counterintuitive result be explained? Does an apparent lack of equilibrium mean that the idea of equilibrium should be abandoned?
21. In many port cities, communities of marine organisms have been disrupted by the introduction of new species which arrive as planktonic larvae in the ballast-tanks of freighters. When the tanks are flushed, the organisms escape, and often establish very swiftly; for example, in San Francisco Bay, more than 200 non-indigenous species have become established since 1945, and some have become the ecologically dominant species shortly after arriving. New dominants keep emerging; ironically, the earlier successful invaders are often wiped out by even-more-successful later invaders! Why should invasion be so easy? [hint – although you may think of an obvious answer to this question, it will probably have hidden assumptions, so be warned!] Thinking beyond just this one example, how can invasions in general be controlled… or reversed? What costs would be involved in “success”?
22. The origin of life, whether it happened here on Earth or elsewhere, must have obeyed natural laws if it is the sort of thing which can be studied; thus we need a scientific explanation, not a supernatural one. The laws of thermodynamics state that entropy (essentially “disorder”) must always increase in the universe, yet the origin of life (under most current theories) involved small molecules floating freely in an aquatic medium (a disordered system) assembling into a highly organized set of linear polymers and other precisely arranged molecules in cells (a much more ordered system). How can this paradox be overcome within recognized thermodynamic constraints? What are the broader implications of thermodynamic principles for evolutionary theories?
23. Extant organisms are the result of about 3.8 x 109 years of evolutionary modification in the face of changing environments. Does this mean that today’s organisms are in some sense “better” than those of earlier eras? Explain. Would it then follow logically (irrespective of your answer the preceding question) that the biosphere today is in a way “more fully packed” with species than it was in the past, because there has been more time for it to “fill up”? How could you test your answers? [And what unstated assumptions are hidden in the questions? – this is a critical part of answering!]
24. Even long before Darwin’s time, the fossil record had been recognized as holding significant biological data, but reading the record has always been problematic for biologists: the record has a wealth of remarkable forms and “intermediates”, but is often very incomplete and poorly preserved, so palaeontology has gradually been eclipsed in importance by today’s trendier technique for working out evolutionary relationships: genetic analysis of extant forms. Does this major shift in focus seem wise to you? You are strongly advised to look for both some recently-published examples of major fossil finds (could the equivalent of such finds have been made with genetic techniques?) and some remarkable genetic-analysis results (say, casting doubt on long-accepted fossil-based classifications); only by seeing both kinds of results can you really appreciate the dilemma.
25. For almost as long as we have been human, we have domesticated wild animals for a wide range of uses. No other species has been as important to us as the dog “Canis familiaris” [although this “species name” is misleading – all modern dogs are genetically wolves Canis lupus, and freely interbreed with them when the opportunity arises]. Dogs are so central to our culture that the family dog is considered as precious as a child, often receives Christmas and birthday gifts, and even is in some cases afforded a pseudoreligious funeral ceremony. (But cultures differ!) What kind of evidence would you look for, and where would you look for it, if you wanted to determine exactly when, how, and why we first associated with wolves/dogs? [hint – some of the evidence might be found without any excavation…]
26. Even though life today is fairly biodiverse (somewhere between 3 and 30 million species, estimates vary widely), there appear to be instances where opportunities (we might call them “potential niches”) are not being utilized by any organism. How would you recognize such opportunities? That is, what criteria would you use to identify a “potential niche”? Why are such “potential niches” not filled? Can you suggest any specific “potential niches”, and candidates to fill them?
27. A longstanding theoretical idea in evolutionary biology, and like many others one invented by an anti-evolutionist, is “Cope’s rule” (or “Cope’s law”), attributed to the 19th-century American palaeontologist Edward Drinker Cope: over the history of a lineage, there tends to be an increase in average body-size of its member-species. To put it another way, the first member(s) of a lineage are almost always small, and later there are larger ones as well as small ones. As one part of this question, I would like you to evaluate the “rule” and see if it holds, but the main issue in the question is this: can the “rule” be applied to the history of all life as one large lineage? Any answers you might develop when thinking about this will need a lot of explaining, and stating of assumptions.
28. Statement: “No organisms today, or indeed any time in the history of
life on the Earth, can match insects as an evolutionary success story.”
Construct arguments to both
support and criticize this
statement. It will obviously be necessary to define your terms – particularly “success”
– carefully, and to research an adequate range of biodiversity to allow
comparisons between insects and other supposed challengers.
29. Taxonomy (the science of classification), long considered a sleepy backwater of biology, has recently (since about 1975) seethed with intellectual ferment. On the one hand, a long-running battle has been waged by “systematists” and “pheneticists” (researchers who decide qualitatively which traits to use in comparing organisms, based largely on functional morphology) against “cladists” (researchers who stress the quantitative, statistical evaluation of sets of traits for what they claim to be a more objective system; what your text refers to as “phylogeneticists”) concerning how classification at all levels “should” be done; on the other hand, many doubts have been raised concerning the large-scale classification of life, particularly the number of “kingdoms” needed to adequately capture biodiversity in the broadest sense. Apprise yourself of the issues at stake in these disputes, and attempt to come to your own conclusions regarding the relative merits of the antagonists.
30. If you were born in the 1980s, and grew up watching “Jurassic Park” and its sequels, you may be surprised to hear that the idea of active, fast-moving, intelligent dinosaurs is a relatively recent one. From the 1840s (when the term “dinosaur” was first coined for these animals by Richard Owen) until the late 1960s, palaeontologists viewed dinosaurs as “overgrown lizards”, whose demise was due primarily to competitive interactions with so-called “advanced” early mammals. This attitude extended (and still does) into popular culture as well, so gas-guzzling automobiles, old-fashioned corporations, and aging politicians have all been described as “real dinosaurs”. In fact, the earliest mammals were widespread even before dinosaurs appear in the fossil record! Why do you think scientists accepted the “lizard” image for so long, and why then were they relatively quick to accept the “active” model? [hint – it had little to do with the acquisition of new data…]
31. “Social Darwinism”, a theory originating in the 19th century, proposed that interactions among human groups (tribes, nation-states, other political units) are similar to interactions among non-human species, and that the success of nations is due to the action of forces analogous to predation and competition. This idea has been used to account for victory and defeat in warfare, for economic and cultural forms of imperialism, and for racial theories of superiority, primarily by extremists of various kinds. Since we would not wish to emulate Hitler or Stalin, we should naturally avoid adopting such ideas… but is this the same as claiming that human societal behaviour cannot be modelled on analogy with the behaviour of other species? Look more deeply into the principles of Social Darwinism and see if you can think of ways of putting a more acceptable face on the ideas embodied by it.
32. Many conditions formerly classified as “mental illness” (e.g. schizophrenia) are now known to be caused by chemical imbalances in the human brain, and modern drug treatments can alleviate symptoms dramatically. Such findings have encouraged scientists studying the human nervous system (neurologists, molecular biologists, even some psychiatrists) to hope for the eventual “explanation” of all mental states – even human consciousness itself – using the language of chemistry. Can consciousness be analyzed in this manner? Why, or why not? [hint – the essence of this question is twofold: (1) how can we test for consciousness; and (2) can we even agree on what consciousness is?]
33. It is unusual for an abundant species to go extinct “overnight”. Before a species becomes extinct, it usually first becomes rare: either its range is dramatically reduced, or the key habitats it requires for success are degraded, or a substantial number of individuals is removed by intentional hunting, or by accidental poisoning aimed at another species. Thus most conservation efforts are aimed at species which are now rare, or which appear to be becoming rare quickly. Does this seem sensible to you? That is, given that extinction is a natural endpoint for all species eventually, why bother trying to evade it? Maybe some organisms “should” be going extinct at any given time, and it’s somehow “wrong” for humans to get in the way. What criteria would you suggest for cases when we should, or should not, intervene to protect a dwindling species? How can you justify these criteria? [hint – when answering this set of questions, don’t think merely about particular endangered species like pandas or blue whales, but consider also entire families or orders or classes of organisms which are apparently “on the way out”, like monotreme and perissodactyl mammals…]
34. Are you a blood donor? Do you support charities? Are you a believer in “helping thy neighbour”? These acts of altruistic or “self-sacrificial” behaviour are often presented as the ultimate in socially sanctioned virtue. Ethical and religious systems of all stripes tend to encourage this kind of virtue, or if not, at least to punish the more rampant forms of selfishness. Our understanding of evolution by the process of natural selection, however, suggests that truly altruistic behaviour is seldom selectively advantageous. Does this mean: that humans are not under the influence of selection?; that altruism in humans is really not counterselective?; that what humans do when they appear altruistic isn’t really altruistic?; something else…? Explain.
35. Driven partly by the possible biological nature of very small “microfossils” in a Martian-origin meteorite, and partly by interest in recently-characterized “nanobacteria” (Earth organisms about 0.01% the volume of an E. coli bacterium), many researchers wonder if there are any clear minimal-size limits on organisms. A “minimal” organism would include all the components essential to life as we know it: nucleic acids, ribosomes, a selectively permeable membrane, and so forth. In an article in the journal Science (20/xi/98), a proposed minimum-size model yielded a value of about 200nm. Other work, however, claims that nanobacteria which passed a 100nm filter may be successfully cultured. Much argument has been engendered on this issue; look at some of it. Can “supertiny” nanobacteria be using some new kind of biology? How solid are the experiments related to them? What implications would a lower-size “limit” have for: the origin of life?; evolutionary theory generally?; the search for life elsewhere?
36. There is a widely held view in our Western society that it is the ultimate “destiny” of humanity to move off the Earth and colonize – some would go so far as to say “conquer” – the stars. Whereas dreams of conquest have historically been the province of demagogues and rogues, this galaxy-colonizing idea is more likely to be heard from professional astronomers and NASA apparatchiks. Although the stars are a very very long way off, assume for the purposes of this question that shorter-range colonization (Moon, Mars, Galilean satellites, etc.) will soon be feasible; should we attempt to take over other worlds? And why: for living space, or resources,… or just for curiosity? Would your answers be the same if there were: intelligent organisms on target planets?; living organisms?; fossil evidence of earlier organisms? Explain.
37. Modern science began about 400 years ago, and has tended to be dominated at any given moment by one discipline. Galileo and Kepler interpreted celestial mysteries. In Newton’s time, mathematics led the way. Then Lyell transformed geology. Later, Dalton and Mendeleev extracted chemistry from alchemy. The twentieth century belonged surely to Einstein and colleagues, bringing the macro- and micro-worlds together with explosive results. Many pundits view the 21st century as the one in which biological advances germinated in the 1850s, and burgeoning since the 1950s, may finally come to fruition with comprehensive theories of life. Do you think this will happen? How might such theories look? Can you imagine incorporating all the varied fields of biology into one grand theory? Justify your arguments.
38.
It would be folly to ignore the medicinal potential
of plant products – aspirin, for example, based on an extract of willow-bark,
is the most widely used drug in the world, and many other modern “chemical”
medicines are in fact just highly purified versions of useful plant remedies – but
should we be holding near-religious “beliefs” about the power of herbal
medicine? Self-administration of herbal remedies may lead to several problems
(you should investigate these to convince yourselves!): the effect of
contaminants in the preparation; uncertainty about the dosage of active
ingredients; possible interactions either among herbal medicines themselves, or
between herbal and “high-tech” medicines; and/or a lack of accepted legal
standards for the products. Why do you think so many people in our culture are
willing to take a chance on herbal remedies? Conversely, has medical science
lost its allure? Explain.
39. Is there life after death? You may think this is not a question for biologists, but Drs. Peter Fenwick of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and Sam Parnia of Southampton Hospital, disagree. They did a clinical study of 63 patients, each interviewed within a week of surviving a severe (clinical-death-inducing) cardiac arrest. The patient was asked what, if anything, she/he could remember about the period spent unconscious during the arrest. Four patients reported feelings of peace and joy, with heightened senses, separation from the body, a bright light, and the experience of entering a wonderful new place to meet a mystical being. Three other patients reported small parts of these, or other less specific, sensations, while the other 56 reported no memories at all. Fenwick and Parnia interpreted these data as suggestive scientific evidence that perception of images and feelings, and complex processing, could still occur even in a “non-functioning” brain – a sort of “proof” of the existence of a non-physical soul. How would you evaluate the data? Are Fenwick and Parnia’s criteria enough to convince you of this apparently earth-shattering “proof”? Explain.
40. Evolutionary biology has (so to speak) penetrated many areas of study. Consider “Darwinian medicine”, the view that responses of the human body to disease are not mere symptoms, but are instead crucial adaptive mechanisms, which should be left to run their natural course. You may be familiar with this in the context of a fever (adaptive high body temperature makes it too warm for the pathogen to reproduce). More ambiguous is the “Darwinian” account of menstruation: its “function” is supposedly to clean the cervix, and to flush pathogens out of the uterus and vagina, not least the disease-organisms likely to have been introduced during sexual intercourse. How would you test to determine that this is “the reason for” menstruation? (Would you care to guess the sociopolitical affiliation of those who developed this menstruation theory?) More generally, what do you think of the whole idea of Darwinian medicine?
41. Cannibalism is a taboo subject in our culture, hence the titillating popularity of films on the idea, beginning with Soylent Green in the early 1970s and probably familiar to you through the character of Hannibal Lecter, as well as the real-life horrors of Jeffrey Dahmer. But cannibalism is remarkably widespread among other animals, and has been commonplace in many human societies until our era. Given that cannibalism among humans is (a) a way of getting an easily digestible meal, and (b) a way of eliminating competitors from the scene (permanently), how did it ever get to be a taboo? Isn’t the burial or burning of all those bodies a waste of protein? Would you call the consumption of human placentas cannibalism? (Yes, people do eat them. Grilled, usually. Look it up.) Could oral sex be seen as cannibalism? (Lots of cells can be eaten… and what do you think happens even during a French kiss?) Would you ever break the large-scale, body-eating cannibalism taboo yourself? Under what conditions, and with what justification?
42. Apes live only in the Tropics (gorilla, chimpanzees, orangutan), but according to some people “ape-like” creatures live in other places too (e.g. Sasquatch or Bigfoot in temperate North America, Yeti or “Abominable Snowman” in the Arctic-like alpine zone of the Himalayas). Is it really possible that biologists could have overlooked these large animals? What evidence is there to support their existence? Why do most reputable scientists find the evidence unconvincing? What evidence would you consider acceptable to prove that Bigfoot or Yeti exist? [And before you laugh at weak evidence too easily, consider that as recently as 100 years ago, Western science said that gorillas were African natives’ fantasy.]
43. Imagine for this question that our knowledge of gene-expression and developmental biology in humans has advanced to this point: the ability to grow an adult-sized clone-copy of any given individual, equipped with a complete set of organs but not a brain (just a spinal cord and medulla to control autonomic functions). The clone-copy would be maintained in a sterile facility, provided with nutrients and a suitable chamber in which all other biological needs would be satisfied; likely the body would float in a saline solution and be hooked up to an air-mask, waste-elimination tubes, and monitoring devices. The purpose of this would be to provide a stock of ready-to-transplant, perfectly-matched organs and tissues for any person able to pay the price. [Assume that most people who could afford to make a brain-free clone in this manner would not wait to grow one until it was needed, but would have one always ready in case of a catastrophic illness or accident.] What ethical problems can you foresee in this scenario? (For instance, would the clone be a person?) Would the problems be compensated by the advantages of highly-successful transplants? Who would and would not have access to the technology?
44. You may have heard this said (or perhaps said it yourself, if you’ve had the chance to visit): “Loch Ness is a really weird, atmospheric place… it’s easy to believe that some sort of monster inhabits it.” There’s no doubt that Loch Ness can cast a spell: a long, narrow, deep stretch of grey-brown water, flanked by the green sides of the Great Glen, it contains more fresh water than all other lakes in the British Isles combined… but is it weird and atmospheric because it contains monsters, or does the thought of monsters in the loch (and ruined castles on the shoreline, and brooding cloudy skies, and the skirl of bagpipes in the distance) make the place seem like something out of a legend? What kind of “monster” might it be, assuming that we must limit ourselves to a biological phenomenon? (And how do you evaluate the claims made by others about the nature of such a beast?) Why have no body parts, bones, droppings, etc. ever been reliably ascribed to the monster? And could there be just one animal (“the” monster)? Discuss.
45. There is great public interest in museum displays of real fossil dinosaur finds, in discoveries about the nature of dinosaurs (e.g. their links to modern birds), and in the idea of one day reanimating dinosaurs, à la “Jurassic Park”. In the latter part of the 19th and the early part of the 20th centuries, as European explorers pushed deeper into Africa, they hoped to find some dinosaurs still extant there; these notions created a whole genre of “Lost World” literature, exemplified by Conan Doyle’s story of that title. Surprisingly, this dream persists even today. Some tribal groups in the little-known rainforests of the Congo (Zaïre) Basin have claimed to be familiar with an animal which is called in their language mokele-mbembe [moh-KELL-ay-mm-BEM-bay], and which they claim has a leathery skin, a long snake-like neck and tail, and a heavy body larger than any forest antelope’s – what some Westerners interpret as a reasonable description of a small sauropod dinosaur. When shown drawings of a range of native rainforest creatures and sauropod dinosaurs, the local people show little hesitation in naming the mokele-mbembe as just a typical (if rare) part of the local fauna. Would this be enough to convince you of its existence? If not, then what evidence would be likely to convince you? [hint – if I showed you a drawing of a centaur or a unicorn, I’ll bet you could “identify” it]
46. Human babies are sometimes born with odd features (extra digits on hands and/or feet, palatal deformities, etc.). Up until recently, many malformed babies would not have survived (or would even have been put to death as evidence of witchcraft or demonic possession) and would almost certainly not have reproduced. Although some malformations are the result of drug exposure or other teratogenic causes, some are heritable, and modern medicine allows for the survival and even breeding success of many physically malformed individuals. Would you expect any malformations to therefore become widespread, perhaps even becoming the “norm”, in the human population? It seems unlikely for major structural features, perhaps… but it could be argued that some more subtle physical infirmities are already abundant enough to qualify as normal, or nearly so. Can you identify any of them? Explain and justify your answers.
47. The most economically significant “industry” in British Columbia today is tourism. An increasingly popular tourist attraction is whale-watching, where groups (5-100) of people are taken out on boats in Johnstone Strait, among other places, to view orcas (“killer whales”, Orcinus orca), grey whales Eschrictius robustus, and even on occasion humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae. This activity puts so many boats on the water that questions have been raised concerning the negative effects it may be having on the welfare of the animals. What sorts of effects would you expect? Would all marine-mammal species be equally affected, and why? How would you go about measuring the strength or importance of the effects? What would be your “control”? How could the negative impacts be ameliorated?
48. B.C.’s growing aquaculture industry has drawn fire from environmental groups for growing Atlantic salmon Salmo salar on the Pacific coast, where they could become a problem after escaping from captivity. [Even aquacultured Pacific salmon (several spp. of the genus Oncorhynchus), if they escape from their pens, can cause problems for wild Pacific fish – why?] Why should people worry about escaped Atlantic salmon? As a response to public concerns about the success of escapee-fish, researchers are developing sex-modified and ploidy-modified Atlantic salmon. What is involved in such modifications, and what ecological consequences might ensue from the escape of such stocks? What recommendations would you make for this industry’s practices?
49. Researchers recently announced the successful cloning of transgenic pigs (pigs with some human DNA incorporated in their genome). This was presented as good news for transplant patients, because the easier it becomes to grow transgenic pigs to order, the easier it will be (eventually) to grow individual-human-specific replacement organs inside these pigs. Ethical debate has raged about the immorality of “farming” human embryos for stem-cells – but if we farm human/pig genetic chimaeras, is that not just as bad? If it is considered justifiable to grow replacement organs for humans with diseases, or for those injured in accidents, then is it not justifiable to grow organs for research purposes? […even if the only way to do successful replacements is to do the research-growing first?] And what if research were to be done, demonstrating that human-embryo-derived tissues are infinitely safer and easier to grow than human/pig tissues? If you are personally opposed to this line of research, would your opinion be unchanged if a close relative of yours developed a disease or had an accident, and the use of embryo-tissues were the only means of recovery? Discuss.
50. Several cases of trouble have arisen over the last few years in households where “exotic” animals are kept as pets. People have been mauled or even killed by large cats, suffocated by constricting snakes, or poisoned by tropical frogs and spiders. Could keeping dangerous pets be a psychological issue (controlling nature, dominating risky species, etc.)? Is pet ownership a different phenomenon than domestication of sheep or cattle? Does it make good biological sense for people to keep potentially deadly animals in the house? Bear in mind, when thinking about this question, that even so-called “normal” pets (dogs, cats) are quite capable of causing serious injuries or deaths under the right circumstances.