Flatworms incarnated

“Experts at Nottingham University have been examining how two species of flatworms are able to regenerate themselves again and again – raising hopes that scientists could find ways of alleviating the effects of ageing in human cells. […]During the study 20,000 new and fully-formed flatworms were created from just one original worm by splitting it into tiny pieces.”  [Why flatworms may hold the secret to immortality]

I’m not going to raise the ethical question about lab animals again this time (see January entry).  I just wonder what 20,000 forced new incarnations of flatworms add to the world other than quantitatively proving the repeatability of this scientific experiment.  A related question is whether resuscitation is needed ‘in all cases and at all cost’ (cf. the Dutch royal prince Johan Friso recently ‘brought back’ to a life of coma after 25 minutes of cardiac arrest and almost an hour of RCR), or life support for that matter (cf. Ariel Sharon, since 2006).   

I ask myself what we would truly be contributing to the world by regenerating ourselves ad infinitum.  I would not consider myself, nor most other individuals, all that essential to our planet’s well-being.  And most of us have hard times trying to live happily while it lasts. Just forget about the ‘ever after’ bit; it is supposed to be a timeless state, and hence not part of this universe.

Wish to react?  Just click the 'comments' link below and follow the steps.  But please note that I will need to moderate contributions before they appear on screen.

Collateral damage

“Blood researchers have created a mouse with a bone disease similar to human myeloma - a form of blood cancer that affects the bones."  It sounds like an ordinary phrase. 

This 'ordinary-ness' is what bugs me. First of all I think that the way this is phrased is worrying, as it secretly lets the 'normality' of the fact seep into everyday conversation so that it soon will become a commonality.  It distances us even further from any form of ethical or critical questioning of the practice.

The research is founded on purely homocentric basis: man first & foremost.  Man "makes" mouse, mouse is forced to suffer a terminal disease which - on average - hits 1 to 4 people per 100,000 in the world. Mice are so unfortunate to have their genome more or less resemble that of humans.  A handy lab animal, then, since any casualties are quickly replaced, given the mouse's capacity and speed of procreation.  

Am I then so heartless not to wish others a cure to their disease?  Of course not.  But where's the heart in all this? The question is not whether medical research should be conducted.  I believe the question should be brought to another level: Why are there so many "civilization diseases"? Less than half of all known diseases can be caught by animals, all the rest are caught by humans.  Should we perhaps rethink our concept of 'civilization'?