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'? 

Old year, new day

To what
Shall I compare the world?
It is like the wake
Vanishing behind a boat
that has rowed away at dawn.

(Manzei / Cranston - from: ISBN 9781857157383, 1999:75)

Wish to react?  Just click on 'Comments' below...