Practical Ethics

Trackr the Most Cloneworthy Dog: Best Friends Again?

According to recent media reports, a competition to find the world’s most cloneworthy dog has been organised by the American firm BioArts International http://www.bioarts.com/about_us.htm. BioArts has a subsidiary, Encore Pet Science, which now offers a commercial dog cloning service. The world’s first commercially cloned god, Lancelot Encore, was born late last year and cost US$155,000-. However, Encore Pet Science are now offering to clone dogs for a mere $138,500-. Encore Pet Science also offer a gene banking service, which enables cloning to occur long after the death of an animal.

 

The competition to find the world’s most cloneworthy dog offered the winning owner the chance to have their dog cloned for free. Of the many entrants, the German Shepherd Trakr was judged to be the most cloneworthy, as result of his heroic efforts at Ground Zero following the 2001 collapse of the World Trade Center, where he worked non-stop for 48 hours and found the last survivor in the rubble. Trackr has also helped recover over $1 million in stolen goods in a long career as a working police dog. Trackr has been rewarded for his efforts by the creation of five cloned puppies, Trustt, Valor, Prodigy, Solace and Déjà vu.

Is it OK to Eat Neanderthals?

In a recent article in The Observer the publication of a scientific article presenting evidence in favour of a new theory about the fate of the Neanderthals was reported (See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal). According to this new theory, modern humans ate the Neanderthals!

 

Neanderthals flourished in Europe and Western Asia between 130,000 years and 30,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens are believed to have moved into Europe approximately 30,000 years ago, so it is certainly possible that the two overlapped and that the reason that there are no more Neanderthals is that they ended up in our stomachs. On the other hand it is also possible, as competing theories have it, that the Neanderthals interbred with modern humans and were assimilated into the larger group and it is also possible that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens had little or no interaction and that the Neanderthals died out as a consequence of the changing climate and other environmental factors. Much remains unknown about the Neanderthals. We do not know how many of them there were and we do not know whether it was actually possible for them to interbreed with modern humans.

 

Ian Plimer's climate change skepticism

Well known Australian geologist and climate skeptic Ian Plimer has recently released a new book in which he continues to push the case for climate change skepticism, entitled Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing Science, and published by Connorcourt. See http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=103. See also http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25429080-7583,00.html.

 

This is not the place to review the book. What I want to do here is examine at an argument that is advertised as being made in the book in a puff piece written by Vaclav Klaus on the Connorcourt website (Klaus is a former EU president and a well know climate change skeptic). The argument, which Plimer has made before, strikes me as fallacious. In saying this I do not mean to imply that climate change skeptics have no arguments that might be worth considering. They might well. But if they do then it would be a good idea to focus on those arguments and avoid presenting fallacious arguments, which can only damage the case for climate change skepticism, at least amongst attentive readers. The argument of Plimer’s that I want to examine is the claim that we should not worry about changing temperatures because the changes that are under consideration are very minor compared to the large changes that have taken place in the past. Plimer expressed this view quite succinctly in a radio interview in 2007:

 

Is Reality Just a State of Mind?

In a recent article in the Guardian entitled ‘Quantum Weirdness: What we call ‘reality’ is just a state of mind’, quantum physicist and winner of the 2009 Templeton prize Bernard d’Espagnat argues against the commonsense view, championed by realist philosophers, that reality is objective and importantly independent of our thinking about it. ( See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-entanglement). Like many before him d’Espagnat appeals to some of the findings of quantum mechanics, which appear to defy commonsense, to support his case. In particular, he appeals to the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, under which particles that have interacted with one another remain importantly connected to one another even when far apart. D’Espagnat points out that this phenomenon has important consequences for our conception of space and time. Somehow he seems to think that it is also important for debates about realism in general and not just to debates about the nature of space and time, although he does not explain why this is the case. According to him:

 

This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either.

 

Is Science Close to Defeating Religion?

On Sunday The Observer published an article by Colin Blakemore entitled ‘Science is Just one Gene away from Defeating Religion’. (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/22/genetics-religion). After a necessarily brief overview of the history of tensions between science and religion Blakemore settles on a target, which is a well-known argument recently presented by Richard Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, for the conclusion that religion provides a type of explanation that cannot be provided by science. Science, on this view only answers ‘how questions’, whereas Religion answers ‘why questions’. This distinction is overly simplistic. Science does answer some why questions. It can tell us why we observe solar and lunar eclipses, why the naked mole rat is eusocial and why almost all track and field world records have been set in the late afternoon or early evening. However, it seems unlikely that science will ever be able to provide us with compelling answers to ultimate why questions such as ‘why do we exist?’ and ‘why does the universe exist?’. Blakemore tells us that he is dubious about the legitimacy of these (ultimate) why questions. He suggests that these questions can either be dismissed as nonsensical, or can be recast as how questions that we will be able to answer by appeal to science.

Sid Vicious, Julieraptor, and the Ownership of Fossils

There is a thriving market in fossils, much of which can be found on-line. Extinctions, Inc (www.extinctions.com) claim to have the ‘… largest, most complete, and most detailed fossil websites on the internet’ and claim to have been selling fossils for over thirty years. A visitor to their extensive website can purchase the fossil of the week (this week it is a mosasaurus anceps tooth and a shark tooth preserved in the same rock) for US$ 99-. The visitor can also purchase the ‘DinoStore item of the week’ (this week it is a dinosaur tooth from Morocco), also for US$99-. Fossils Direct (www.fossilsdirect.co.uk) advertise themselves as the ‘Premier supplier of high quality British fossils for sale.’ They advertise an impressive range of fossils at prices starting from under £10-. Two Guys Fossils (http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino_jurassicbones.htm) claim to be the ‘world’s largest dealer of Jurassic age dinosaur bones’. They currently advertise an impressive range of dinosaur bones at prices up to US$1000- for a 19 inch long camptosaurus femur.
 

Behavioural Internet Advertising

A recent article in The Economist reports the development of a new behavioural approach to targeted internet advertising being developed by companies such as Phorm, NebuAd and FrontPorch (see http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11482452 ). The current market leader is Phorm who have recently signed up the three biggest internet service providers (ISPs) in the UK, BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk to use their technology. The ISPs can use the technology supplied by behavioural advertising companies to record information about the web pages that a user visits. This information is used to build up a profile of the user that is then used to select targeted advertising. So, if a user visits a number of sites for online booksellers and webpages concerning literature this information is added to his or her profile. Subsequently, the user will receive a high proportion of advertising that is targeted at people who have a greater than average interest in literature.

Cloned Animal Meat

The Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom has released the results of a study it commissioned on public sentiment about cloned animal meat, reports James Meikle in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/06/foodtech.food. It seems that the majority of the British public are resolutely opposed to the commercial use of cloned animal meat. The study reported a range of concerns about the possible harms of farming and consuming cloned animals, as well as a lack of appreciation of any benefits other than additional profits to farmers, biotech companies and food retailers. The views reported in the study are roughly in accord with a recent opinion of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), presented to the European Commission, which suggested that cloning animals for food is unethical. See http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/activities/docs/opinion23_en.pdf.

False Hope? Greenpeace on Carbon Capture and Storage

     Earlier this month Greenpeace released a report entitled ‘False Hope’ attacking carbon capture and storage (CCS) on the grounds that it ‘wont save the climate’ and that it therefore presents us with a false hope. (See: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/false-hope ). Greenpeace argue that we should abandon attempts to develop CCS technology and that we should devote our efforts to reducing energy demand and developing solar, wind and wave power instead. It seems very odd that an organisation that devotes itself to saving the planet should spend its time trying to attack an emerging form of technology that is being developed to help reduce carbon emissions especially at a time when, as Greenpeace are quick to stress, the carbon we emit is causing environmental damage to the planet – damage that may be irreversible.

Kissing Cousins

Robin McKie, the science editor for The Observer on Sunday is predicting a major row later this month when scientists and health experts in the United Kingdom hold two key meetings to debate the issue of cousin marriage and its impact on health in Britain. (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/11/genetics.medicalresearch?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront). This is not the first time that the issue of cousin marriage has hit the headlines in the United Kingdom. In February this year The Guardian reported that government minister Phil Woolas spoke out about the health risks involved when cousins have children together. His comments were seconded by Ann Cryer, the Labour MP for Keighley, who has been a long term critic of cousin marriage and had earlier called for the tradition of first cousin marriages to be stopped. Marriage between first cousins raises the probability of a severe genetic illness from a base rate of about 2 percent to approximately 4 percent. Second cousin marriages raised the probability of a severe genetic illness to about 3 percent.