Do stem cell regulators need regulation?

Twenty percent of people living with Congestive Heart Failure die within twelve months of diagnosis. Research clinics across the nation believe stem cells could offer a solution in the future. Unfortunately, for every research clinic striving for the greater good, there are companies falsely offering cures for financial benefits. These faulty clinics call for extreme regulation in the field of regenerative medicine and, therefore, inhibit stem cell research. The Food and Drug Administration prolong the process of approving regenerative research due to invalid stem cell companies. Though the FDA protects patients with new regulations, the administration also delays the advancements of proper clinical trials. The Food and Drug Administration’s deficiencies prove that regenerative medicine needs a new method of regulation that ensures safety for patients as well as progress in stem cell research.

Regenerative medicine aims to recreate living, functional tissue to repair the human body. Whether fighting a deadly disease, treating a genetic disorder, or combating a painful deformity, regenerative medicine depends on the future of stem cells. These undifferentiated cells hold the ability to mold into nearly any other cell. With mild medical manipulation, scientists hope stem cells will cure many diseases and deformities by replacing the damaged cells. Though regulation for any medical process is necessary, can too much regulation prevent advancement?

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration won the right to regulate stem cell therapy. Since their legal success, the FDA has only approved one regenerative medicine company, Hemacord. Hemacord provides patients stem cells from umbilical cords, peripheral blood cells, and bone marrow to treat blood related diseases. In other words, the FDA approved bone marrow transplants. Scientists first conducted bone marrow transplants in the 1960’s and have successfully treated diseases such as leukemia since. Will we have to wait nearly fifty years for the FDA to approve every new regenerative procedure?

With the rate that medical science discovers new potential cures, waiting for FDA approval seems counterproductive. Yes, every new process needs regulation to ensure purity and safety, but shouldn’t there be a faster way to regulate new treatments? Science deemed bone marrow transplants effective long before the FDA gave their seal of approval. The FDA claims patients should not undergo any stem cell therapy that does not have approval because the treatments do not exist. Yet, just because a clinical trial does not have FDA approval, as a treatment does not mean the trials are ineffective.

The idea that stem cell therapy acts as a drug gave the FDA the right to regulate regenerative companies. However, the medical community and drug industry continue to argue over whether or not the alteration of stem cells defines the procedures as drugs. The FDA claimed that a stem cell could only have “minimal manipulation” before considered a drug. Unfortunately, “minimal manipulation” lacks a concrete definition. The broad term causes mass amounts of arguments as doctors and scientists perceive minimal manipulation differently than the FDA. Therefore, whose definition do we trust: the FDA or the scientists that created these procedures? The gap of knowledge between medical stem cell specialists and the FDA currently prohibits further regenerative medicine advancements. The FDA should have control only when a sound definition of “minimal manipulation” arises. Until then, clinical stem cell trials should not take the fall for the FDA’s lack of understanding.

This lack of understanding may derive from the Food and Drug Administration’s lack of focus on the positive progress of stem cells. The FDA’s recent media celebrity revolves around their battle to shut down all companies promoting illegal stem cell therapies. These companies target terminally ill patients and offer them untested stem cell treatments with the promise of a cure. One company promised a treatment for an eleven-year-old boy’s cerebral palsy. Tested by Duke University research lab, the stem cells provided to the boy were either defective or dead. Upon further investigation, the doctor providing the stem cells and promoting false treatment lost his license years before moving to Ecuador to sell sham stem cells. Regrettably, many more companies offering similar false treatments remain. These clinics advertise treatments to incurable diseases and claim FDA approval. According to Duke University’s scientific stem cell officer Joanne Kurtzberg, applying defective or dead stem cells into another human can be fatal, causing a stroke or brain inflammation. Therefore, FDA intervention is imperative. However, the FDA does little to differentiate the clinics aiming for economic gains and regenerative companies that intend to cure the world’s largest problems. The negative media coverage of these clinics hinders the reputation of regenerative medicine. With control over stem cell clinics, the FDA should not only abolish faulty companies, but also promote successful procedures as well.

Recently, the Department of Neurosciences of City of Hope discovered a groundbreaking new correlation between stem cells and inoperable brain tumors. Doctors diagnose nearly 23,000 Americans a year with glioblastomas, an extremely aggressive malignant brain tumor. With an average survival rate of 15 months, over half of the patients die soon after diagnosis. Miraculously, City of Hope’s Dr. Karen Aboody provides a clinical trial that strives to treat these once terminal tumors. Before this trial, doctors considered chemotherapy dangerous and ineffective on glioblastomas. Backed by the National Cancer Institute, Aboody’s trial injects chemically manipulated stem cells into a patient’s brain, which then attach to the tumor. The patient then takes a specific drug that reacts with the enzymes in the stem cells, providing an effective form of chemotherapy on the cancer. This trial is far from FDA approval, but has shown positive results thus far. While two patients undergoing treatment lived seven months longer than originally expected, one man still lives today, three years after treatment.

Aboody’s trial targets similar patients as faulty stem cell companies, terminally ill patients with nothing to lose. Furthermore, Aboody’s treatment does not yet have FDA approval and still needs far more testing before considered a proven cure. So, how do patients differentiate between positive trials like the City of Hope’s and falsely advertised stem cell companies? First of all, everyone should heavily research any clinical trial before agreeing to a medical procedure. However, many of these patients hold an unstable emotional state due to their fatal diagnosis and will try anything, regardless of the dangerous side effects. As the FDA works tirelessly to shut down harmful clinics, regenerative medicine needs another form of regulation that encourages the work of pioneering stem cell research.

The field of medicine is growing at a faster rate than ever as scientists seek to find cures for the world’s most troublesome diseases and disorders. Currently, thousands of medical clinics provide trials that offer hope in the future of curing cancer, heart disease, diabetes, genetic disorders, and more. While every medical procedure must be heavily monitored and proven before offered to patients, the field of regenerative field of medicine must create a faster and more successful method of regulation. Until the knowledge gap between scientists and regulators diminishes, the Food and Drug Administration should not hold sole power over stem cell research. The regenerative medical field encompasses the potential to attain great accomplishments through stem cell research. In a generation plagued by cancers and incurable disease, do we have time to delay prospective solutions?

Works Cited

Baum, Stephanie. "Is it drug manufacturing or the practice of medicine? Stem cell therapy

debate just getting started." Med City News. 3 Aug 2012: n. page. Print.

Boyle, Andrew J. "Controversies in Cardiovascular Medicine." Circulation. 114.4 2006): 339-352. Web. 16 Sep. 2012. <http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/114/4/339.full>.

"Cells In Use." Learn Genetics. The University of Utah, 2012. Web. 16 Sep 2012. <http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/stemcells/sctoday/>.

Cyranoski, David. "FDA's claims over stem cells upheld."Nature. 488.7409 (2012): n. page. Print. <http://www.nature.com/news/fda-s-claims-over-stem-cells-upheld-1.11082>.

"The darker side of stem cells." Nature. 483.7387 (2012): n. page. Web. 6 Sep   2012.

<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7387/full/483005a.html>.

Jaslow, Ryan. "Stem cells boost brain tumor treatments for some patients, study finds." CBS News. CBS, 10 May 2012. Web. 7 Oct 2012.<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57431767-10391704/stemcells-boost-brain-tumor-treatments-for-some-patients-study-finds/>.

Pelley, Scott. "Stem Cell Freud: A 60 Minutes Investigation." CBS News. CBS, 26 Aug 2012. Web. 8 Oct 2012.<http://www.cbsnews.com/830118560_162-57497588/stem-cell-fraud-a-60-minutesinvestigation/?tag=contentMain;contentBody>.

Rankin, Sara. "Mesenchymal Stem Cells." Thorax. 67.6 (2012): 555-556. Web.18 Sep. 2012. <http://thorax.bmj.com/content/67/6/565.full>.

Tracy, Ben. "Stem Cells used to fight woman's brain tumor." CBS News. CBS, 12  Nov 2010.

Web. 7 Oct 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/830118563_1627046248.html>.

Is NASA worth the funding?

Whenever I go shopping with my mom, I always venture off on my own and find a random array of things that I want to buy. Most of the time my mom just shakes her head and I have to go back to the aisles where I found my treasures and place them back on the shelf. I never understood why she wouldn’t just let me buy the mini-pink handheld vacuum I wanted, I promised it would help me keep my room cleaner. My mom saw the bigger picture; she was probably thinking about all the bills we pay, or about the things that are much more necessary for us to buy. Sometimes when you are wrapped up in something, you only see the immediate benefits. When you step back you may realize that the negative repercussions outweigh the benefits. If you look at NASA as a single entity, the benefits seem literally out of this world. When you look at the world as a whole, NASA shouldn’t be a top priority when it comes to federal funding. Global warming, overpopulation, death due to unsanitary water and countless other issues need our attention. However, NASA’s countless failed or irrelevant missions have wasted many of those federal funds. We need to solve the problems on our Planet before we spend millions of dollars annually exploring other ones.   

Many people envision NASA as a profound institution that betters the nation and world through discoveries and the obtainment of knowledge. While this is true, there are a lot of negative repercussions that also need to be recognized. NASA consistently wastes federal funds. Recently, NASA spent 270.5 million dollars on the Constellation Project, a project aimed to send astronauts back to the moon. (Fox News). The Constellation Project was eventually cancelled by Congress, but because Congress failed to create a budget NASA still wasted $1.4 million dollars a day on other constellation projects (Fox News). Also, have you heard about the Orbiting Carbon Observatory; the project that was launched in 2009 and proceeded to crash into the pacific ocean not long after wasting $278 million dollars? Think about how many ways the United States could have better used 278 million dollars (Degroot); health care, water sanitation, education, or research to stop the growing environmental crisis. On a larger scale there are a lot of international issues that require our attention and funds. President Eisenhower once stated that “every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed” (qtd. in Degroot). It seems almost silly to spend so much money on exploring a never ending field of research while we have so many unsolved problems on Earth.

NASA's Constellation Project aimed to revisit the moon.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/penguinbush/2768719983/

Not only is it seemingly silly to spend money on something that we will never truly understand but it also takes massive amounts of time to acquire information for research or to build a spacecraft. The years it takes to build spacecrafts are years of continuous burning of fossil fuels to make parts and supply energy to make parts. The universe is endless and therefore the research and studying on it is endless. If there is no final goal, no answers that can ever really be found, why spend so much time searching for something that as humans we can never really find?

The information that NASA obtains through their endless research doesn’t even render importance to many people. The voyagers, one of NASA’s big projects, are celebrating their 35th year in space (Kalser). Have you heard of the Voyagers before? Chances are unless you have done some research on space discoveries you haven’t. Have you heard about increased climate change or Cancer? 1,500 people die each day due to Cancer (cancer.org).These issues are much more prevalent in our day to day lives because they directly affect us. These issues are not solved and require funding and attention. Things such as climate change, cancer, water sanitation, malnutrition, and overpopulation are issues that affect a large number of people; they can result in tragedy and without a really big effort to solve these problems they will escalate exponentially. These problems need to be addressed before we spend time and money on anything other than them.

With all that being said, NASA shouldn’t become obsolete. Exploring is part of human nature. Our curious minds are what in the past has lead us to groundbreaking discoveries that change the way we live. All I am saying is that before we can focus so much attention, money, and time on exploring outer space, earthbound issues need to be solved. As NASA’s website states, it is important to explore so that we continue “our self-preservation as a creative, as opposed to a stagnating, society” (Dick). I think learning and growing for mankind is very important, and I think outer space holds lots of questions that allow curiosity and allow our minds to grow. However, there needs to be limitations. As Jerry Degroot, author of The Telegraph article, “The Space Race is a Pointless Waste of Money”, argues that “obscenely expensive manned missions mean that practical, earth-based science suffers, as does the genuinely valuable satellite research so essential to the way we live today.” To me, it is ridiculous to allow billions of government dollars go to a single organization. There are nearly 100 current missions lead by NASA. All of those missions require funding.

NASA need to prioritize, limit themselves to the missions they decide are most important and decrease their governmental funding. They could create a panel, to vote on missions they think would most benefit humankind, and then we can use the money that NASA doesn’t on more prevalent issues on earth. The panel could be comprised of all different types of people; NASA scientists, politicians, doctors, teachers, etc. Its important to get a broad range of types of people so that they can decide what missions are most relevant and deserve the most attention in an unbiased way. NASA’s benefits are stellar, however, they just need to prioritize; to pay the bills before they buy the mini-vac.

Works Cited

Dick, Steven J. "NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration." NASA. NASA.com,
22 Nov. 2007. Web. 03 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/Why_We_01pt1.html>.

Fox News. "Wasteful NASA Constellation Spending." Fox News. FOX News Network, n.d.
Web. 16 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.foxnews.com/topics/wasteful-nasa-constellation-spending.htm>.

The Huffington Post UK. "Nasa Mars Landing: Curiosity Rover Touches Down On Red Planet
(PICTURES)." Huffingtonpost.co.uk. The Huffington Post, 06 Aug. 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2012.<http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/06/nasa-mars-landing-curiosi_n_1745718.html>.

Kalser, Tiffany. "NASA Voyager 2 Space Mission Turns 35." Dailytech.com. The Daily Tech, 21
Aug. 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2012.<http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=25470>.

Degroot, Jerry. "The Space Race Is a Pointless Waste of Money." Telegraph.co.uk.
The Telegraph, 25 Feb. 2009. Web. 12 Sept. 2012.    <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4807506/The-space-race-is-a-pointless-waste-of-money.html>.  

Nature. "Moonlight Drive." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 05 Sept. 2012. Web. 12 Sept.
2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/489006a.html>.

A speech on the leech: are they worth our time?

Contrary to popular belief, older medical techniques can effectively treat patients, sometimes even better than recently developed techniques. Hirudotherapy, better known as leech therapy, is a treatment where a doctor or caretaker applies leeches to the body in order to suck the blood from a patient. The Nature editorial “Suckers for success” highlights that doctors have recently used leech therapy to treat blood clotting in patients. While leech therapy may prove effective in some reconstructive surgery and osteoarthritis cases, scientists should further research and conduct more experiments to prevent post-leeching complications and rule out budding alternatives.

Before we explore the downsides to leech therapy we need to better understand when it is used and why. Doctors usually employ leech therapy to treat blood clotting in patients who have undergone reconstructive surgery, whether it be skin grafting or reattachment of a limb. Skin grafting is a procedure where the doctor removes an area of skin so that it can be put elsewhere on the body. It is often performed in cases of burns or large wounds, and the most common complication is pooling of the blood in injured tissues. Leech saliva contains an anesthetic that numbs the wound area and an anticoagulant substance called Hirudin that stops blood flow. These properties ought to make leeches a prime candidate for treating blood congestion, but there is more to the story.

Complications sometimes emerge when using leech therapy in treating both reconstructive surgery and osteoarthritis, prompting the need for further research to prevent future problems. Doctors primarily use leeches in reconstructive surgery when blood congestion causes the wound to swell, but bacterial infection of the wound often causes complications. After reconstructive surgery the leech must be transferred from its water tank onto the site of the wound. The leech then does its job of bloodletting and is discarded afterward. Even with a sterile environment, bacterial infection can still develop. Leeches contain a bacterium called Aeromonas in their gut so that they can digest red blood cells. Presumably leeches can directly inject this organism from their mouth onto the wound, or water from where the leech was stored might accidentally contaminate the wound. Infection can initiate further complications such as necrosis of the skin graft; put more simply, the graft fails and the skin begins to decay. Although doctors often successfully resolve these cases, in some studies, infection rates are as high as 20%. Until scientists unearth a foolproof way of preventing them, we shouldn’t rely on leech therapy as a primary treatment for blood pooling.

A less dire trouble with leech therapy is the false marketing of medicinal leeches. In 2004, the FDA approved the use of the species Hirudo medicinalis in skin grafting. However, a study conducted in 2007 proved that some leeches that European companies labeled as Hirudo medicinalis were actually Hirudo verbana. Regardless of whether this would make an effective difference when treating blood clotting, the FDA has only approved medicinal use of the species Hirudo medicinalis. Mislabeling leeches could even set a precedent that accepts such dishonest conduct, potentially encouraging European markets to harvest the cheapest species of leeches in order to increase profits. Although incorrect identification of leeches hasn’t yet caused any adverse reactions in the medicinal use, the possibilities are enough to warrant action. Before we should use leeches in medicine, we need to settle false marketing to avoid crisis.

A leech's species can be hard to identify, but that doesn't warrant false marketing.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/phatcontroller/2620032517/

Clearly leeches can effectively resolve blood congestion, but an issue lies in the storage and transportation of them. Leeches require a 60 degree temperature and shouldn’t be exposed to direct sunlight or fluorescent light. They also need certain size air holes in order to prevent escape. Because in most cases leeches are needed in an emergency situation, transport from the marketers to the hospital must be carried out in a brief fashion. Not much can change the specific conditions in which leeches must be stored and shipped, yet we should still consider it when deciding whether leech therapy is the best method of treating blood congestion.

Studies regarding the effectiveness of leech therapy in osteoarthritis patients highlight the importance of the placebo effect. The placebo effect occurs when patients try out a treatment, and they improve simply because they believe the treatment will work. In a 2008 experiment, patients were divided into a control group and a treatment group. Treatment group patients improved more so than control group patients and felt less pain at the end of the treatment, but the placebo effect wasn’t fully factored out. Doctors gave control group patients a pseudo leech, but it couldn’t fully simulate a real leech. Because of this, only one fifth of the control group believed they were given a real leech. The progress seen in treatment group patients could have been from the leech saliva or treatment procedure, but the placebo effect could also have made an improvement. To better understand the true efficacy of leech therapy in osteoarthritis patients, we should conduct more experiments. Leeching should also be tested against other more common treatments for osteoarthritis, such as anti-inflammatory drugs.

Even if there were fewer of the aforementioned complications with leech therapy, we couldn’t justify using leeches if another treatment were more effective and better satisfied the patients. A study in 2010 compared the use of leech therapy and another form of treatment, venous catheterization. Venous catheterization involves inserting a tiny tube into a vein. In this case, the tube would suck excess blood out of the site of the wound. Doctors randomly divided the patients into two groups and gave them one of the two treatments. Patients who were given the venous catheterization treatment had better results across the board. This treatment removed more blood by volume; a smaller percentage of patients had complications including infection, wound breakage and flap necrosis. In addition, patient satisfaction on average was higher in the venous catheterization than in the leech therapy. The conclusion is simple: one treatment was more effective and provided better results than another. If a more effective alternative treatment than leech therapy exists, patients should choose that one. We should conduct more comparative experiments in order to test other alternatives against leech therapy.

People may be more inclined to accept leech therapy as a treatment for blood pooling due to nostalgia for an ancient technique, but ultimately the best treatment is the one that patients should choose. Scientists need to do more research on leech therapy in order to prevent infection and other problems and prove it as the best treatment method before encouraging the use of leech therapy.

Works Cited

"Suckers for success: The use of leeches is making a comeback, and not just in medicine." Nature: International weekly journal of science. 484.7395 (2012): Web. 18 Sep. 2012.

Asplund, L. “The leech therapy wave. They've proven their worth, but stocking them isn't easy.” Materials management in health care. 10.4 (01 Apr 2001): 35. American Hospital Pub. 18 Sep 2012.

Mozafari, N., Ghazisaidi, M. R., Hosseini, S. N. and Abdolzadeh, M. “Comparisons of medicinal leech therapy with venous catheterization in the treatment of venous congestion of the sural flap.” Microsurgery. 31 (2011): 36–40. 18 Sept 2012.

Haycox, Claire, Marc Coltrera, Gregory Raugi, and Peter Odland. "Indications and complications of medicinal leech therapy." Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 33.6 (1995): 1053–1055. Web. 18 Sep. 2012.

Andereya, Stefan, Sven Stanzel, Uwe Maus, Ralf Mueller-Rath, Torsten Mumme, Christian Siebert, Friedrich Stock, and Ulrich Schneider. "Assessment of leech therapy for knee osteoarthritis: A randomized study."Acta Orthopaedica. 79.2 (2008): 235-243. Web. 18 Sep. 2012.

Why should I keep eating meat?

Every year for my birthday, my parents take me out for a steak dinner. Why on my birthday? Steaks cost a lot of money. However, that cost could increase if the Food and Drug Administration implements an idea to eliminate sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock, and that doesn’t sit well with me. Sub-therapeutic administration of antibiotics occurs when farmers feed animals small doses of drug therapy. Food regulators should not try to ban using antibiotics because only slight health benefits would arise, and the ban would negatively impact meat-market consumers and producers.

Antibiotics play a vital role in the meat industry, and banning their use would have adverse effects. The meat industry’s main use of antibiotics should not be a surprise to anyone; farmers give their sick animals antibiotics so that the animals can be saved, salvaging their meat and making money for the farmers. Even opponents of sub-therapeutic antibiotic use in animals agree that sick animals need to be treated with medicine, much like sick people. Unfortunately, many people consider this method of medication to be the only responsible one. While this is logical and idealistic for consumers, such an approach leaves out the economic interests of producers, which seems both illogical and unfair.

Farmers naturally desire to maximize their profits from a limited number of animals, and administering sub-therapeutic antibiotics represents an excellent way to achieve that goal. According to farmers and animal experts, small daily doses of antibiotics placed in animals’ feed stimulate the growth of up to three percent more body weight than the animal would otherwise have had (Frontline). Although this may not sound like much to you or me, the fact remains that many American farmers may depend on this extra growth to keep their farms open, since the price they receive per animal could be as low as a few pennies (Frontline). The three percent increase in meat per animal also allows farmers to raise fewer animals more cleanly and safely. The Committee on Drug Use in Food Animals asserts that these cleaner conditions could prevent as many diseases as could be caused by sub-therapeutic administration of antibiotics. The tradeoff seems clear: there can be more animals living in unhealthy conditions that may breed diseases, or farmers can keep fewer animals and sub-therapeutically administer antibiotics to them, which may also breed diseases. One thing remains certain: if daily, low-dosage antibiotic administration is banned, farmers will keep more animals in the same spaces where they once kept the smaller number.

Placing antibiotics in animals' feed can make them grow 3% more meat

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/akseez/2902895298/sizes/m/in/photostream/

Opponents of sub-therapeutic administration of antibiotics argue that sub-therapeutic use of drugs leads to decreased resistance in humans to certain bacteria, but many experts question how much of an issue this really causes. Bacteria develop resistance through a process that includes a single bacteria escaping an antibiotic, then multiplying and therefore creating a resistant strain (“Why are bacteria”). Repeated low-level exposure to antibiotics could increase the chance of drug-resistant bacteria by 33 percent (Stiers), but exposure does not guarantee contraction of an illness. In fact, the United States has progressed in the past 20 years to now having less than one percent incidence of E. Coli in beef (Frontline). The relatively high inspection standards of meat compared to seafood, fresh fruit and vegetables may contribute to this low rate. Whatever the case may be, antibiotic-resistant bacteria pose less of a threat than many people believe they do.

In addition to disputable claims about increased resistance in bacteria, economic issues exist that make banning the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics a bad idea. Some analysts speculate that farmers save $60 million by having antibiotics in the animals’ feed, but stand to lose nearly $50 million if the medicine is removed (Frontline). Losing that $60 million dollars from having medicine in the feed would result in farmers not being able to grow as many animals. Since fewer animals will be available, the supply of meat shrinks. This shock in the meat market would have the following effect where P equals price and Q is the quantity demanded:

As you can see, the price will increase and the quantity demanded will decrease because fewer people are willing to pay a higher price. Naturally, we assume meat producers would love to charge a higher price, but that logic does not hold in this case because the market dictated the price increase, not the farmers choosing to raise the price. Even if the price increase was enough that the money the farmers made stayed the same even with fewer people buying the meat, the farmers would still need to cover the $50 million that they lost.

Consumers would face negative effects if this change in the meat market occurred. Fewer people would pay for the more expensive meat; this is shown where Q1 shifts to Q2 in the graph above. Eating less meat, and possibly not enough, could lead to serious health issues. Meat provides important nutritional value and contains vitamins and minerals such as protein, zinc and vitamin B12, among others (Sears). A lack of these nutrients could cause anemia or weak bones (Crawford). Of course supplements exist that provide these nutrients, but if someone can’t pay for the increased price of meat, they likely can’t pay for these supplements either. Due to health concerns, the economics of a ban on antibiotics in meat would clearly result in negative side effects for the consumer, just one more reason the ban should not be enacted.

Banning the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals grown for meat presents the potential for a lot of harm, and relatively few positive effects. Not only would a ban create a dramatic increase in meat prices, but it could also leave consumers on the low side of the socio-economic scale vulnerable to nutrient deficiencies currently offered in relatively cheap meats. Even if a ban was put in place, living conditions would be worse for the animals that would present just as much of a danger as antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Works Cited

Crawford, Benna. "Side Effects of Becoming a Vegetarian." National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2012. <http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/side-effects-becoming-vegetarian-2184.html>.

Committee on Drug Use in Food Animals, , and . The Use of Drugs in Food Animals. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. Web.

Stiers, Joanie. "Study: Organically grown food not healthier." Galesburg: Home of the Register-Mail. N.p., 16 Sept 2012. Web. 17 Sep 2012. <http://www.galesburg.com/newsnow/x1547507599/Study-Organically-grown-food-not-healthier?zc_p=0>.

"Why are Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics." Department of Health and Human Services: CDC. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 01 June 2005. Web. 3 Oct 2012.

. "Frontline: Modern Meat." pbs.org. Public Broadcasting Service, April 2002. Web. 12 September 2012.

Sears, Alan. "Three Big Reasons Why You Don’t Want to be a Vegetarian ." International Wellness Directory. N.p., 2009. Web. 15 Sept 2012.

How much would you be willing to pay for a whale's life?

Deep waters, a thrilling chase, and a life at stake...sounds like a horror story, am I right? However, that life at stake doesn’t have two arms and two legs, but rather fins and a body that weighs 14 tons.

In the Southern Ocean, Japanese whalers set out to hunt whales despite strong anti-whaling opposition. The two sides desperately need a resolution as deadly pro- and anti-whaling encounters continue to occur at sea. So, can money solve this whaling conflict?

Three environmental scientists proposed a tradable whale quota to end the pro- and anti-whalers’ dispute, aiming to reduce the whale population hunted and killed each year ("Whales for Sale"). This idea would allow both whalers and anti-whalers to purchase or trade quotas to their own side’s advantage. Using money to essentially “buy” the whales, these people could decide if a whale is saved or killed. However, the ethical issues, such as legitimizing whaling and pricing a whale’s life, will prevent this tradable quota from working.

So, what exactly is whaling? Whaling is the hunting and killing of...you guessed it, whales. If you’ve ever seen the show “Whale Wars,” you may know something about whaling. Hunters go out to catch whales in order to make profit. Anti-whaling campaign organizations, like Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, then go out to sea to try to stop these fleets in order to reduce the number of whale deaths each year. More times than not, this leads to a confrontation where ships are destroyed and people are injured.

Whaling has led to many dangerous anti-whaler and whaler confrontations on the seas. http://www.flickr.com/photos/guano/3258629555/

Three environmental scientists, Christopher Costello, Steven Gaines, and Leah R. Gerber proposed an idea to make the whaling industry a market. Whale quotas, or the number of whales hunters are supposedly “allowed” to hunt each year, would be auctioned off, sold or traded. Either whale harvesters would purchase the shares and harvest the whales at the stated quotas, or animal rights activists would purchase the shares so no whales could be harvested. This allows pro-whalers the chance to still control the seas or anti-whalers the chance to stop the whaling. It would depend on who had the money and just how much they’d be willing to spend to pay for a whale’s life, offering an immediate end to whale hunting (“Conservation Science”). However, the idea of paying for a whale’s life and legitimizing whaling will prevent this quota from working.

Advocates for this quota system argue that introducing a tradable quota for whales could create an industry that could lower the costs associated with whaling as well as reduce the number of whales killed each year. The author in “Whales for Sale” claims that if anti-whalers put aside their moral objections of whaling being legitimized as an enterprise and whalers understand how this idea could benefit them, the quota scheme could be effective. It should be considered as an immediate “middle ground” to the issue that triumphs the “moral high ground,” where buying a whale’s life is better than losing a whale’s life. Anti-whalers, though, will not be able to put aside those moral objections, and this quota system is not probable.

Putting the quota system into effect would thus create a whaling industry, forcing those involved to put a price on a whale’s life. The industry would revolve around money and quotas, both of which humans would have control over. For animal rights advocates, this idea of “owning” a whale’s life by the means of money is morally unjust (Matera). Those who wish to enforce this quota system would face animosity from these advocates, as well as dissent from the Japanese who see whaling as a proud and cultural tradition (“Whales for Sale). How is anyone going to tell a country that it now has to pay up if it wants any chance to continue a cultural tradition? The system has a low probability of actually working considering it faces ethical and cultural dissent.

The idea of a quota system originated in 1982, but it failed to work because some environmentalists said it was “too early a time” and that whalers would not find logic in paying for something they had always done for free (“Conservation Science”). By implementing a market system, whales will be subject to the demands of an inhumane industry, one that would justify paying to kill a helpless marine creature in order to gain profit. This would allow money in a greedy whaling market to determine whether a whale lives or dies. This is an ethical dilemma that will stand in the way of whaling industry advocates; no whales’ rights supporter will be okay money controlling an innocent, helpless life.

The quota trading system also revolves around a moral issue rather than an environmental conservationist concern. The morally wrong idea of putting a price on a whale’s life seems just as important to the anti-whaling campaigners as the idea of actually saving the whale. Anti-whaling campaigners spend millions of dollars trying to stop fleets from whaling; however, this is only justifiable from an animal welfare viewpoint, meaning that the concern solely revolves around the animal itself (Metcalfe). If anti-whaling groups were really interested in whale conservation, like maintaining populations and preventing ecosystem disruptions, then the money should be used to help the ecology and dynamics of decreasing whale populations--not solely on the minke whales that the Japanese hunt. This would provide evidence-based quotas to be set for countries that actually exploit the whale populations that create a need for quota systems. Environmental conservationists are the ones who should be stepping up to inform others on this issue, promoting the conservation of whale’s habitats and ecosystems rather than having opposing sides cause violence and disrupt the seas. This in turn would offer an alternative solution to the quota system and promote a way to actually save the whales’ lives and ecosystems, not just attempt to protect them from hunters.

Anti-whalers fight to prevent whaling, not pay to legitimize the industry or purchase the life of a whale. I find it hard to believe that animal rights activists like the anti-whalers, who risk their lives and safety to go out on to the seas and fight for whales, would be okay with a compromise to simply just pay for the whales. Rather, any money that is actually spent should go to the environmentalist conservationist groups who dedicate their time to actually saving the whales by protecting their habitats and maintaining their ecosystems. True anti-whalers have a mission to stop any and all abuse of animals, not legitimize it through money. For this reason, the ethical issue of legitimizing the whaling industry and and justifying putting a price on a whale’s life will prevent this tradable quota system from working.

A clip from "Whale Wars" shows the real-life whaling drama that can occur on the waters.

Works Cited

“Conservation Science: A market approach to saving the whales.” Nature 481.7380 (2012): 139-140. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481139a.html>

Costello, Christopher. Steven Gaines. Leah R. Gerber. “Conservation Science: A market approach to saving the whales.” Nature 481.7380 (2012): 139-140. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481139a.html>

Matera, Anthony. “Whale Quotas: A Market-Based Solution to the Whaling Controversy.”
Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 13.1 (2000): 23-46. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/gintenlr13&div=10&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults>

Metcalfe, Kristian and Diego Verissimo. “Whaling: Quota trading won’t work.” Nature 482.7384 (2012): 162. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7384/full/482162a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120209>

“Whales for Sale.” Nature 481.7380 (2012): 114. Web. 6 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481114a.html>