Through gene and DNA sequencing of animals and comparing them to human genomes, we have cures for polio and tuberculosis. The human race, at least in developed countries, does not suffer anymore from paralysis from the viral disease of polio or the intense coughing and fever that comes from tuberculosis. So why should gene and DNA sequencing of animals not be the main method for biomedical research? Does a down side exist? Well, yes. First, these tests can be extremely time consuming as a set answer may not be found for years, and even then most results might detect a problem rather than a solution. As well, while the cost has gone down over the past couple of years, researchers should still question the money spent on failed expenditures. Finally, testing on animals and human fetuses is simply unethical. That polio cure? It was found from years of testing on horses. And tuberculosis? That one was found from testing on cute guinea pigs. Although there have been recent breakthroughs in regards to animal DNA sequencing, scientists and researchers should still analyze whether the cost of testing equals the results found, if the outcomes provide enough information to actually support more testing, and whether animal sequencing is ethical.
DNA sequencing proves to be an extremely long and complicated process. It can be annoyingly confusing as well, but as simply as possible sequencing involves determining the entire DNA sequence, or order, of an organism’s genome. A genome is the entirety of an organism’s hereditary information. DNA, even small quantities, can allow full genome sequencing. The sequence data produced is extremely large, meaning that it must be stored electronically and requires a large amount of computing power. Genome sequencing in animals is used to compare them to human genomes and try to aid biomedical research.
I hate to be negative over something that has produced some good results in the past, but the whole process of animal DNA sequencing is slow, expensive, and does not produce enough results to justify its use. According to the Current Pharmaceutical Design, a yearly publication about current advances in medicine, there is only a ten percent chance that a genome of an organism that enters development and research will become successful, or able to be used for clinical purposes. Furthermore, an average cost of a hundred thousand dollars and an average time span of 10 to 15 years for tests on a single genome. Those odds suck. However in the same article, the author then says that new technologies increase the speed and efficiency of sequencing. But this still does not answer that fact that the knowledge of an organism’s genome does not generally provide useful biomedical information. It is only the first step, as researches then must find a way to use it in aiding humans. With this, the cost needs to decrease by much more and the general production needs to increase for animal sequencing to truly profit.
It’s the oldest story in the book: is it ethical to test on poor and sweet little creatures? Would you test on your puppy? Granted Naked Mole Rats, and rats in general, are not the cutest creatures, but they are living and breathing creatures nonetheless. Right now millions of rats, mice, rabbits, primates, and more animals are used in laboratories across the country. While animal testing has resulted in some great outcomes, millions of animals have lost their lives for not many results. Animal sequencing is done in the hopes of finding a gene unique to an animal, like the Naked Mole Rat, that could possibly be useful for biomedical research. But a majority of the time these animals are killed under a false pretense. According to PETA, an American animal rights organization, modern research has proven that animal tests are rarely even relevant to humans. Studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the British Medical Journal have shown that there exists too many biological differences between animals and humans. These same studies have proven that the overwhelming majority of experiments fail to lead to medical advances. Advocates for animal testing have mentioned the great effects on human health that testing has produced, such as a decline in heart disease and the use of penicillin due to testing on mice. However, new research shows that there are other techniques can be used biomedical research including in vitro and advanced brain imaging that could replace the need for animal testing.
Finding cures to some of the diseases plaguing humankind would be amazing. But at what harm? At what cost? The main purpose that scientists have to focus on now is new technologies to improve these issues with gene sequencing on animals. As of right now, it is just not profitable enough nor does it create enough results to ensure its continuation.
Works Cited:
David R Bentley. “Whole-genome re-sequencing.” Current Opinion in Genetics & Development. Volume 16, Issue 6. December 2006, Pages 545-552. Science Direct. Chesterford Research Park, Little Chesterford, Saffron Walden, Essex. 17 September 2012. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959437X06002085
“More Than Teeth.” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, October 12, 2011. Web. September 08, 2012
Tracy Hampton. “New Antimicrobials.” The Journal of the American Medical Association. American Medical Association, 2011. Web. September 15, 2012
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1512491/eusocial-species
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp2_1.shtml
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp2_1.shtml
http://www.animaltestingfacts.zoomshare.com
picture 1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/80119778@N04/7793969550/
picture 2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oneselfsacrificephoto/1795478060/
picture 2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oneselfsacrificephoto/1795478060/
Taylor Evans
No comments:
Post a Comment