Lobster for Dinner!...Or Not?

 Do lobsters, crabs, and other crustaceans feel pain? And, if so, would you stop eating them altogether?  
New research suggests that, contrary to previous belief, the popular summertime dinners do in fact feel it when we toss them into boiling water. During a Queen's University study by Robert Elwood and Barry Magee, ninety shore crabs were placed into a bright tank with dark shelters on either side (as shore crabs [and most other crustaceans] enjoy dark, shadowy hiding spots). The crabs under one of the dark spots were given a series of small electric shocks, and this was repeated twice. After a second round of shocks, the crabs were returned to the tank and were yet again given the choice between the two shelters. This time, a vast majority of the shocked crabs went to the other dark spot, avoiding the spot where they'd been electrocuted. 
However, many argue that this phenomenon is due to nociception, or a reflex reaction to being touched. But Magee and Elwood counter with the fact that the shore crabs felt the unpleasant effects of the shock and could recall where they received it and try to avoid the experience again proves that it was pain that the crabs felt.  “I don’t know what goes on in a crab’s mind … but what I can say is the whole behavior goes beyond a straightforward reflex response and it fits all the criteria of pain,” said Elwood. 
The question is, how will this new information affect society? There are, essentially, whole cultures built on the consumption of lobsters and crabs- for example, "Maine Lobsters" are sought after by tourists during the warm summer months. However, many people took solace in the fact that their lobster dinners couldn't feel the excruciating pain of being submerged in boiling water. Now, it might be too much for some people to handle morally. For others, they might consider the fact that other animals commonly consumed by humans such as pigs, cows, and chickens are often painfully killed to be our food, yet we still eat them everyday. The big difference between the two is that lobsters and crabs are purchased while still alive and we have to do the killing. 
I don't eat seafood, but I still would not object to the consumption of lobsters and crabs because in my view they are meat just like pigs and cows and chickens. I just could never, ever be the one to drop them into the pot. I think that most people won't be able to give up the favorite summer dinner, no matter how much they know that it hurts the animal. But, next time you're about to cook up some crustacean dinner, maybe you'll think twice about tossing the lobster into the scalding water. 

Read more: http://science.time.com/2013/01/18/do-crabs-feel-pain-maybe-and-maybe-we-should-rethink-eating-them/#ixzz2KpfVgREb

Is a World Like 'Gattaca' Inevitable?

Every year, advances in both science and biotechnology promise a world in the future that may not be all that different than that portrayed in 'Gattaca'. Science is an ever-growing field, scientists and society are always yearning for the next best scientific advance. The latest trend, it seems, has been in the biotechnology category. Biotechnology is currently one of the most controversial topics dividing people, much the way political parties do. While biotechnology certainly has many pros, it also has many cons. I, like most people, cannot choose a side which I favor over the other, but I simply recognize the many pros and cons and will decide for myself how I feel about individual instances. Many problems we as humans face today can be easily eliminated by the discoveries and advances in biotechnology. World hunger could be virtually nonexistent due to genetically-engineered crops, noteably corn. Illnesses will be easily cured and even prevented by new pills and genetic techniques.

Genetically-engineered bugs have even been created that will be genetically altered to do different helpful tasks. "Each of the bugs will have a mission. Some will be designed to devour things, like pollution. Others will generate food and fuel. There will be bugs to fight global warming, bugs to clean up toxic waste, bugs to manufacture medicine and diagnose disease, and they will all be driven to complete these tasks by the very fibers of their synthetic DNA." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/magazine/craig-venters-bugs-might-save-the-world.html?ref=biotechnology) Bugs or not,the most important thing is that biotechnology would make and is making the world a better, safer, and easier place to live for everyone.

However impressive biotechnology is, the moral viewpoint remains. Is it morally right to pre-determine what a baby will look like? Is it morally right to clone animals, and, in the future, humans? I don't think so. While I recognize the perks of these things, I think that part of the beauty of life is how natural it is. A baby is born naturally, an animal is born naturally. Aside from this point, if too many advances in biotechnology are made, it will completely disrupt the system of life and death and natural selection that has been naturally formed. Our population relies on the knowledge that people will die, as harsh as it sounds. We need people to die of diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's to ensure that the population does not inflate. With biotechnology preventing fatal illnesses and diseases, too many people will be on this Earth. Biotechnology is and forever be a fascinating topic, one of controversy, and one that does both good and bad.