Hal Herzog, Animal Ethics & the Alien Problem

Last semester I read many more books (thus I did a lot more book reviews) than this semester which has mostly been devoted to academic research papers. But I do have two books that need reading for my zoology class on human and animal behavior with Patricia McConnell.

I finally finished the first of the two assigned books, Hal Herzog's Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat - Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals. I've been reading Herzog's book all semester, so my evaluation of it draws on a slightly disjointed memory but I think I can summarize his main point with two statements:

1. Most people choose not to (or don't know enough to) think about their personal moral philosophy. Not thinking about how we feel about animals is what allows us to love puppies so much while we happily chow down on a Big Mac.
2. Those people who have spent a tremendous amount of time trying to discern their personal moral philosophy about animals either A. remain horribly conflicted or B. Choose a philosophy with regards to the treatment of animals that societal pressures make very difficult to implement (for example, all creatures are equal - if you save an iguana from a burning building instead of a human baby, society is not going to look kindly upon you regardless of your belief that the iguana and the baby are equals)

Herzog's answer to his main question "why is it so hard to think straight about animals?" largely comes down to because you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

The book tries hard to cover a variety of topics that impact the way we feel about animals, some obvious (factory farming, animals in research, hunting) and some less so (cockfights, dog shows, gender roles.) I don't intend to go into his arguments for and against certain behaviors, but to give an example of the kind of analysis he provides I will share the anecdote from his chapter "The moral status of mice," on the use of animals for biological research.

Herzog frames animal research this way: Think of Steven Spielberg's 1982 classic film ET. Remember how close Elliott and ET became, and how heart wrenching it was to see ET go back to his home planet? Well, what if there was a disease destroying the alien's on ET's home planet, and the reason he really came to earth was to scout out organisms of lesser intelligence to test possible remedies on. Elliott's intelligence was far less than ET's. So how would you feel if at the end of the movie, ET kidnapped Elliott and took him back to his home planet to live the rest of his life as the subject of research. It would save millions of aliens. But ET still essentially destroys Elliott's life. Not really a satisfactory ending, I'd say.

So if we don't want ET to kidnap Elliot just because he is of lesser intelligence, then what do we do when humans are like ET and mice are like Elliot? Should we experiment on mice just because they are of lesser intelligence? Previous logic would lead us to say no, we should not experiment on the mice. But yet, I'm still in favor of animal research. Philosophically, I shouldn't be. But there is something about experimenting on a member of my own species that I find morally reprehensible. It is the reason we don't conduct experiments on people in coma's or with mental retardation. But if you are always putting humans first, how can you still treat animals with respect and moral standing?

I'm not here to answer the questions thinking critically about animals pose. Herzog has 280 pages of highly intelligent, moving, and entertaining explanation, and he still doesn't answer most of them. But he will get you thinking about your own behavior, why some animals matter to us more than others, and why humans think the way we do.

It is important for everyone: meat eaters, vegetarians, pet lovers, people who avoid animals, etc. to think about why they feel the way they do about animals. I was surprised by the conflicts in my own way of thinking, and sadly I now fall into column A - thinking critically, but still horribly confused. At least I'm thinking right?

Robots on the Front Line

I'm working on an article about how robots can and more importantly, can not, be designed and programmed to function like humans. In anticipation of this, I've noticed that this week robots have been making headlines for their role in the war in Afghanistan. But while useful, robots are no replacement for the ingenuity, decision making, and critical thinking capabilities of real, human soldiers.
***

If the war in Afghanistan was fought with light sabers, aliens, and Samuel L. Jackson I think the conflict would be over by now. But alas, the light sabers, aliens and Jedi warriors of Star Wars are figments of a time long long ago in a galaxy far far away. But what about the battle droids seen in the video? A robot war sounds like something you could only see on the silver screen, but new technology being implemented in the Afghan war may be the FIRST STEP (note: ONLY a first step) toward a real conflict that is decided by robotic prowess.

According to U.S. Marine Corps. Lt. Col. Dave Thompson, project manager for the joint project office for robotic systems (hows that for an example of a ridiculous round-about government-given title,) there are more than 2,000 ground robots assisting U.S. troops in the war in Afghanistan. But, while it might be fun to evoke the imagery of the battle droid, engaged in an epic fight, REAL robots serve a very different function.

When we talk about the United States' "robot ground troops" we are essentially talking about computers that can identify bombs and other dangers. The robots do this in one of two ways A: with a combination of sensors and imaging equipment that relays to the human troops that there is a bomb present , or B: by going into an area ahead of the human troops, so that if there is an explosion, the robot takes the hit instead of the humans. 

Robots are NOT running around in the desert wielding AK-47's, taking out the Taliban. Let me say that again, robots are NOT actively engaged in battle. They do not fight, at least not in the Star Wars battle droid sense. Instead, America's robot troops are just another tool in the technological arsenal that the U.S. uses to bolster the abilities of its human troops. 

Much of America's security and defense technology is classified, so we don't know EXACTLY what it is used for and how these robots accomplish their tasks. But we do know that they are successful enough for ground troops to be requesting the implementation of more robots. We also have access to some information about the use of robots in war-zones like the iRobot (yes, the makers of the Roomba vacuum) line of products. 

So while the battle droid only exists in a galaxy far far away, that's not to say that the robots in Afghanistan are not supremely cool and impressive. Take a look at this CNN report on the iRobot technology to see for yourself what our robot troops can do: 

Tales From My Twitter

I did it. Took the plunge. Succumbed to the peer pressure. I joined twitter. I think I was inspired by the BronxZoosCobra. One of two things will now happen: I will come to regret it, or I will become addicted. Maybe I'll get more twitter followers than blog followers (not that I don't love the seven of you immensely.) Here goes my shameless plug: http://twitter.com/ErinPodolak

Fun fact, within 20 minutes of joining twitter, my first follower became Sea World. Nothing against Sea World, I'm just not sure what their interest says about me. Do they follow every person who claims to be a science writer? Or did I just do something special to garner their attention? Fellow science writers, please advise.

***
Update 4/8/11 - Six days on twitter, and I've lost Sea World as a follower. Sad day. I guess my tweets weren't of interest to them after all. But I do have 10 whole followers, putting my twitter prowess ahead of my blogging prowess by three.

Update 4/18/11 - Complete and total obsession has taken hold. Twitter has bested Facebook in the struggle for my two-second attention span, and I am overwhelmed by the wealth of information I didn't realize was being traded everyday. I have made it to 22 followers, only five of whom I actually happen to know. I have been Re-Tweeted by the Canadian Research Office - much to my amazement. I am both humbled and nervous about what my tweets will say about me. In my worst nightmare my budding career is brought down by using the wrong #hashtag and offending someone I never even knew existed. Perhaps I am taking my life on the internet far too seriously. It may be time to back slowly away from the laptop.

How To: Recycle A Chicken?

Once again I'm using Science Decoded for my long form journalism class. Our assignment this week was to do a post that was under 350 words. I put up short posts all the time, but I decided to use the assignment to go back to my blogging style from last Fall and give a short run-down of newly published research.

Did you know that you can recycle a chicken? Well, recycle part of a chicken at least. Research has previously been proposed to use bio-waste (hair, nails, or in this case chicken feathers) to create plastics. But new research presented at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society shows that a new mixture using 50% chicken feathers (the largest amount used to date) can actually make the material we use for shopping bags, eating utensils, children's toys and millions of other objects.

Millions of chicken feathers are discarded in the United States each year, which makes finding a use for them highly worthwhile. Feathers are made of the protein keratin. When combined with the chemical methyl acrylate, the feathers form a strong but relatively light weight plastic substance.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Typically making plastics requires petroleum derived products like polyethylene and polypropylene. The feather-methyl acrylate combination could reduce the need for petroleum derived plastic products, which would be environmentally beneficial. Without petroleum the plastics would be more degradable and sustainable.

This research, led by Yiqi Yang of the University of Nebraska was conducted on a small scale. Until the new feather compound is tested on a large scale for ease of production and energy required for production it is unclear if it could realistically be used to manufacture commercial plastic products.

This research is exciting because it is essentially a form of recycling. The chicken feathers are just being discarded anyway, so if they can be used to make plastics that are more environmentally friendly not only will we benefit from finding a use for the feathers, we'll also benefit from having a more sustainable plastic.

The big BUT in this article is that it needs further testing before it can be implemented. It is important with research like this to remember that a scientific find isn't a definite. Just because something works on a small scale, doesn't mean that it will work on a large scale. So even though the finding is exciting, it doesn't mean that it will actually be implemented.