Pascal Tuarze
To General Public
ENVS*1020 F10 (01-06)
11/11/2010
Introduction:
In the Reuters news article (DNA bar-coding aims to protect species and food) the author Natalie Armstrong makes several claims on the subject of bar-coding living species. Her stronger claims appear near the beginning of the article where she infers that all species will eventually have their DNA bar-coded. She then goes on to say that it will help us track endangered species and protect food.
Her arguments are:
“DNA bar-coding aims to protect species and food” (Armstrong 2010)
The title of the article is misleading because the first part of the statement does not seem to be accurate. Just because we know the barcode of a species does not mean we can protect it. She offers no explanation on how this would be accomplished. The only statement she makes is that it will help scientist track endangered species and I personally don’t see how bar-coding could help us track endangered species. She does not explain the point and therefore I feel it is a weak claim. The second part of this statement seems to be a strong claim because if we were able to determine what species a piece of meat came from, it could significantly reduce the amount of mislabelling going on in our supermarkets.
“Every species, from extinct to thriving, is set to get its own DNA barcode in an attempt to better track the ones that are endangered, as well as those being shipped across international borders as food or consumer products” (Armstrong 2010)
Her argument seems to be that all species will be able to be identified by DNA, once they are bar-coded it will help us track the ones that are endangered. She also claims that bar-coding will dramatically cut down the time shipments of food are held up at borders.
The first problem with this argument is that she seems to believe that all species could be bar-coded. The only evidence she provides in the article is that researchers have already described and placed 87 000 species barcodes into the system of BOLD (the Barcode of Life Datasystems). I feel this is a weak point because not only is there already millions of species on the earth, more are currently being discovered each year. For example in 2005, 20 000 new species were discovered. The barcodes of organisms are also very complex and can be very similar in the case of sister species. Another problem with the argument is that organisms evolve over time according to Darwin’s theory of natural selection. For example, bacteria can evolve in much shorter periods of time and can change their DNA barcode. Her final statement is the system of bar-coding could cut down time at the borders. However it would take a while to manufacture enough for all border inspection stations and even then people could avoid detection. Another point that could possibly cause problems for the DNA bar-coding could be cross contamination, especially in food. Contact with another product could leave traces of DNA on the product being sold and could potentially give the barcode of the contaminant.
Cost effectiveness:
Could this technology be cost effective? Millions of dollars is being put into research the organism of our earth. Will a greater understanding of the world out way the benefit of that money that could be put towards other things, things that are affecting humans directly such as disease and starvation. Would knowing about all species actually be beneficial to us? I feel it is important to have a good understanding of as many organisms as possible, but do we really need to know about the ones that aren’t important to us. Personally I feel that we should continue with the research as long as we can see there is still benefit for the human race. She also claims that researchers hope to make a handheld device that could be operated by an untrained border patrol officer. This technology would not be cheap and would be very difficult to manufacture this sort of device and distribute it all over the world.
Moral rights:
We as a species have an overwhelming need to know as much information as possible and in the process of bar-coding species we are disrupting them. According to which view you take it may or may not be a moral decision to continue doing research. An anthropocentrist would not believe that species have rights, making it a non-moral decision. An eco-holist would believe that species and ecosystems have rights and would feel that it would be wrong to disturb species for our own personal reasons.
Basis of her argument:
Her argument is based on the fact that it is actually possible to obtain samples from every species on earth and barcode it. It would be nice that if in the future we will be able to take a sample of any organism and be able to determine what species it comes from. But we cannot be 100% sure this will ever happen, not only are there millions of undiscovered species but organisms are also changing and adapting according to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Therefore I think it is unlikely we will ever be able to barcode all life forms on earth. Perhaps we will be able to barcode the majority of the species that we come in contact with and can see on a daily basis. For example I see the benefit of bar-coding the different species of fish to able to distinguish them from others to stop the mislabelling that is becoming a major problem for us.
Conclusion:
I feel that a better way to write her argument would be to mention the fact that it would be near impossible to barcode all life, so it would go something like this. In the future we hope to be able to analyse and identify most organisms that affect us through the methods of DNA bar-coding. Perhaps a mobile device that would be accurate enough and cost effective could be produced and made accessible. If this were true in the future it could simplify and cut down shipping times.
Bibliography:
Armstrong, By Natalie. "DNA Barcoding Aims to Protect Species and Food Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News Reuters.com. 01 Nov. 2010. Web. 3 Nov. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment