Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!umd5!newton.cs.jhu.edu!callahan From: callahan@cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: Mutant flies Message-ID: Date: 27 May 91 15:51:22 GMT Lines: 32 In article <10801@emanon.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) writes: >I think we already handled these issues when smallpox was eradicated. [Disclaimer: This is utterly unrelated to my field, so I may say ridiculous things. Commentary from *knowledgeable* sources would be appreciated.] Did we handle the issues, or just sweep them under the rug? This is not a rhetorical question; I want to know. Was an ethical manifesto published simultaneously with the eradication of smallpox? If so, what was the conclusion? In any case, there are fundamental differences. First of all, an insect species can be argued to have more ethical significance than a virus, by virtue of being a much more complex organism. Second, I was under the impression that smallpox was not completely destroyed, and it could be reintroduced if so desired (obviously, it would be undesirable). I don't know how long smallpox can be made to last in a dormant state; it is clear, however, that there is no technology available for preserving screw flies very long in a dormant state. Finally, it would be possible to allow screw flies to live in their natural environment without immediately endangering human life. I'm not sure if this is true for smallpox. Can it infect animals besides humans? If there were some way to perfectly record the DNA sequence of screw flies and the technology existed to reconstruct a living specimen, then I would not have so many qualms about eradicating them. Under the circumstances, however, I believe that it is insufficient to argue that risk to human life always justifies the total destruction of a "lower" life form. -- Paul Callahan callahan@cs.jhu.edu