Taking the quiz refreshed the ideas of the difference between chemical and physical changes. One point that kind of makes me scratch my head is that if you add heat to water a physical change takes place, but if you add heat (fire) to wood, a chemical change takes place. Why is that? Is it because water is a "pure" substance and wood is not?
The other question I had is why would black coffee become non-homogenous if stirred?
And finally, I want to bring up my thought that the scientific method needs an extra step that places ethics in the mix. I think before a scientific experiment is conducted, and once a "result" is "confirmed" scientists should be required to document in a formalized way what good they hope to achieve through their experiments and conclusions, and what possible harm might come from those experiments and conclusions (and resulting inventions). Possible harm might involve laboratory animals, humans, the environment, etc. The first step would be to document, the second to make an informed decision about whether or not to proceed with the experiment, and maybe, just maybe, it might give everyone pause before they decide what to do with a discovery or an invention. I think we need to be more careful and take more responsibility for our science. We need conscience to begin to outweigh greed.
2. Should there be more effective control of the pharmaceutical industry?
One of the articles in our week one packet documented the troubling statistic that between 1997 and 2005 "the amount of five major painkillers sold at retail establishments rose 90 percent." It listed reasons for this dramatic increase such as the aging of the population (does getting old really hurt that badly? and if so, why? isn't there a "better" way to prevent pain?) and unprecedented marketing campaigns.
I remember a time when there were no ads for prescription drugs. Currently, only the United States and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medication. This practice was deemed acceptable in the US in 1997 by the FDA -- the same year that marketing budgets rose sharply. The drug companies call this marketing "educational." It is not educational -- watch any of those ads and it is clear they are trying to sell us something and not educate. The unbelievable list of side effects that is read at lightening speed at the end of such commercials doesn't really do much to offset the image of that happy older couple who now are thankfully able to copulate like teenagers thanks to viagra or some other happy-making miracle drug. The message in all the commercials is that drugs make you happier! What would those commercials look like if they showed images of the real patients taking those drugs?
The website netwellness.org, whose content is created jointly by three Ohio universities, states that every dollar the pharmaceutical industry spent on advertising in 2000 resulted in an additional $4.20 in drug sales. People seeking treatment are being pushed into drug use from all sides -- they get the idea from deceptive TV ads and go to their doctor who has been wined and dined by a "detailer."
The impacts of rampant over-prescription of medication are numerous and unfortunate, meanwhile there are a few people getting very wealthy off of making people sick. How ironic that in an attempt to be healed many people are being made sicker.
I have to mention one other side effect of all of these drugs being ingested -- pharmaceuticals are now a new class of water pollutant. In March 2008 it was reported by the Associated Press that "a vast array of pharmaceuticals - including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones - have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans."
I don't think the pharmaceutical companies, whose profit margins are four to five times above that of any other industry, are going to change their ways by themselves. So, yes, I do believe that there should be more effective control of the pharmaceutical industry.
The drinking water report: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/10/health/main3920454.shtml
Amy Goodman reporting on pharmaceuticals in the water:
2 comments:
yes, and the ethical review should also include any projected or foreseeable uses for the information gained by the experiment and how these might impact the world as a whole. oh, we're just dropping this warship which was contaminated in a nuclear explosion into the ocean off the farallones.....
Drug companies are given far to much leverage and power when it comes to the health of our nation. The lay American watches tv or quickly scans articles on the internet or newspaper and fails to analyze what is being presented. Unfortunately, drug companies are feeding off and becoming rich off of consumer ignorance and yurning for a quick fix. Additionally, the fact the doctors are so willing to put their patients lives in jeopardy for the price of free lunch and speaking engagements.
Post a Comment