Page 145 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

122 M.P. Mueller and D.L. Zeidler

become degraded to the point that they no longer support farming have led to serious
consequences for public health, such as farmer suicide in India. Insignificant degra-
dations for the world’s environments may eventually add up to involve much larger
and more difficult problems, similar to global climate change. These things require
a precautionary principle, which addresses problems when they are small, and
before they escalate beyond what can be addressed by humans.
Yorktown’s (2008) next ethical principle is:
Humane Treatment of Fish. We are committed to humane breeding practices, and the
distribution of GloFish® fluorescent fish will make every effort to provide an exemplary,
healthy environment for our fish throughout their life cycle. We encourage our customers
to remember that, which unique, beautiful, and interesting, these fish are living creatures
and not toys, and should be treated with the utmost care (n.p.).

Zoo animals are provided what is deemed to be minimally sufficient, healthy
environments. However, animals in captivity rarely grow to the size they would in
their native environments and they do not reproduce (which is generally considered
the “gold standard” for whether zoo animals are living in exemplary, healthy
environments). The same is true of zebrafish in captivity. They do not grow to nontrans-
genic size. But the nontransgenic zebrafish are able to reproduce if the conditions
are right in most personal aquariums. However, GloFish are sterilized so that they
will not reproduce for the aquarium hobbyist. Sterilization is one way to protect the
company’s interests from infringements on intellectual patent rights. Recall that
GloFish are considered “inventions” so they can be patented and trademarked. It
will be difficult if not impossible to determine whether GloFish are sufficiently
cared for (beyond providing the proper water conditions and food needs for life
itself). It should not be surprising if consumers of GloFish treat them as toys. Toys
are inventions too. Most importantly, GloFish life cycles are not treated with the
same moral status of human life cycles. But should they be?
Singer (2000) writes that in the western tradition, the natural world exists for the
benefit of human beings. Humans are the only morally significant creature, mem-
bers of the Earth. If the destruction of nature’s animals and plants does not adversely
impact humans, then it does not matter whether or not they are destroyed. Some
advocate that nature should be conserved because it cannot be separated from
human health. For example, the destruction of forests is harmful because it affects
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases abundant in the atmosphere and this
contributes to global warming and rising sea levels, which displaces coastal cities.
GloFish were not modified to protect them from diseases, or native population
collapse, or from environmental pollutants emitted by industrial factories and cars.
They were modified for the pleasure and happiness of humans (Gong et al. 2003).
A different argument can be made that the intrinsic worth of nature is directly
proportional to our current needs. But this argument is shortsighted when we consider
that future generations will also have to support their communities and will rely on
many of the same agricultural and natural resources that current societies use to
survive today. Nature should be preserved in the same manner that we currently protect
deeply embedded cultural thinking patterns (e.g., the cultivation of social memory,
Green 1988) from being eroded.