When Disaster Strikes

Elizabeth Burchenal

I remember sitting in my Geology 105 Natural Disasters course freshmen year. I ended up with a D+ in this class. Somewhere between plate shifts and fault movements I took a wrong turn and never fully understood the complexity of our earth’s movements. However, one thing I did remember was that a natural disaster is defined as “any event or force of nature that has catastrophic consequences”. With the growth and technology of this world, we should be able control these disasters. ”This is not a Drill” argues that the human race is capable of preventing natural disasters while Cortney Streets “Responder Funding” article claims that equipment lists will somehow protect us.
Nature’s “This is not a Drill” argued that we have overconfidence in our natural disaster prevention system. The author claimed that, regrettably, natural and man-made disasters will always occur, however we are not doing a sufficient enough job looking into ways to prevent them and rebound from them. The first claim refers to the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico where 4 million barrels of oil spilled into the ocean. According to the article, petroleum industries are moving their rigs to deep water locations. These companies are not researching or investing enough money and time into creating methods to avoid or prevent disaster from occurring in these parts of the world. Simple things such as compiling more research could prevent such catastrophic and damaging events. Another claim that was discussed was the lack of deterrence from Japan. Japan is familiar with earthquakes; seismic charts and records prove that they are prevalent. Unfortunately, because Sendai (the largest city in the Tohoku region where the earthquake hit) had shown no recent activity on these charts, they did not stress improving their hazard prevention methods for these scenarios. References of how the Fukushima Daiichi, a nuclear power plant located in Japan effected by the earthquake, could have created a plan in case their back up generators failed. This article argues that our carelessness is an issue that needs to be fixed.
In contrary, in an article about Responder Funding from Domestic Preparedness, the author claims that there have been huge improvements towards our countries Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). To improve awareness of natural disasters and acts of terrorism, the FEMA have released 16 new grants throughout our country. This means that they are providing funding for state and local emergency response systems. To prove that they are funding and providing methods of prevention they show their extensive Authorized Equipment List (AEL) and the 21 different categories that is included within it. This list includes authorized equipment such as Terrorism Incident Prevention, Cyber security Enhancement equipment, and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive Operational Search and Rescue Enhancement Equipment. This article mentions the many ways in which Federal Emergency Management Agency has taken initiative into prevention from disaster striking in our country. Unfortunately, simply compiling a list isn’t going to solve the problem. Actions need to be taken in order to improve our security.
After finding my roots with my traumatizing Geology 105 class, I remembered how completely devastating a natural disaster could be. After reading two different sides regarding our countries preparedness, I found that the Nature article was not only more convincing, but had stronger claims and reasons. Although different government agencies have taken many steps into preventing disaster throughout our country, there are moments of carelessness that cause catastrophic damage. After learning about all of the deaths and damages caused from my Geology course, it became clear that we must adapt to these events and try and learn from them. In “This is not a Drill” there are concrete examples of how we did a poor job in the manufacturing and investigating of different projects, which in turn became flawed and caused extraordinary crisis. Inevitably, disasters are going to arise, therefore we must use the equipment and resources we have to improve on our prevention and response plans, because in the end talk is cheap when thousands of lives are at risk.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7342/full/472135b.html

http://www.domesticpreparedness.com/commentary/viewpoint/Responder_Funding%3A_FEMA_%26_Other_Federal_Preparedness_Grants/

NASA Space Program: Success or Failure?

In “Up and Away” the author is claiming that the NASA Space Shuttle Program does not live up to its hype and the millions of dollars put into it. The author states that NASA made “outrageous claims” in regards to the potential the Space Shuttle Program had. However these claims were never met, but instead brought disaster with the loss of two space shuttles. But how could one claim that our Space Shuttle Program has brought nothing but disaster? For all I know, the moon could still be a mystery to me. NASA’s Space Shuttle Program was a success because it propelled our country into becoming a dominant superpower, and furthered our scientific knowledge.
The author of “Up and Away” states that the Space Shuttle Program was never about science, and that its main purpose was to build a machine to make quick and fast trips into space. “Up and Away” even admits that the “space shuttle is probably the most recognized symbol of science and technology for a generation.” These are two very contradictory statements. Nature also mentions the Nixon-era and how they weren’t resourceful enough, when in fact, “President Nixon announced that NASA would proceed with the development of a reusable Space Shuttle system. The final design was less costly to build and less technically ambitious than earlier fully reusable designs”(Exploration of Space). The author also claimed that “The program never flew close to the 50 missions per year originally envisaged, and the cost per flight was always well above the estimates (Nature).” Although the Space Shuttle Program never flew 50 times a year as planned they sent a total of 135 flights into space. Of those flights NASA only had five space shuttles that flew into space, this meant that NASA was using Space shuttles over 20 years old. Although millions of dollars were put into these shuttles, they did a fantastic job of preserving them and using them time and again. These flights consisted of carrying over three million pounds of cargo and more than 600 flight members, whom conducted several hundred experiments, and helped repair many satellites and telescopes.
In many ways, the United States is looked at as the strongest country in the world. For America, NASA has been an important factor in why we’re deemed a global superpower. On July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong took the first step on the moon. Although many believe this is insignificant, without the Space Shuttle Program, feats such as this would seem impossible. Nature claims that telescopes, landers and rovers could teach us more about space than a Space Shuttle could. These projects of course do not require an astronaut, but a Space Shuttle would. Although NASA has created astonishing technology, it is hard to believe that machines are replacing humans. Machines do not have the capability to problem solve, or react to different factors that might occur. On a typical mission, astronauts are traveling at such high speeds that they see a sunrise and sunset every 45 minutes! Monitoring space would be most highly productive when seen through the eyes of an astronaut. As Edward Murrow said a satellite has no conscience.
The Space Shuttle Program has given our civilization the ability to see things, that without it, we could only dream of. Nature makes accusations that NASA is stumbling over different projects that they have been working on over the years. This may be true, but these projects are high profile and, naturally, will take time to develop. “NASA's space shuttle is unlike any other spacecraft ever built. The craft was designed to streak into space as a rocket but return as a glider, utilizing an aerodynamic winged shape to descend through the atmosphere and touch down on a runway much like a commercial airplane. (National Geographic)” Projects such as this are difficult and take immense planning and efficient execution. One thing I do agree that Nature says is that the possibilities for space science have never been greater. So why not attack these possibilities with everything NASA is made of? Why deem this program a failure when the Space Shuttle Program has brought nothing but discovery and understanding to this country.
As a student, one thing I do everyday is learn about our history and all of the failures and successes of this country. It is both morally and scientifically wrong to see our Space Shuttle Program regarded as “falling short”. Without space travel, our country would not be the dominant force it is today. We would not be able to see the earth from afar, nor would we know what lies thousands of miles away from us. Space would be a mystery, and science would be suffering greatly.

Work Cited:
Unknown, . "Space Shuttle Program."National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct 2011. .

Unknown, . "Up and Away." Nature. (2011): n. page. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. .

Unknown, . "Space Shuttle History."Century Of Flight. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct 2011. .

Image by: Kenny Miller

Evidence, Does It Go Over The Limit?

In Nature’s article, Over the Limit, an anonymous author tells the story of a European policy that turned its back on scientific evidence and the repercussions thereof. As he proceeds to support the policy and the reasons they made it, he extrapolates the idea that evidence is not the only basis a policy should be made on and comes up with the claim that “when setting policies, there are limits to the role that evidence can have.” I, respectfully, disagree with his claim and his reasons and will explain why.


    The law in question was put into place in Europe in 2011 when the Court of Justice of the European Communities decided that men could not be charged more than women for auto insurance. This goes against mounds of scientific evidence that explicitly states that men are more likely to wreck their cars then women, and is aimed at reducing sexual discrimination. While the intention of the law is good, admirable in fact, the fact that they ignored such conclusive scientific evidence is causing much controversy. The author stands up for this law and attempts to explain his reasoning behind it, and behind his support of it.


In the article, he says that although evidence is a strong factor in policy-making, it should not be the only one, and that it “is important to distinguish between policies that ignore the evidence and those that consider it but do not give it the deciding vote.” He later says it is up to the scientists to present the evidence and its up to the politicians to decide when to ignore it, and while that is true, he also seems to be supporting the fact that sometimes it is not only acceptable to ignore scientific evidence, but it is also the ‘right’ thing to do, as evidenced by his comment about the “drive in Europe to reverse practices that survive as a legacy of centuries of inequality and discrimination against women is right to trump the cold logic of the statistics.” He says that there are other relevant factors that politicians must consider and that evidence shouldn’t always get the deciding factor, but all of these appeals have very specific flaws that I will point out.


When he says that it is ‘right’ for politicians to ignore scientific evidence I am trying hard to find where exactly he got his definition of right, because if by right, he means foolish, selfish, and short-sighted, then maybe my entire argument is nothing but semantics. In his own article he specifically says that “It is legitimate, if short-sighted, to acknowledge that man-made global warming is real but argue that policies to cut emissions are too expensive to pursue.” So it is legitimate (and ‘right’ if you transfer over the property he so graciously extended to the law in Europe) for a policy that is so short-sighted that it is all but ignoring an international disaster just waiting for us around the door. I don’t think so. Even in some of his lesser claims, he has nothing to back them up. He says that it is important to distinguish between policies that ignore scientific evidence and those that consider it, but don’t give it the deciding vote. I answer that claim with a question. Why? The outcome is the same, so why is there a difference? An ignorant policy still gets put in place. The outcome is the same, so what is the difference? I argue none (now I know that it makes a difference when you are trying to decide who to vote for, but we are only focusing on the validity of the policies put in place, and not the politicians behind them).


Another thing that the author fails to see is that the term ‘scientific evidence’ is a lot more encompassing then he seems to believe. He seems to want to limit it to only empirical evidence on limited subjects. What he doesn’t seem to get is that evidence can be present in all of the other ‘factors’ he claims that should supersede evidence such as “social, economic and political factors.” Evidence is not limited solely to the natural sciences, but can be present in all of the above, so turning your back on ‘evidence’ means turning your back on all things logical. This is not ‘right’ for any reason.


So if evidence is as encompassing as I believe it to be, then it only leads to one logical conclusion. Evidence is the only thing to rightfully base policy upon, and this is why I disagree with the article on hand, allow me to explain. Assuming it is wrong to ignore evidence in policy making would seem like that would be all you would need to make the claim I just made there, but the author has rightly pointed out several other factors that may influence policy making. If evidence were so limited, then it would be impossible to run a country only making policies on such a limited scale, but add in my other premise and you will see how it opens up the possibilities to a great extent. You can now make policies based on economic evidence, which was once considered an ‘other’ factor, allowing evidence to be the basis for ALL policies.


While the logic leading up to my claim is unbreakable (I hope) the premises are the ones you could argue against. This means any opposition to my claim would either argue that ignoring evidence in policy making is not wrong, or that evidence is not as encompassing as I had once thought. One may say, you don’t decide whats right or wrong, how can you claim that one policy is better than another? My answer to that would be that for length’s sake I am assuming that selfish, short-sighted policies are wrong, and to try to argue that would involve an ethics essay and entrance into an age old debate that would not simply go well in a blog such as this.


To attack the other premise, one would simply have to find a ‘relevant’ factor in policy making and show that there is no scientific evidence in that area whatsoever. Do that, and my entire post will be shut down and be irrelevant trash, but I doubt you will be able to do such a thing. The gathering of scientific evidence is done mainly for one reason only. to find out information, so you can do something better in the future. This, or to make better choices in the future. And what ‘choices’ are more in the open and have the most interest other than policies? Scientists gather information all the time to help future policy makers and I highly doubt that you can find a relevant area where there has been no research in.


All of this leads me to confidently say that evidence is the only relevant basis for policy making and that the author of “Over the Limit” was wrong in his article.

Works Cited:
"Over the Limit." Nature. 9 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7337/full/471136a.html>.

Are Vaccinations Dangerous?

Parents across the country make the decision each year to vaccinate their children. You, I and children for years to come will be most likely be vaccinated without much thought. Vaccination has never been a large debate, but there is growing evidence linking vaccines to certain childhood problems. This link is beginning to bring about a very important debate surrounding the chemical dangers associated with childhood vaccination.  Certain risks associated with immunizing children are evident, and I believe mandatory childhood vaccines should be repealed because of the serious risks and side effects.

Every year, millions of children across the country are vaccinated for preventable diseases such as measles and polio. Generally between the ages of 6 months to 6 years old, children will have several different vaccination appointments to immunize them from these illnesses. As the author stated in the article “The Wrong Message on Vaccines,” many of these appointments go very smoothly, with only about 0.05% of all recipients of vaccinations experiencing side effects. In modern medicine, a 0.05% chance of side effects might seem small. This small amount, though, can add up quickly. With tens of millions of children receiving vaccines every year, 0.05% equates to over 500,000 affected children each year (Blaylock).  Researchers have determined that the main cause of these complications is related to the Mercury that is in many vaccines (Blaylock).

For those who don’t know, Mercury is a naturally occurring element found in air, water, and soil, that in its purest form is referred to as Quicksilver (Medicinenet).  Many vaccines contain Mercury in the form of a preservative named, Thimerosal, which is 50% Mercury by weight (Vaccine Safety and Availability).  Over the past decade a lot of debate has been created surrounding the potential toxicity of Thimerosal.  With some effects of Thimerosal still unclear, the FDA has begun working with vaccine manufacturers to remove Thimerosal from vaccines, proving there really is some innate danger to these vaccinations (Vaccine Safety and Availability). The largest effects seen from Thimerosal have been seen in infants and children under the age of six, illustrating the increased danger mandatory childhood vaccinations causes (Vaccine Safety and Availability). Problems caused by the Thimerosal and more specifically the Mercury in it, have been linked to various developmental problems in the brain and kidneys.

At this point, it may yet be clear how real some of the dangers of vaccinations are. Yes, the side effects sound serious, but with only a fraction of a percent of people experiencing this side effect, this won’t happen to anyone you or I might know, right? Well just understand this: For every 100,000 people in the United States, 50 will experience vaccine related complications; alternatively, per every 100,000 people in the U.S., 11.4 will die in a car accident (FARS Data Tables). Imagine, if you will, all the money and time spent on preventing fatal crashes in our nation. All of the “click-it-or-ticket” commercials you see on T.V. and all of the money it took to create those. We see these things every week, sometimes every day, but imagine if you saw vaccine warnings five times as frequently as that. Every hour of T.V. would almost certainly include some sort of PSA talking about vaccines, and millions of dollars would be spent warning against them. It would seem odd though, to have the government recommending vaccines, and at the same time also warning against their dangers. This presents a very interesting conflict of interests.

Within his article, the main observation that Blaylock illuminates is the tendency for politicians to be backed by large companies, and large pharmaceutical companies are not excluded from this trend. Blaylock argues that vaccines are not being investigated completely because if there were to be serious dangers associated with vaccines, pharmaceutical companies would lose billions of dollars (Blaylock). As many people know, politicians claim to do what’s best for their constituents but this is not always true, and Blaylock’s argument is that the vaccination problem is another unfortunate result. Blaylock explains that in order to put themselves in the best position for re-election, politicians listen to their donors more than their constituents when making political decisions. In this example of political tom foolery, the hundreds of thousands of children each year are falling prey.

This debate is unfortunately not easily settled today. Without concrete answers from researchers, which rarely if ever happens, it is hard to determine the true innate risks to vaccination. Yes, Thimerosal is present in many vaccines today, but is that reason enough to stop the millions of vaccinations done each year? I would say yes, but I am obviously not in a decision to make this change happen. This decision will be up to all of us, me, you, parents, teachers, neighbors, and family members. Everyone will have to come together and take a look at the facts to decide what is best for our nation’s health, and until then, many children may be taking unnecessary risks with these unknown toxins.

 Works Cited

1. Blaylock, Russell. "The Truth Behind the Vaccine Cover Up (Part 1 of 5)." Mercola.com. Mercola, 22 009 2004. Web. 3 Oct 2011.

2. "FARS Data Tables." Data Resource Website. National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, 2007. Web.

3. "Mercury Poisoning." MedicineNet n. pag. Medicienet. Web. 4 Oct 2011.

4. "Thimerosal in Vaccines." Vaccine Safety and Availability 31 003 2010. n. pag. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Web. 4 Oct 2011.

Speciesism & Animal Liberation

Every year millions of animals undergo testing by scientific researchers. The author of an article from the scientific journal Nature, entitled “Call to Curb Lab Tests with Dogs”, argues that scientific testing on dogs is cruel and should be reduced and lesser rodent species should be used for testing when applicable. However, I argue that testing on all animals should cease, as it is a form of speciesism.

In the Nature article, the author starts off by presenting the idea of how testing the effects of medical drugs on dogs is bad and is something that most people will agree should not happen. This seems to make sense. After all no one wants to see “man’s best friend” be injected with a lethal disease and suffer as the doctors try different drugs to see if they work. Usually drugs will not work and the animal will innocently be killed as a result. Then the author proceeds to describe the current regulations of dog testing and how they are wrong. She provides evidence from credible scientists who are the ones in the field of research yet they still are against using dogs for testing. I agreed completely with this article until it moved to what the action taken should be. After stating that dog testing is bad, and that it should not be done, the author suggests that the regulations be changed in order to limit the number of dogs used in laboratory studies. One way of doing this she suggests is to use animals of the rodent species whenever possible instead of dogs. This is what does not make sense to me. Although the author has attempted ot make a kind gesture at regulating animal testing, she has made a claim that is ultimately speciesist and wrong.

The problem is, a large percent of the population in America does not even know what Speciesism is. To prove that fact, the word itself is not recognized by spell check in google documents as a real word. To understand why all animal testing is bad, you must first understand speciesism. Speciesism refers to the widely held belief that the human species is inherently superior to other species and so has rights or privileges that are denied to other sentient animals. Most human beings are speciesists. “We take an active part in and allow our taxes to pay for practices that require the sacrifice of the most important interests of members of other species in order to promote the most trivial interests of our own”. (Singer, 9) We as humans understood and have worked to proudly abolish, racism, sexism, and homophobia, yet speciesism still widely exists without problems. The claim made by the author of the Nature article that other rodent species should be used instead of dogs is a perfect example of speciesism. She speaks of rodents as lesser to not only humans but even dogs in this case. This could be related to a man saying, “instead of doing testing on black men, let’s do tests on white females. That will be better.” Any human being would immediately say that this statement is blatantly racist or sexist and would have a problem with it.

Now, you might be thinking in objection, “how could the testing of rats be as bad as testing on an adult human? We physically have a higher mental ability, and for us to undergo an experiment that involves horrible suffering, we will be affected more because we have social relationships, and we are aware of everything else we could be.” So then let us assume that this is true. I would then ask you if you would be ok with using a mentally retarded orphan child that’s mental cognition has stopped progressing at the level of a rat. Mentally the child and the rat are the same. Would you then consider performing this experiment on the child? Or does it automatically seem wrong and cruel? Most of us would be appalled at this thought. So what if I were to go even further to say that the child is in fact completely unaware of their existence in reality and is in a vegetative state. With this, the mental capacity of the child is now lesser than that of the rats. So according to the counter argument made before, you should use the child. Yet most of us would still say no to the child and yes to the rat. It seems that the only reasoning here that the child should not be used, is that it is a human being and this is a direct discrimination of species, thus speciesism. In the words of Peter Singer, a well known philosopher, “ To avoid Speciesism, we must allow that beings who are similar in all relevant respects have a similar right to life --- and mere membership in our own biological species can not be a morally relevant criterion for this right. (Singer 19)

Unfortunately speciesism has existed forever. There have been dozens of experiments done with animals in the military, psychology, pharmacology, and cosmetics that produce the worst possible suffering in animals imaginable. One such study was a study performed by the US military in 1987. The goal of the study was to observe the effects that large amounts of radiation exposure had on pilots in War. Their means to doing this was to use Monkeys and strap them into a pilot’s chair. They were first trained through electrical shocks to maneuver a joystick as thus simulating flying an airplane. Then they were exposed within an enclosed room to large amounts of radiation everyday. The scientists observed their ability to complete tasks with the joystick simulating airplane flight after each exposure. The monkeys were said to be vomiting up to 5 times in thirty minutes while completing the tasks. Their hair would fall out. Their eye sight would deteriorate. All of which continued until either they died or the scientist was satisfied with their results. Surely if the monkey was to be replaced with a child of the same mental capacity, we would not allow it. So then why do we let such things happen with animals just because they are not human.

Another possible counter argument you might have is that “well the experimentation on animals is a bad thing sure, but it is justified by the results obtained becuase it furthers science and mankind.” Ironically, experiments done that inflict suffering to animals, a large majority of them provide no applicable results. But sure there is no doubt in saying that there are some advances in knowledge that would not have been obtained through animal experimentation. Though “even if valuable discoveries were made using animals, we cannot say how successful medical research would have been if it had been compelled from the outset to develop alternative methods of investigation. Some discoveries would probably have been delayed, or perhaps not made at all, but many false leads would also not have been pursued, and it is possible that medicine would have developed in a very different and more efficacious direction emphasizing healthy living rather than cure”(Singer 92) That quote from Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation portrays perfectly the possibility of not using animals for testing. He also then goes on to further argue how the results are not a justifiable claim to animal testing. He states “there is nothing sacred about the right to pursue knowledge. We already accept many restrictions on scientific enterprise. We do not believe that scientists have a general right to perform painful or lethal experiment on human beings without their consent although there are many cases in which such experiments would advance knowledge far more rapidly than any other method.” (singer 92) He says this to show the reader that if we aren’t doing this to humans, than why are we doing it to animals because they are of different species.

In conclusion, I find the argument made by the Nature article to be a form of speciesism and that instead of dog testing be regulated or replaced with rats, we should abolish all forms of animal testing allowed. I have presented two counter arguments to my claim and provided further explanation of why that counter argument is wrong. I believe that the discrimination of animals if widely overlooked and should become a liberating movement as was racism, or sexism. In the words of Peter Singer “to stop them we must change the policies of our government, and we must change our own lives, even to the extent of changing our diet. If these officially promoted and almost universally accepted forms of speciesism can be abolished, abolition of the other speciesist practices cannot be far behind.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. 2nd. Australia: Pimlico, 1995. Print.

The Dangers of Memory Altering Drugs

As the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan begin to fade, tens of thousands of American soldiers return home reliving their traumatic experiences overseas. Post traumatic stress disorder is a condition that affects millions of people of all walks of life, ranging from battle worn soldiers to people who have been involved in motor vehicle accidents. Sufferers of this disorder often experience nightmares, flashbacks, shortness of breath, insomnia, depression and irritability. This often debilitating condition has driven medical researchers to try and find a pharmacological treatment that may provide sufferers of PTSD some relief. Studies have suggested that drugs like Propanolol have the potential to dampen or possibly even remove the memories of individuals who have experienced some form of trauma.

However, are memory altering drugs the most effective way of dealing with PTSD? Recently, psychiatrists and other medical professionals have suggested that these experimental drugs may lead to lowered inhibition and the loss of an individual’s fundamental sense of identity. These potential side effects that may develop through the use of memory dampening drugs should cause scientific researchers and the public in general to question the efficacy of these new memory-altering drugs and whether they should be implemented as a replacement for psychiatric treatment.

Recently, Americans have rallied in support of memory dampening drugs that may provide relief to sufferers of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In a recent article from the scientific journal nature, entitled Neuroethics: Give memory-altering drugs a chance, Adam Kolber argues in favor of these new memory dampening drugs. Kolber describes the fears over pharmaceutical memory manipulation as excessive and a possible hindrance to researchers attempting to prevent post traumatic stress in millions of people. In his article, Kolber advocates for drugs like Propanolol that may dampen the emotional pain of traumatic memories. Preliminary studies suggest that Propanolol can inhibit the formation of traumatic memories, but conclusive evidence for this attribute has yet to be found. Kolber also argues against conventional methods of dealing with traumatic memories, like therapy and psychiatric treatment, and in favor of pharmacological methods. Kolber feels that drugs may provide patients with a speedier recovery, allowing them to move past the traumatic memories that dominate their lives and on to a more normal and enjoyable existence.

However, even though certain drugs may potentially dampen or completely remove traumatic memories, many scientists suggest that some of the symptoms of PTSD may still remain. Dr. Monica Thompson, a consultant clinical psychologist at London’s Traumatic Stress Clinic, emphasized that post traumatic stress disorder is a complex condition with many symptoms other than just bad memories. Dr. Thompson claims that even if a treatment successfully dampens a patient’s unpleasant memories, the patient could still exhibit many potentially debilitating symptoms, such as high levels of fear and anxiety. In line with Dr. Thompson, Professor Chris Brewin, of University College London, suggests that research for pharmaceutical memory manipulation is still at a very early stage and much more work is needed to demonstrate that it could lead to tangible benefits. Professor Brewin also posits that without knowing the long term effects of drugs like Propanolol, memory dampening will not take the place of conventional treatments.

As the topic of memory altering becomes more popular, scientist are growing concerned that these drugs may alter a person’s fundamental identity. The President’s Council on Bioethics warned in 2003 that memory altering drugs like Propanolol may cause a loss in episodic memory or the memory of actual events. Psychiatrist Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University Medical School, a member of the presidential council that wrote the report in 2003, advised researchers to proceed with extreme caution. Supporters of memory altering drugs assume that painful emotions are distinctly separate from memories themselves. However, McHugh strongly disagrees with this assumption and fears that dampening an individual’s emotional response to a traumatic experience may inadvertently affect that person’s memory. McHugh claims that the best way to confront PTSD is to have the patient recall and process the emotions and sensations felt during the original event. According to McHugh, by taking away an individual’s memory, you are essentially taking away the best way for that person to deal with the pain.

Another fear that has sprung from the debate on memory dampening drugs is that these drugs may lower the inhibitions of patients. For example, soldiers who are in combat may be more likely to kill if they could significantly diminish the emotional toll of their actions, by simply ingesting a pill. The report by the presidential council on bioethics in 2003, argued that enabling soldiers to pharmaceutically dampen their emotional trauma may transform these young men and women into “killing machines” with little to no remorse for their actions. The report encourages scientist and researchers to not overstep certain boundaries that insure men and women remain human.

In the past medical research has provided solutions to many of the problems that plague mankind. However, in the case of memory altering drugs researchers may have overstepped their bounds. As many have warned, these drugs may result in the loss of an individual’s sense of identity and lowered inhibition. The inadvertent effects of these drugs vastly outweigh the potential benefits. With conventional treatments already in place, adopting new forms of drug therapy that may prove to be harmful and dangerous, seems to be irresponsible.

Works Cited

President's Council on Bioethics. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Human Happiness Ch. 5, 205–273 (2003). 7 Oct. 2011.

“Drugs Can Dampen Down Bad Memories.” BBC News.
3 July 2007. 7 Oct. 2011.

Vergano, Dan. “Scientists Debate Benefits of Memory Dampening Drugs.” USA Today.
5 Oct. 2011. 7 Oct. 2011.

Henry, Michael; Fishman, Jennifer R.; Yougner, Stuart J. “Propranolol and the Prevention of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Is it Wrong to Erase the 'Sting' of Bad Memories?” bioethics.net. 2007. 7 Oct. 2011.

Kolber, Adam. “Neuroethics give memory altering drugs a chance.” Nature.
18 August 2011. 7 Oct. 2011.