Scientific Approach

[Glenn Lyvers]

Let's kill it and see how old it is.

 

"In October [2007], researchers from Bangor University in Wales were trawling an ocean shelf off the coast of north Iceland when they stumbled on what is believed to be the world’s oldest living animal: a 405 year-old clam. Or it was living, until researchers had to kill it to determine the clam’s age by studying rings on its shell. The clam species, the Arctica Atlantica, is particularly long lived — it has been known to survive some 200 and 300 years — and this particular specimen spent its protracted life burrowed in the sand 262 feet under water. When it first lodged itself down there, Shakespeare’s Hamlet was on stage at the Globe Theater, and the English were setting up camp in North America" (Times Discoveries 2007).

 

Sometimes I don't like the way researchers approach things like this. Itb seems like enough to count the shells of dead clams. I know a clam is not a big deal to some, but still, I have to feel bad for soimething that made it over 400 years and then whammo.

 

Peace,

Glenn

[lawcat]

Knowledge is more important than life, don't you know it?

[freeztar]

Knowledge is more important than life, don't you know it?

 

Please refrain from making hit and run posts. This is not allowed per site rules. Thanks.

 

Glenn,

I agree that it can be disturbing to hear such stories. In certain cases though, it's the only way to get more data. Sure, all precautions should be taken to limit killing for Science, but not at the sacrifice of useful scientific data, imho.

 

Consider all the mice and rats that are intentionally given cancer and all sorts of nasties on a daily basis (I tried to find a number for how many per day, but was unsuccessful). By studying mice, we can figure out what will work in humans. Since it would be unethical to use humans for such studies, we are left with either killing mice or not advancing our medical knowledge as efficiently, or at all. On the flip side though, some scientists have developed clever ways to bypass the need for live organisms to be killed and still obtain relevant data, such as using individual organs instead of the entire system. Of course, we have to question whether the organs came from a live specimen or one that died naturally. Either way, it allows Science to extract much more use out of the organism.

[Zythryn]

I also feel badly that any creature was killed to find out how old it is.

I do hope that the knowledge was worthwhile.

[Turtle]

Let's kill it and see how old it is.

 

"In October [2007], researchers from Bangor University in Wales were trawling an ocean shelf off the coast of north Iceland when they stumbled on what is believed to be the world’s oldest living animal: a 405 year-old clam. Or it was living, until researchers had to kill it to determine the clam’s age by studying rings on its shell. The clam species, the Arctica Atlantica, is particularly long lived — it has been known to survive some 200 and 300 years — and this particular specimen spent its protracted life burrowed in the sand 262 feet under water. When it first lodged itself down there, Shakespeare’s Hamlet was on stage at the Globe Theater, and the English were setting up camp in North America" (Times Discoveries 2007).

 

Sometimes I don't like the way researchers approach things like this. Itb seems like enough to count the shells of dead clams. I know a clam is not a big deal to some, but still, I have to feel bad for soimething that made it over 400 years and then whammo.

 

Peace,

Glenn

 

Do you have any links or references to support the assertion that these folks had to kill the clam? While I have argued elsewhere against killing something rare for the simple desire to study it, whether animal or vegetable, the gross generalization of the title "scientific approach" is misleading & inflammatory on the basis of a single anecdotal instance. Perhaps these particular researchers did kill the clam, but it is a non sequitur even then to conclude this is how all scientists behave. I wonder if you have in mind a preferred appraoch to juxtapose such as...oh I don't know...maybe...religion? :eek: :hyper: :)

[modest]

What's interesting is that the research was funded by the UK charity "Help the Aged". I'd honestly like to hear an explanation for this. How is this research helping the aged? Is it helping to make them feel younger? "At least you're not as old as this clam granny" Or, perhaps the charity is actually funding research to combat the effects of old age. :hyper:

 

Oh, ok, I just found a different article that tries to explain:

Prof Richardson said the clam's discovery could help shed light on how some animals can live to extraordinary ages.

 

"What's intriguing the Bangor group is how these animals have actually managed, in effect, to escape senescence [growing old]," he said.

 

"One of the reasons we think is that the animals have got some difference in cell turnover rates that we would associate with much shorter-lived animals."

 

He said the university had received money from the UK charity Help The Aged to help fund its research.

 

-BBC News

Combating senescence... seems reasonable I guess.

 

As far as killing clams for research... I'm all for it. I'm a clam shucker from way back. I didn't know you could count the rings on the shell to date the thing. I do know clams can live a couple days out of the water so it should be possible to date them without killing them. For that matter, it would be possible to count the rings of an underwater clam. But, I'm sure these scientists are doing more research than just dating the things (at least, I would sure hope they are).

 

~modest (I thought they didn't use the word "clam" in the UK... :))

[Turtle]

...

As far as killing clams for research... I'm all for it. I'm a clam shucker from way back. I didn't know you could count the rings on the shell to date the thing. I do know clams can live a couple days out of the water so it should be possible to date them without killing them. For that matter, it would be possible to count the rings of an underwater clam. But, I'm sure these scientists are doing more research than just dating the things (at least, I would sure hope they are).

 

~modest (I thought they didn't use the word "clam" in the UK... :))

 

Bloody right to question this, well mention it as suspect, or well, take note of it. :hyper: (i got horror, UK reference to colloquialism, and science all in one swell foop. :eek:) Anyway, without specification, the loose use of the term "rings" as analogous to dendrochronology is fallacious. I went looking and found that is the case as I suspected, at least in so far as counting the exterior rings. Seems this is inaccurate and it's the inner rings needs be counted & for that you gotta slice up the shell and to do that, kill the clam.

 

COA :: Growth Rings and Longevity in Bivalves

...Actually, for many decades the growth patterns in molluscan shells have been the subject of serious biological and paleontological inquiry. Early workers concentrated on growth structures visible on the external surfaces of shells, such as ribs, frills, and concentric rings on the bivalve shells. These structures often were considered (usually without much evidence) to form annually, so that by counting the number of rings, a clam's age could be determined. Despite extensive study, however, the use of external shell growth patterns in most species has been found to be rather limited.

...

Within the last few decades, studies of molluscan growth structures have focused upon periodic patterns within shells.

...

Internal shell growth patterns are best viewed in cross-sections taken from the umbo to the growing shell margin. This technique is readily applied to bivalve shells, where a straight cut by a rock-cutting saw equipped with a diamond blade reveals the entire growth history of the animal in the sectioned shell.

 

So yep, looks like the proper scientific approach here is to kill the clam. As I mentioned a religious approach juxtaposed earlier, if needs be I can reference killing for less justification.