I had initially wanted to cover a range of pressing issues surrounding today’s society, which possibly fuel the development of immersive games, however I discovered that trying to focus on all of these can result in a game which could perhaps be conceived as pretentious, and I want to make a game whereby people just have fun, I want it to be visually evoking, and comical, so since my previous project proposal I have changed the game play. Albeit I have still touched on some issues which are ever present in society, some of which have been spoken about of recent on ITV.
I am going to highlight the effects of animal testing, which is a non-human form of scientific experimentation for biological and genetic testing. It is estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate primates are used annually worldwide, although a much larger number of invertebrates are used because they are seen as model organisms, for example flies and worms, these experiments are largely unregulated and not included in the statistics. These experiments are mainly conducted inside Universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, defence establishments and commercial facilities. The research conducted is often genetics, development biology, behavioural studies, xenotransplatation, and toxicology, however cloning has become increasingly popular since the controversial breakthrough in 1997, when a team at the Roslin Institute in Scotland announced the birth of Dolly the sheep, an ewe that had been successfully cloned. Dolly was produced through nuclear transfer to an unfertilised oocyte, and she was the only lamb to survive out of 277 attempts.
There are many effects of experimental animal testing, which can often result in the animal being put to sleep. There is an on going debate between these institutions and people opposing this need to use animals for human testing, questioning the necessity of it, arguing that it is cruel and poor scientific practice, especially since the tests can be often unreliable and unpredictive of the human metabolic and physiological specificities. Personally I do tend to agree with the opposing view, animal testing can only be conceived to me, as unreliable and not viable to practice on humans, so why the need to begin with? But then I understand that there is possibly no other alternative for this type of experimentation unless we use humans, but that would be against the human rights act, so therefore this is perhaps a lose, lose situation for both sides.
I am going to highlight the effects of animal testing, which is a non-human form of scientific experimentation for biological and genetic testing. It is estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate primates are used annually worldwide, although a much larger number of invertebrates are used because they are seen as model organisms, for example flies and worms, these experiments are largely unregulated and not included in the statistics. These experiments are mainly conducted inside Universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, defence establishments and commercial facilities. The research conducted is often genetics, development biology, behavioural studies, xenotransplatation, and toxicology, however cloning has become increasingly popular since the controversial breakthrough in 1997, when a team at the Roslin Institute in Scotland announced the birth of Dolly the sheep, an ewe that had been successfully cloned. Dolly was produced through nuclear transfer to an unfertilised oocyte, and she was the only lamb to survive out of 277 attempts.
There are many effects of experimental animal testing, which can often result in the animal being put to sleep. There is an on going debate between these institutions and people opposing this need to use animals for human testing, questioning the necessity of it, arguing that it is cruel and poor scientific practice, especially since the tests can be often unreliable and unpredictive of the human metabolic and physiological specificities. Personally I do tend to agree with the opposing view, animal testing can only be conceived to me, as unreliable and not viable to practice on humans, so why the need to begin with? But then I understand that there is possibly no other alternative for this type of experimentation unless we use humans, but that would be against the human rights act, so therefore this is perhaps a lose, lose situation for both sides.
No comments:
Post a Comment