Sharks that are stealth. And a tiny bit exploited?

(PHOTO: IBLITZ)

Harnessing animals for the purposes of science is seriously tempting, so long as it's done with the utmost care. Sending marine creatures into the deep complete with science equipment gives us the ultimate birds eye view (as it were). Take for example the Science Seals with the funky hats. Great stuff. It seems that the next sea bound animal to step up to the plate is the Stealth Sharks, via New Scientist. One reason I liked the seals was because they didn't seem to be losing out in being the scientist's little helpers. Not so sure about the sharks though. According to New Scientist,

"Engineers funded by the US military have created a neural implant designed to enable a shark's brain signals to be manipulated remotely, controlling the animal's movements, and perhaps even decoding what it is feeling."

Ok, decoding what it's feeling, fine. This means we can begin to try understand how a shark's advanced chemical sense of smell works. Following its movements, fine. Where does it go? What does it do? But controlling its movements? Hmm. It's a living shark, not a remote control toy. And is it really ok to use a shark as an underwater spy? The scientist in me is amazed that we can control a shark with electrodes in its brain. The human in me thinks it's a bit dodgy. And surely a short step from attaching a fricking laser beam to our toothy friends ... to all sorts of scary ends. Thoughts? [Read the New Scientist article for lots more on the inspirations and implications of the research.]

Comments

[Don Wood Files]

Yes, there is an ethical problem here. But is it so much more different than training a dog to sit when you so command it?

Also, what if you could control the shark to do something wonderful, though involuntary, such as secreting a substance that could cure a dread human disease. Would that be objectionable?

Maybe we should take an instrumental approach and say - it is wrong for the military to control a shark's movements in order to wage war against humans. I could go along with that, unless my own life were on the line. Then, I would abandon my principles and go along with the program.

In short, no easy answers, but some great questions!

[MT]

Sorry, no. This:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and_Information/Press_Releases/story.php?id=94 is an underwater bird's eye view.

[MT]

Points though for not taking the cute way out.

[eM]

Hmmm... I remember when they were implanting electrodes into cats at UC Berkley. I think they were studying the encoding of visual information. It's been awhile. I just hope this study doesn't inspire another Jaws.

[Burrow]

It's wrong to control sharks movements, regardless of the reasons for it. It's not just my love of sharks talking here, although I might be less appalled by it happening to another animal, but probably not.

[Katie]

I personally think that training dogs seems different because it's in their nature to be trainable. I don't think it's in the shark's nature to be used in this way. Even Pavlov and his dogs was still just a scientist exploiting a natural response. The less sinister angle on this is 'Go right, sharky. Now go left. Whee!'. More sinister would be 'Swim up that pipe and then just lurk there until the bomb we've strapped to your fins blows up. An organic untraceable guided missile! Mwa ha ha.'

[sara]

The only reason it's in a dog's "nature" to sit is because we (humans) selected for this trait in dogs through domestication. We've done the same for horses, cows, pigs, etc. -- through human selection the genetics of these animals is different than how it began. Is this more ethical?

Not that I want to advocate controlling the brains of sharks (personally, the research scares me, since it seems humans are a next likely candidate), but the argument is interesting nonetheless.

[Poppycock]

A dog obeys when you instruct it because it expects some reward for this behaviour, eg you provide it with food and affection. The dog has the option to disobey.

With these sharks, the situation seems to me very different: they obtain no benefit from their dealings with humans. Furthermore, they are not making a decision to obey, they are *being controlled*. I think this is a fundamental and important difference.

[MT]

We've bred dogs to obey and to like it. We've done no such favor for sharks--although I suppose each time we make one turn probably we could reward it with an orgasm using a well-placed zap. Beats a liver treat and/or the feeling of a job well done.