2Nd JULY 2021

2nd JULY 2021 Outbreak of Sea snot in Sea of Marmara Turkey is witnessing the biggest-ever outbreak of sea snot or marine mucilage in its Sea of Marmara. Sea snot has also been seen in the adjoining Black Sea and Greece’s Aegean Sea, which are connected by the Sea of Marmara through the straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles. Sea snot It is a thick, slimy grey-brown sheet that is formed by dead and living organic material. The sludge forms when algae overloaded with nutrients fests on warm weather. This warm weather is caused due to global warming. It is also known as ‘marine mucilage’. It was first discovered in Turkey in 2007.’ Algae are the prime source of oxygen in water bodies. However, if their growth is overlooked, they could lead to the formation of this mucilage that could block sunlight from entering the deep waters of the oceans. The current outbreak has made it difficult for marine and aquatic life to survive beneath water. It has also affected local communities on a large scale. Some of the sea snot has sunk below the water surface, suffocating the seabed. The proliferation of the organic matter can also flourish when nutrient-rich sewage flows into seawater as it contains a wide variety of micro-organisms. Ocean biogeochemical cycle & Sea snot Oceans played a major role in sustaining the global economy, livelihoods as well as maintaining climate feedback channels. However, the ocean biogeochemical cycle was majorly dependent upon plankton species like ‘coccolithophores’ that helped in calcifying carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This process sequestrated atmospheric carbon dioxide and thereby helped in preventing immediate shocks of climate change. Other plankton species like diatoms helped in photosynthesis and provided food to almost a sixth of the ocean. Cyanobacteria and chlorophytes had a significant role in nitrogen recycling. However, their deaths resulted in the formation of detritus Indian waters too could experience that provided an active site for the formation of sea snot. extreme events like a sea snot outbreak in the future. A major concern is that the enhanced growth of sea snot through nutrient enrichment in the oceans will prevent the recycling of silica, nitrogen and carbon for the ultimate growth of plankton and micro-organisms, thereby disrupting the entire ocean biogeochemical cycle. Way forward Limit the flow of nutrients into rivers at the source. Limiting the nutrient inflow into the rivers will, however, require a multi-level risk. Assessment approach where continuous monitoring of coastal and river water will have to be undertaken on a weekly basis. The ocean biogeochemical cycle is still a vastly unexplored field. Therefore, there is a dire need to develop a system of monitoring to regulate the nutrient flow from landforms into the oceans. Source: Down-to-earth www.eduphore.com|+91 8699682877 Human embryo research New guidelines released by the International Society for Stem Cell Research have removed the rule that after 14 days, an embryo should not be used for research and must be destroyed. This makes it possible to conduct research on human embryos that are at more advanced stages of development. This rule has been part of the law of more than 12 countries. Now, countries must revise their laws, policies and guidelines to reflect this change. Significance of human embryo research Over the decades human embryo research has allowed to understand normal and abnormal human development, as well as early genetic diseases and disorders. Studying human embryos, as the earliest forms of human life, can give insight into why miscarriages occur, and how our complex body systems develop. Human embryos are also important for stem cell research, where researchers try and create cell-based therapies to treat human diseases. Often, extra embryos are created during in-vitro fertilisation procedures. These extra embryos may be donated for research. They are cultured (or grown) in a laboratory and can be studied until they reach day 14 post-creation. Guidelines and the debate new Although the 14-day rule has been criticised as being arbitrarily decided, there are a number of reasons for the time frame. After an egg cell is fertilised by a sperm cell, the resulting embryo consists of a few identical cells. Most embryos will implant in the uterus after the 14th day. After this point, the ‘primitive streak’ appears, which is the first sign of an embryo’s developing nervous system. The rule also identified the point at which the embryo shows signs of individuation, because it is no longer possible for the embryo to split into twins after 14 days. Some people reason that due to these events, it is at this stage that a moral being comes into existence, and it would not be ethical to perform research on embryos after this time. There has been increasing pressure from some researchers to remove the 14-day rule, or at least extend it, as it prevents critical research from being undertaken. Extending the rule would allow important research into early human development to be done. The new guidelines make it possible to do research on embryos older than 14 days if the approval processes of the relevant ethics committees are followed. A significant problem, however, is that there is no longer any limit on the time frame for research. Would it be permissible to do research on human embryos that are 20 days old or 40 days old? The guidelines specify no limit. The longer a human embryo is allowed to grow, the more recognisably human it becomes. At what point would we regard the research unethical, and at what point does the moral cost outweigh the benefits of research? What the law says? Countries around the world take a variety of approaches to human embryo research. Some — like Italy and Germany — don’t allow it at all. Others, like the UK, allow research to continue until the embryo is 14 days old, after which it must be destroyed. There are also some which permit embryo research without identifying a limit. Some, like the United States, do not have any law regulating it (but there are guidelines which contain reference to the 14-day rule). In South Africa, reference to the rule is found in the National Health Act (2003), which states that human embryo research may only be done with permission of the minister, and that the embryos must not be older than 14 days. International guidelines are not legally binding. But the effect of the revised guidelines is that the international standard for best practice in scientific research has now changed. This means that countries which have implemented the rule in their laws will need to revise them so that they are in line with best practice in science. The future of human embryo research Human embryo research is a sensitive topic because people are divided on the moral status of the human embryo. Some people believe that the embryo, as the earliest form of human life, should be protected and not subjected to research at all. Others believe that while an embryo has some moral status, it cannot be protected in the same way as humans are, and may be used for some important research which could ultimately benefit people. Public engagement should have come before such an important rule (14-day) was changed. There are a number of approaches to working with the revised guidance. Bioethicist Françoise Baylis has suggested that project-specific time limits should be identified, based on the minimum amount of time required to address the stated research objectives. This would mean that some research would still be subject to the 14-day limit, while other studies would be permitted to exceed it. Another approach would be to keep the 14-day limit as the norm, and consider applications to exceed it case by case. Or the limit could be extended to 28 days. Source: Down-to-earth www.eduphore.com|+91 8699682877 Street dogs have right to food and citizens have the right to feed them: Delhi HC The Delhi High Court has directed that every Resident Welfare Association (RWA) should form “Guard and Dog partnerships” in consultation with the Delhi Police Dog Squad, so that dogs can be trained to work as guard dogs and yet be friendly to residents of a colony. A slew of directions were issued on the contentious issue of feeding stray dogs. It said stray or street dogs have the right to food and citizens have the right to feed them, but in exercising this right, care and caution should be taken to ensure that it does not impinge upon the rights of others. ‘Duty to feed’ It also ruled that it should be “the duty and obligation of every RWA or municipal corporation (in case RWA is not available) to ensure that every community dog in every area has access to food and water in the absence of caregivers or community dog feeders”. Feeding of community dogs has to be done in areas designated by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) in consultation with RWA or Municipal Corporation. While determining the “designated area”, it has to be kept in mind that “every dog is a territorial being, and therefore, the street dogs have to be fed and tended to at places within their territory which are not frequented, or less frequented, and sparingly used by the general public and residents”. Rules Stray dogs are protected under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and rules enacted under Section 38 of the Act, particularly the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, which makes it illegal for an individual, RWA or estate management to remove or relocate dogs.

Load more