Are We Making the World Too Clean Essay Example

Fleming discovered Penicillin - the first antibiotic still employed today for combating infections. Antibiotics are chemical substances produced by microorganisms with the capability to kill or hinder the growth of other microorganisms.

In a laboratory, naturally occurring compounds have been modified to increase their effectiveness. There are different types of antibiotics designed for combating gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. All antibiotics function by hindering the growth of the bacterial cell wall. Regrettably, the excessive use of these antibiotics has led to the emergence of resistance.

Repeated use of antibiotics or incomplete elimination of bacteria after a course of antibiotics can result in bacterial resistance. Bacterial resistance happens when the bacteria are not entirely eradicated or mutations arise, causing them to be less responsive to the antibiotic. Consequently, the antibiotic loses its effectiveness in killing the bacteria and enables their reproduction and division. Additionally, the resistant gene is inherited by offspring, further decreasing their vulnerability to the antibiotic. This process reflects Charles Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest' and ultimately renders the antibiotic useless for treating infections.

To avoid this problem in typical infections such as TB, a mixture of two or three antibiotics is given. This method guarantees that if the bacteria become resistant to one antibiotic, the others can still effectively eliminate the organism. The immune system's role is to combat infections caused by bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms. It includes T lymphocytes and B lymphocytes that are created in the bone marrow. The immune system involves a intricate interaction of proteins, tissues, and organs to protect against diseases and initiate the immune response by attacking invading organisms.

The immune system diagram showcases how the immune system eradicates

microorganisms. A study conducted in Denmark poses an intriguing question: "Does enhanced cleanliness at homes contribute to a rise in Asthma?" The study reveals an astonishing 25% surge in asthma cases over an 8-year period, with asthmatics now constituting 33% of Denmark's population. This discovery is significant as it aligns with Denmark's move toward a tertiary sector and subsequent cleaner living environments. It lends support to the hygiene hypothesis, suggesting that asthma was less prevalent during Denmark's more industrialized era. However, as Denmark has transitioned towards the tertiary sector, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of individuals affected by this ailment.

A study conducted in New Zealand found that residing on a farm while pregnant can lower the risk of developing asthma, eczema, and hay fever for both the mother and child. This finding is similar to Edward Jenner's observation of the smallpox vaccine, where he noticed that milkmaids who got cowpox did not get smallpox. The researchers suggest that bacteria found on animals could impact the immune system of the fetus. Their results were published in the European respiratory journal and show that being exposed to animal bacteria before and after birth may decrease infants' likelihood of developing asthma by 50%.

It is important to note that certain animals can carry infections that may pose a risk to infants. A study involving over 1,300 farmers revealed that their children acquired immunity before birth, resulting in a 50% decrease in asthma cases. These findings support the hygiene hypothesis, which suggests that reduced cleanliness allows individuals to strengthen their immune system.

Furthermore, Columbia University's research indicates that early exposure to cats (0-6 months) lowers the likelihood

of developing asthma in children beyond the age of 5. This is because contact with bacteria present on cat fur increases and helps the immune system prepare defenses against these microbes.

The following graph from The Association of British Drivers displays the percentage of air pollution alongside the corresponding percentage of diagnosed asthma cases throughout time. The graph clearly demonstrates a significant decline in air pollution over the past four decades; however, there has been an evident increase in diagnosed cases of asthma. This finding is surprising considering Sir David Jack's discovery of Salbutamol in 1969, which remains the primary treatment for asthma today.

Despite a significant discovery, the graph indicates an increasing trend in the percentage of individuals diagnosed with asthma. This supports the Hygiene hypothesis, which suggests that asthma levels rise as industrialization declines. However, there is contradictory evidence suggesting that greater cleanliness can also lead to asthma. For example, studies indicate that irritant gases like SO2 in the air can trigger asthma.

In the 1900s, research conducted in the USA showed that when pollution levels were high, approximately 30-34% of children died before reaching five years old. Nevertheless, by the end of 1997, both pollution levels and child mortality rates had significantly decreased to only about 1-4%. This data challenges the Hygiene hypothesis and implies that other factors such as diet and physical exercise may contribute to asthma instead.

According to a different source, if both parents have Asthma, their children are six times more likely to also have Asthma. Therefore, with the observed population increase in the 1970’s, there was a significant rise in asthma diagnoses among a large percentage of people. This indicates that

genetics play a role in the growing number of asthma sufferers rather than environmental cleanliness.

Another study suggests a link between obesity and asthma development. An individual is considered obese if their BMI [Body Mass Index] exceeds 30. The percentage of Americans diagnosed with obesity has risen from 12% to 20% over the past two decades. This trend aligns with the increasing number of patients diagnosed with asthma.

Theory suggests that obesity causes smaller breaths and increased risk of narrowed airways, leading to asthma. The rise in obesity is believed to be caused by technology and dietary changes, like increased fast food consumption instead of green vegetables. Consequently, it seems cleanliness does not affect asthma levels. Furthermore, the excessive use of antibiotics should be considered for its potential impact on bacterial resistance in minor infections.

Previously, all antibiotics required a doctor's prescription. However, in 2005, Chloramphenicol became the inaugural antibiotic accessible for direct purchase from pharmacies by patients for eye infections. Recently, another antibiotic named azithromycin, marketed as Clamelle, was legally released for over-the-counter use by individuals over 16 years old who tested positive for Chlamydia. A study reveals that 70 to 80 percent of patients sought medical care for sinus infections and were given antibiotics. Nonetheless, sinus infections are caused by viruses rather than bacteria, rendering the prescribed treatment ineffective.

The patients were given the wrong medication, potentially reducing the effectiveness of future antibiotics. This may result in the need for stronger antibiotics to treat even minor infections. The data in the graphs below supports this argument.

However, there are studies suggesting that antibiotic use does not cause bacteria resistance. One study indicates that all bacteria can develop resistance

through processes like mutations, conjugations, and transposition. Thus, the level of antibiotic exposure does not directly affect resistance since all bacteria are inherently prone to it.

Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that before antibiotics existed, people would die from minor infections or undergo amputations due to gangrene. Despite concerns about their overuse today, one could argue that without prescribed medications, a small infection could escalate into a severe condition.

Additionally, if this infection is transmitted to another individual who is also denied antibiotics, they would also experience unnecessary suffering and could potentially spread the infection. This could lead to an epidemic, which would be morally incorrect and impose greater financial burden on the government. Are cleaner homes/areas contributing to a rise in allergic reactions? Numerous studies indicate that a larger number of people in the western world are experiencing allergies, which can be attributed to the hygiene hypothesis. The diagram above illustrates the percentage of individuals with allergies in specific regions of America.

As observed in the graph above, the border of Texas (TX) and Oklahoma (OK), known for its agricultural activities and farms, exhibits the lowest incidence of allergies. Conversely, Los Angeles (L.A.) experiences a high prevalence of allergy cases despite its clean environment, which can be attributed to health and safety regulations for Hollywood sets. This research aligns with the Hygiene hypothesis. Additionally, another study reveals that 9-16 percent of Americans suffer from allergies, whereas Ghana, a developing country in the eastern part of the world, has less than one percent of its population affected by allergies. This further reinforces the Hygiene hypothesis. Animal tests also provide support for this theory.

Two groups of mice were

studied. One group received antibiotics and were exposed to mould allergens. The second group was kept in the same conditions but did not receive antibiotics. The mice treated with antibiotics showed increased sensitivity to the mould allergens and developed Type I Diabetes and other allergies. On the other hand, researchers at the school of hygiene and tropical medicine in London suggest that the hygiene theory has not been proven. In a report for the International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene, they cautioned against reintroducing dirt into homes.

The researchers disagreed with the idea of relaxing hygiene and sanitation practices in developed countries, as they considered it irresponsible. They argued that allowing dirt into households would increase the risk of infections, making the concept of "controlled dirtiness" impractical. This raises concerns about handwashing frequency, cleaning chopping boards, and delaying washing after being exposed to dirty environments. The researchers supported a balanced approach to cleanliness at home, stating that maintaining cleanliness, hygiene, and good health does not require a completely sterile environment. There is no conclusive evidence linking improved hygiene to the increasing rates of asthma, eczema, hay fever, and other allergies. The researchers stated that the hypothesis behind hygiene practices still needs to be proven. Until the hygiene hypothesis is confirmed, they suggest avoiding exposing young children to dirt in order to prevent harmful bacterial infections. Several examinations conducted as part of this project have evaluated studies.

The text examines global studies that measure various variables. Figure 2, created by the association of British drivers, depicts the correlation between four main pollutants and their effect on the number of people with Asthma. This graph incorporates data from multiple

external sources to bolster its credibility and includes averages for added reliability. However, it is worth noting that the researcher is unaware of any errors in these sources, leaving the data's reliability uncertain. Another source, Source 3 from BBC, investigates how pregnant women residing on farms are less likely to have babies who develop asthma.

The source cites New Zealand scientists who conducted a study with a sample size of 1300 people, making it reliable due to the disclosed sample size. However, the source lacks additional information about the experiment. Source 13 contradicts these arguments and suggests that children with parents who have asthma are six times more likely to develop the condition. The research conducted in this source was based on primary data and the sample size was extrapolated to represent the actual population of the area. Nevertheless, the sample size was only approximately 500 people, limiting the data's accuracy and significance. Source 10 supports source 13 and contradicts source 3 and figure 2 by demonstrating that obese individuals are at a higher risk of developing asthma.

The reliability of the data in this source, which is based solely on secondary data, cannot be determined. The second part of this case study examines the effect of antibiotics on bacterial resistance, as depicted in Figure 4. The government conducted a study to investigate prescription drug misuse and patient adherence to medication. A private company carried out this research within a particular hospital. Although the study has a large sample size, it can only represent one hospital and cannot be applied to the entire nation. Source 6 contradicts this statement.

Source 6, written by a journalist without scientific expertise

and lacking transparency in the process for reaching conclusions, is considered highly unreliable. However, despite its unreliability, it has been included as a source of evidence due to the absence of balanced data supporting the argument. The primary focus of the discussion revolves around whether cleaner homes contribute to the rise in allergies. Figure 5 presents the percentage of allergy levels in various regions of America. This particular source utilizes data from the mandatory national census completed by every US citizen, which has been analyzed and interpreted through a map for this specific case study.

The source, which represents every individual in America, is highly reliable as it is conducted by a governmental body. This ensures that it is unbiased and not influenced by any private companies who may manipulate the results to suit their agenda. On the other hand, source 12, a BBC article, presents an argument against this source. However, the article is also reliable as it highlights key points from a forum by the school of hygiene. These points can be easily verified to ensure they have not been altered to support or discourage a particular argument. Although the article is intended for publication in a newspaper with a specific target audience, we still trust its reliability due to the BBC's status as a public sector organization dedicated to providing quality service to UK citizens. Thus, it is more likely to be trustworthy compared to tabloids in the private sector, such as The Sun and The Guardian. Despite being a highly reliable and accurate source, it has been utilized to compare allergy levels in the US population.

All evidence collected is relevant, but it

is challenging to draw accurate conclusions because we are comparing two separate countries that differ in size, climate, population, and pollution levels. In conclusion, the question "Are we making the world too clean?" was addressed by subcategorizing it into several sub-questions: "Are cleaner homes causing an increase in Asthma?" and "Are we overusing antibiotics?" Additionally, another sub-question was raised: "Are cleaner homes/areas causing an increase in young people getting allergies?" The first part of this case study focused on the question "Are cleaner homes causing an increase in Asthma?" It presented four pieces of evidence in favor of the argument and three pieces against it.

Figure 2 illustrates the connection between harmful fumes and the increase in asthma cases. This graph provides support for the hygiene hypothesis by demonstrating that children today are not exposed to the same fumes as children 50 years ago, leading to a weaker immune system. Source 3 further supports the hygiene hypothesis and puts it into real-world context. Moreover, the reliability of this source enhances the credibility of the data. Source 10 reveals a correlation between the rise of asthma and obesity, indicating that higher asthma rates in Western countries are not a result of improved cleanliness but rather an increase in obesity, which narrows the airways and predisposes individuals to asthma. Additionally, Source 13 suggests that genetics also play a significant role in asthma's prevalence. It suggests that children with asthmatic parents have a six-fold higher likelihood of developing asthma compared to those without such family history.

This study suggests that the increasing number of people with asthma may be due to the gradual increase in average family size over the

years. After considering arguments from both sides, I personally believe that the arguments in favor of the hygiene hypothesis are stronger and more reliable than those against it. This theory is gaining more acceptance, and future studies may provide solid evidence to support it. From a moral standpoint, cleanliness is necessary to reduce child mortality rates, as noted in the source. Also, the combined effects of pollution and exposure to microorganisms resulting from unsanitary living conditions can lead to more severe health issues. Moving on to my second category, "Are we overusing antibiotics?", there are three sources supporting this argument and two opposing it. Figure 4 supports this argument by demonstrating a correlation between the number of antibiotic prescriptions, potentially incorrect ones, and hospital admissions for antibiotic-resistant infections.

Figure 4 illustrates that the continued misuse of antibiotics will lead to an increase in antibiotic-resistant infections. It urges us to reduce our excessive use of antibiotics to avoid being defenseless against bacteria. Conversely, according to source 6, the number of resistant bacteria is not influenced by the level of antibiotic exposure. From a scientific standpoint, it is evident from Figure 4 that antibiotics are being overused. Given that source 6 is highly unreliable, I believe that our overuse of antibiotics is contributing to bacterial resistance, which could pose future problems for patients. However, similar to the first point, there is a moral aspect mentioned in source 7, explaining how antibiotics are necessary to combat minor infections and save lives. Failing to utilize these medications could potentially worsen a patient's health.

If the patient's natural immune system is unable to destroy the microorganism, and we remove the drugs that

could kill it, we are putting the patient's health at risk. Additionally, we are also endangering the population as a whole, as an infectious disease could result in an epidemic that could claim more lives. In the third category, "Are cleaner homes/areas causing an increase in people getting allergies?", there are two sources supporting the argument and one opposing it. This argument is similar to the first argument of "Are cleaner homes causing an increase in Asthma?" because both arguments seek to find evidence for or against the hygiene hypothesis. Figure 5 displays the number of allergy sufferers in the United States and how they are distributed across different parts of the country. It reveals that individuals residing in agricultural areas have lower levels of allergies compared to those living in more developed and cleaner regions.

Source 12 disagrees with the hygiene hypothesis, stating that it is unrealistic. It questions how we can expose ourselves to the right amount of dirt and acknowledges that levels of dirt exposure vary from person to person due to different immune systems. On the other hand, Figure 5 provides a reliable census showing the number of people with allergies. Source 12 is also considered reliable because it explains how the data was obtained and processed. Considering both arguments, I believe that living in cleaner areas is leading to an increase in allergies. This is supported by Figure 5, which clearly shows that fewer people in agricultural areas have allergies compared to those in cleaner areas. Furthermore, Figure 5 is more reliable than Source 12. This raises moral concerns about exposing young infants to bacteria when their immune systems are unable

to fight off microorganisms, potentially resulting in more severe diseases.

This is because babies do not have a fully developed immune system; those babies who are breastfed obtain antibodies from their mother. However, not all babies are breastfed, so exposure to a microorganism could result in disease. Overall, there are two main conclusions that we can draw from this investigation. The first conclusion reflects on the science analyzed. We believe that "Yes, we are making the world too clean" as all the sources gathered support this argument and clearly state that as a consequence of the world being made too clean, more and more people are becoming ill due to minor illnesses, as seen in source 1 and figure 5.

However, I support the second conclusion, which is the moral one - "No, we are not making the world too clean." Half of the sources I have used suggest that if we didn't focus on making the world cleaner, more people would suffer from major illnesses that might become untreatable over time, potentially leading to more deaths. Personally, I agree with the second conclusion because not making the world too clean would result in unnecessary deaths, which goes against moral principles. It would also mean that people would suffer needlessly, allowing epidemics to ravage humanity since we wouldn't have the ability to fight these diseases. This scenario could potentially lead to the extinction of the human race because if a powerful epidemic emerged and we couldn't maintain cleanliness, we would be defenseless and everyone would perish. Therefore, my answer is "No, we are not making the world too clean" because it would be unethical to do otherwise

and allow unnecessary death and suffering from preventable diseases.

GlossaryAsthma: A prevalent condition characterized by chronic inflammation of the bronchial tubes (bronchi), leading to swelling and narrowing of the airways, causing difficulty in breathing. Asthma solely affects the bronchial tubes and does not impact the air sacs (alveoli) or lung tissue (lung parenchyma) itself.
Bacterial resistance: Diverse microorganisms have survived for centuries by adapting to antimicrobial agents through spontaneous mutation or DNA transfer. This process enables certain bacteria to resist particular antibiotics, rendering them ineffective.

Controlled dirtiness: It is a scientific concept where a person, usually starting from a young age, is exposed to dirt (bacteria) for a specific period of time. This exposure helps enhance immune activity and is commonly associated with the Hygiene hypothesis, although it is not as widely recognized.
Genetic: Relating to genes and genetic information.
Hygiene hypothesis: This hypothesis suggests that early-life exposure to allergens in the environment can decrease the risk of developing allergies by increasing immune system activity. In contrast, a relatively clean environment during early life can steer the immune system towards responses that promote allergies, also known as the hygiene theory.
Infection: It refers to the growth of a parasitic organism within the body.

A parasitic organism survives by obtaining nourishment from another organism it lives on or in. When a person has an infection, there is an organism, known as a "germ," growing within them and feeding off them. The immune system is a complex system that distinguishes what is foreign to us and defends against infections and foreign substances. It actively hunts down and eliminates invaders.

Reference:

1. Ronald Kotulak Too Clean For Our

Own Good? http://www. tysknews. com/Depts/Health_Care/too_clean. htm [30 March 2010] This study is highly reliable as it includes both the date of publication and the author's name. Despite its age, the article has been recently reviewed.

The website's views are more reliable because it was not sponsored by any companies. The website has a very good overall view and it is also quite lengthy, which adds to its reliability. The content of the information is valid and each point is explained in a clear manner. The quotes from this source are provided, and although there is a slight bias towards one end, it remains a highly reliable source.

The website http://edu/news/article?article=639 [1April 2010] is considered unbiased as it presents both sides of the arguments. Although the author names are not provided, contact details are available for easy access. The website provides detailed content and clearly presents the quotes. The data provided is from a university, indicating its scientific nature. Additionally, the website is recently created and contains a substantial amount of information, creating an overall positive impression.

The article titled "Farm pregnancy 'cuts asthma risk'" (http://news)

The article ([2April 2010]) is from bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7586328.stm. In my evaluations of studies, I have found that articles from the BBC are reliable as they are produced by a government entity whose main goal is to provide a good service, unlike other companies that prioritize making a profit and may manipulate evidence. I conducted a news bug and scored very highly in most areas.

the immune response: atopic diseases – are we too dirty or too clean?" This journal is a highly credible source.

This journal provides a comprehensive analysis of opposing viewpoints, presenting detailed and extensive information with referenced quotes. The layout is well-designed, although it should be noted that the journal is a decade old.

The journal, although lacking scientific data, is considered very reliable as a case study.
The website, written by Greg Tyler Allison, M.D., M. Sc, titled "Antibiotic Crisis", is not as reliable as other sources due to its overall impression. The website does not mention the dates of publication or last review, and none of the quotes have been referenced. (Source: http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/antibiotics.htm#overuse, accessed on 3 April 2010).

The information provided is highly detailed and the data supports the points made, making it a reliable source. However, the website referenced, "IS EVOLUTION A FACT?" (http://www.campaignforliberty.om/blog.php?view=25194), is considered unreliable. Although it was recently updated, the studies mentioned pertain to antibiotics.

But they are uncertain about the exact cause of this occurrence. The information provided is highly detailed and includes contact details. Additionally, it has been independently sourced and does not have any sponsorship.

Despite the lack of scientific data, the article was published just last year. The website provides a favorable overall impression, featuring diagrams to aid in data explanation. Furthermore, the information content is comprehensive and extensively clarified. 8 Bacterial resistance to Antibiotics http://www.darwinismrefuted.

The link to the webpage "com/embryology_01.html" was accessed on April 5, 2010.