Why can't humans breathe fluids? In 1966, the scientist Clark conducted an experiment in which he put a mouse in a special liquid, and the mouse actually lived in it for 20 hours.
In a deserted laboratory in 1966, scientist Clark began an experiment that had never been done before. This year saw the rapid development of science and technology, and the exploration of human beings and their biological potential reached a new peak. Interest and support for science are growing, and people are curious to address some of the physiological limitations. Dr. Clark's experiment was also based on the exploration of the limits of human potential.
The experiment began with a simple hypothesis from Clark: If organisms could breathe in liquids, could it open up new possibilities for deep-sea exploration and even space travel?
Perfluorocarbons, a liquid that efficiently carries oxygen and carbon dioxide, were key to the experiment. Through careful planning and preparation, Dr. Clark selected a special liquid that not only provides the necessary oxygen, but also efficiently expells carbon dioxide.
During the experiment, Clark and his team carefully monitored the data. The rats were placed in transparent containers filled with perfluorocarbons, and everyone waited with bated breath.
Dr. Clark adjusted the monitoring equipment, carefully recording every breath and heartbeat of the rat. At first, the rat showed amazing adaptation to the fluid, and its lungs seemed to be able to efficiently extract the oxygen needed from this oxygen-rich liquid and successfully remove carbon dioxide. It was a surprise to everyone in the room, and the PFCs far exceeded their expectations.
However, as time went on, the experiment entered its 20th hour. The initial hopes and excitement are gradually replaced by nervousness and apprehension. The rat's activity began to slow down, and its breathing rate gradually increased.
Through sophisticated vital signs monitors, scientists noticed that the mice's heart rate began to become irregular and their breathing intervals were no longer uniform. Dr. Clark frowned, knowing that the change portended certain possible complications.
In order to analyze the situation more precisely, Clark increased the resolution of the monitoring equipment, and the air in the laboratory froze in the tense observation.
Soon, they observed that the mouse's lungs were showing a strange image through X-ray imaging: fluid had accumulated in the lungs and had not been expelled as completely as expected. PFCs, although less viscous than water, are much less dynamic in living organisms than air.
Dr. Clark and his team began to urgently discuss countermeasures. They adjusted the composition of the liquid in the container, tried to reduce the viscosity, and added a compound that helped the liquid drain faster. But these adjustments will take time to see the effect, and the condition of the rats has begun to deteriorate rapidly.
The experiment finally reached its final stage. The mice's vital signs gradually weakened, and despite multiple emergency interventions, the rats stopped breathing at the 21st hour of the experiment. Clark and his team were disappointed, but the failure of the experiment also gave them important scientific data and insights.
From this experiment, Dr. Clark realized that although PFCs are theoretically capable of providing sufficient oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange, their physical properties are fundamentally incompatible with the physiological structure of living organisms. The mechanism of drainage in the lungs is not well suited to handle fluids that are much thicker than air, and this must be addressed in future studies.
The quest for science never stops with failure. Although the failed experiment by Dr. Clark and his team failed to achieve a direct breakthrough in liquid respiration, it pointed the way for future research and opened a deeper discussion of the interaction between biological respiration mechanisms and liquid mediators. Science always accumulates experience from failure, and every failure is a necessary path to success.
Reference: Can man-made objects be ingenious? Lilac Garden.2016-08-06
