Register      Login
Reproduction, Fertility and Development Reproduction, Fertility and Development Society
Vertebrate reproductive science and technology
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > RD > RD07184
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 20(1)

Current ethical issues in animal biotechnology

Paul B. Thompson
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1032, USA. Email: thomp649@msu.edu

Reproduction, Fertility and Development 20(1) 67-73 https://doi.org/10.1071/RD07184
Published: 12 December 2007

Abstract

The present paper reviews the current status of opinion and debate regarding ethical issues in three broad categories of relevance to animal biotechnology. The first is scientific integrity, where the focus has been on scientific fraud and the integrity of the research process. The second concerns possible harms or risks to parties affected either directly by research (including animals themselves) or through the eventual commercialisation or development of products from animal biotechnology. The final category concerns a responsibility to serve as a guardian of the public interest with respect to application and development of technologies derived from new genetic sciences. It is plausible to see the scientific community as a whole having such a fiduciary obligation to the broader public in virtue of the technical complexity of the issues and owing to the public funding and institutional support for scientific research. The overall conclusion is that in the latter two categories especially, there is an urgent need for new participation in deliberative consideration of ethical issues by working scientists.


References

Aerni, P. (2004). Risk, regulation and innovation: the case of aquaculture and transgenic fish. Aquat. Sci. 66, 327–341.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Altman L. K., and William J. (20 December 2005). Global trend: more science, more fraud. The New York Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/20rese.html?_r=1&oref=slogin [Verified 19 October 2007].

Anonymous, (2007). The emperor’s new clones. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 1.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | Appleby M. C. (1999). ‘What Should we do About Animal Welfare?’ (Blackwell Science: Oxford.)

Appleby, M. C. (2005). Sustainable agriculture is humane, humane agriculture is sustainable. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18, 293–303.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Cranor C. F. (2006). ‘Toxic Torts: Science, Law and the Possibility of Justice.’ (Cambridge University Press: New York.)

Dictionary.com (2007). ‘Fiduciary.’ Dictionary.com Unabridged (v. 1.1). Available at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiduciary [Verified 24 September 2007].

Finucane, M. L. (2002). Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: the role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 61, 31–37.
| PubMed | National Research Council (2002a). ‘Animal Biotechnology: Science Based Concerns.’ (National Academies Press: Washington, DC.)

National Research Council (2002b). ‘Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: the Scope and Adequacy of Regulation.’ (The National Academy Press: Washington, DC.)

Orlans F. B. (2002). Ethical themes of national regulations governing animal experiments: an international perspective. In ‘Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation, and Laboratory Applications’. (Eds J. P. Gluck, T. DiPasquale and F. B. Orlans.) pp. 131–148. (Purdue University Press: West Lafayette, IN.)

Rollin, B. E. (1986). ‘The Frankenstein thing’: the moral impact of genetic engineering of agricultural animals on society and future science. Basic Life Sci. 37, 285–297.
| PubMed | Rollin B. E. (1995). ‘The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals.’ (Cambridge University Press: New York.)

Rollin, B. E. (1996). Bad ethics, good ethics and the genetic engineering of animals in agriculture. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 535–541.
| PubMed | Rollin B. E. (2002). Ethics, animal welfare and ACUCs. In ‘Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation, and Laboratory Applications’. (Eds J. P. Gluck, T. DiPasquale and F. B. Orlans.) pp. 113–130. (Purdue University Press: West Lafayette, IN.)

Rollin B. E. (2006). ‘Science and Ethics.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.)

Rudenko, L. , and Matheson, J. (2007). The US FDA and animal cloning: Risk and regulatory approach. Theriogenology 67, 198–206.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | Scully M. (2002). ‘Dominion: the Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy.’ (St Martin’s Press: New York.)

Simberloff, D. (2005). Non-native species DO threaten the natural environment. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18, 595–607.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Thompson P. B. (2004). Research ethics for animal biotechnology. In ‘Ethics for Life Scientists’. (Eds M. Korthals and R. J. Bogers.) pp. 105–120. (Springer: Dordrecht.)

Thompson P. B. (2007). ‘Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective’, 2nd edn. (Springer: Dordrecht.)

United States Executive Branch (1994). ‘Use of Bovine Somatotropin bst in the United States: its Potential Effects, a Study Conducted by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.’ (United States Executive Branch: Washington, DC.)

Walters, L. (2004). Human embryonic stem cell research: an intercultural perspective. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 14, 3–38.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

Warkentin, T. (2006). Dis/integrating animals: ethical dimensions of the genetic engineering of animals for human consumption. AI and Society 20, 82–102.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Wolfenbarger, L. L. M. , and Phifer, P. R. (2000). The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290, 2088–2093.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |