Current ethical issues in animal biotechnology
Paul B. ThompsonMichigan 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.
Aerni, P. (2004). Risk, regulation and innovation: the case of aquaculture and transgenic fish. Aquat. Sci. 66, 327–341.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Anonymous, (2007). The emperor’s new clones. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 1.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Appleby, M. C. (2005). Sustainable agriculture is humane, humane agriculture is sustainable. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18, 293–303.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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 |
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. (1996). Bad ethics, good ethics and the genetic engineering of animals in agriculture. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 535–541.
| PubMed |
Rudenko, L. , and Matheson, J. (2007). The US FDA and animal cloning: Risk and regulatory approach. Theriogenology 67, 198–206.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Simberloff, D. (2005). Non-native species DO threaten the natural environment. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18, 595–607.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Walters, L. (2004). Human embryonic stem cell research: an intercultural perspective. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 14, 3–38.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
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 |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)
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 |
![](../../media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif)