Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T21:07:21.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Approaches to the ethical evaluation of animal biotechnologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

T. B. Mepham
T. B. Mepham
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Bioethics, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD
Get access

Abstract

The paper explores a scheme for the ethical evaluation of animal biotechnologies, exemplified by animal transgenesis. It begins with an overview of prominent ethical theories (deontological and consequentialist) and proceeds to apply them to four ethical principles, viz. autonomy, justice, non-maleficence and beneficence, in relation to the interests of the treated animals and of different groups of people affected by the technology. Evaluation is facilitated by use of a schematic device — an ‘ethical grid’. The importance of public education and attitudes to biotechnology is illustrated by reference to recent public opinion surveys in the European Community. The paper concludes with a discussion of the impact of future trends in global population, food resources and environmental change, which emphasizes the need for a reappraisal of priorities in animal production systems. It is suggested that attempts to eradicate hunger, to improve animal welfare and to devise sustainable agricultural systems will be facilitated by greater investment in the emerging academic field of agricultural bioethics.

Keywords

animal transgenesisanimal welfarebiotechnologyethics
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , December 1993 , pp. 353 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1992. Corporate plan: 1992–1997. AFRC, Swindon.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. 1989. Principles of biomedical ethics. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Clark, A. J., Bessos, H., Bishop, J. O., Brown, P., Harris, H.Lathe, R., McClenaghan, M., Prowse, C., Simons, J. P., Whitelaw, C. B. A. and Wilmut, I. 1989. Expression of human anti-hemophilic factor IX in the milk of transgenic sheep. Bio-technology 7:487–492.Google Scholar
Drori, G. S. 1993. The relationship between science, technology and the economy in lesser developed countries. Social Studies of Science 23:201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. 1988. The machinery of nature. Paladin, London.Google Scholar
Harrison, P. 1992. The third revolution: population, environment and a sustainable world. Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Marlier, E. 1992. Eurobarometer 35.1. In Biotechnology in public (ed. Durant, J.), pp. 52–108. Science Museum, London.Google Scholar
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L. and Randers, J. 1992. Beyond the limits: global collapse or a sustainable future. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
Mepham, T. B. 1989a. Questions of validity in mammary physiology: methodology and ethics. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 48:1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mepham, T. B. 1989b. Criteria for the public acceptability of biotechnological innovations in animal production. In Biotechnology in growth regulation (ed. Heap, R. B., Prosser, C. G. and Lamming, G. E.). Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1972. The institutional imperatives of science. In Sociology of science (ed. Barnes, B.), pp. 69–79. Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
O'Neill, O. 1993. Kantian ethics. In A companion to ethics (ed. Singer, P.), pp. 175–187. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Pursel, V. G., Pinkert, C. A., Miller, K. F., Bolt, D. J., Campbell, R. G., Palmiter, R. D., Brinster, R. L. and Hammer, R. E. 1989. Genetic engineering of livestock. Science 244:1281–1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rawls, J. 1973. A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Regan, T. 1983. The case for animal rights. University of California Press, Berkley.Google Scholar
Rexroad, C. E. 1992. Transgenic technology in animal agriculture. Animal Biotechnology 3:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapontzis, S. F. 1991. We should not manipulate the genome of domestic hogs, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 4:177–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, J. R. and Conrad, J. H. 1993. Intensification of cattle production systems in Central America: why and when? Journal of Dairy Science 76:1744–1752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, P. 1990. Animal liberation. 2nd ed. New York Review/Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. B. 1992. Designing animals: ethical issues for genetic engineers. Journal of Dairy Science 75:2294–2303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toon, P. D. 1993. After bioethics and towards virtue? Journal of Medical Ethics 19:17–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Food 2000. Zed Books, London.Google Scholar