Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:03:10.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethical decisions concerning animal biotechnology: what is the role of animal welfare science?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

IAS Olsson  and
P Sandøe
IAS Olsson*
Affiliation:
Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology, Rua Campo Alegre 823, 4150-180 Porto, Portugal
P Sandøe
Affiliation:
Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Grønnegårdsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: olsson@ibmc.up.pt
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Scientists recently attracted considerable public attention when they presented a featherless chicken tailored for production in hot climates. Although this chicken was actually the result of traditional breeding, it is an example of what might be achieved if targeted gene manipulation techniques become widely applied in agriculture. Through interfering directly with an animal's genome, scientists hope to be able to create animals with exactly the desired characteristics, such as lean meat or temperature tolerance. Industry and geneticists may be enthusiastic about the possibility of producing pork with polyunsaturated fatty acids or high-yielding dairy cows to be kept in tropical climates, but the European public often reacts with alarm at these prospects. A consistent pattern of the surveys conducted among members of the European public is that, of all of the potential biotechnology applications, those involving animals are the ones that people find the least acceptable. People fear a development of techniques that may get out of control, and they also have ethical concerns about humans’ right to ‘play God’ and about the welfare of the animals involved. All of these aspects seem to be relevant for an ethical discussion about animal biotechnology. Animal welfare scientists can play an important role by providing information for an animal welfare risk assessment at an early stage of research projects that involve the genetic modification of animals, and also by helping to develop guidelines for the housing and husbandry of animals with special needs. On the other hand, ethical problems remain that lie outside the area of science. In this paper we discuss the role of animal welfare science in aiding ethics decisions about animal biotechnology. We give a summary of the different ethical concerns expressed by ethicists and by the general public. Focusing on one of them, animal welfare, we give an introduction to the animal welfare implications of recent developments in reproductive and gene technologies. The importance of animal welfare aspects is discussed in relation to other ethical concerns about animal biotechnology.

Keywords

animal biotechnologyanimal welfareethicsgene technologyreproductive technologytransgenic
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue S1: Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium, Edinburgh, 2-4 April 2003 , February 2004 , pp. S139 - S144
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, M C 1999 Tower of Babel: variation in ethical approaches, concepts of welfare and attitudes to genetic manipulation. Animal Welfare 8: 381–390Google Scholar
Boivin, J and Takefman, J E 1996 Impact of the in-vitro fertilization process on emotional, physical and relational variables. Human Reproduction 11: 903–907CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brambell, F W R 1965 Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Husbandry Systems (Cmnd 2836). Her Majesty's Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Buehr, M, Kornerup Hansen, A, Sandøe, P and Hjorth, J P Genetically modified laboratory animals — what welfare problems do they face? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (in press).Google Scholar
CCAC 1997 CCAC Guidelines on Transgenic Animals. Canadian Council on Animal Care: Ottawa, Canada. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/english/gui_pol/gdlines/transgen/TRAN5-GEI.HTM.Google Scholar
Dahl, K, Sandøe, P, Johnsen, P F, Lassen, J and Kornerup Hansen, A 2003 Outline of a risk assessment: the welfare of future xeno-donor pigs. Animal Welfare 12: 219–237Google Scholar
Dennis, M B Jr 1998 Monitoring of genetic engineering studies. In: Proceedings for Pain Management and Humane Endpoints: a Workshop of the John Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, the National Institutes of Health Office for Protection from Research Risks, the National Institutes of Health Office for Animal Care and Use, and the National Academy of Sciences Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, 2-3 November, Washington, DC, USA. Available at: http://altweb.jhsph.edu/meetings/pain/dennis.htm.Google Scholar
Dennis, M B Jr 2002 Welfare issues of genetically modified animals. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43: 100–109Google ScholarPubMed
D'Silva, J 1998 Campaigning against transgenic technology. In: Holland, A and Johnson, A (eds) Animal Biotechnology and Ethics. Chapman and Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Gaskell, G, Allum, N, Wagner, W, Nielsen, T H, Jelsøe, E, Kohring, M and Bauer, M W 2001 In the public eye: representations of biotechnology in Europe. In: Gaskell, G and Bauer, M W (eds) Biotechnology 1996-2000: the Years of Controversy pp 53–79. Science Museum: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Jegstrup, I, Thon, R, Hansen, A K and Ritskes Hoitinga, M 2003 Characterization of transgenic mice — a comparison of protocols for welfare evaluation and phenotype characterization of mice with a suggestion on a future certificate of instruction. Laboratory Animals 37: 1–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lassen, J and Sandøe, P 2002 After Dolly: public perception of animal welfare. European Society for Domestic Animal Reproduction Newsletter 8: 2–7Google Scholar
Lawrence, A B, Conington, J and Simm, G 2004 Breeding and animal welfare: practical and theoretical advantages of multi-trait selection. In: KirkWood, J K, Roberts, E A and Vickery, S (eds) Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Science in the Service of Animal Welfare’, Edinburgh, 2003. Animal Welfare 13: 5191–5196 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Lewandoski, M 2001 Conditional control of gene expression in the mouse Nature Reviews 2: 743–755CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludwig, T, Chapman, D L, Papaioannou, V E, Efstratiadis, A 1997 Targeted mutations of breast cancer susceptibility gene homologs in mice: lethal phenotypes of Brcal, Brca2, Brcal/Brca2, Brcal/p53, and Brca2/p53 nullizygous embryos. Genes and Development 11(10): 1226–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, J A 2002 Animal health and welfare. In: Animal Biotechnology: Science Based Concerns pp 93–107. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Mepham, T B, Combes, R D, Balls, M, Barbieri, O, Blokhuis, H J, Costa, P, Crilly, R E, de, Cock Buning T, Delpire, V C, O'Hare, M J, Houdebine, L M, van Kreijl, C F, van der Meer, M, Reinhardt, C A, Wolfer, E and van Zeller, A M 1998 European centre for validation of alternative methods workshop report 28: the use of transgenic animals in the European Union. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 26: 21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, D B 1999 Humane endpoints in animal experimentation for biomedical research: ethical, legal and practical aspects. In: Hendriksen, C F M and Morton, D B (eds) Humane Endpoints in Animal Experiments for Biomedical Research. Royal Society of Medicine Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Morton, D B and Hau, J 2002 Welfare assessment and humane endpoints. In: Hau, J and van Hoosier, G L (eds) Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science. CRC Press: Boca Raton, USAGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R J and Young, K A 1998 Behaviour in mice with targeted disruption of single genes. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews 22: 453–462CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, W M S and Burch, R L 1959 The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen: London, UK. (Reissued as a special edition [1992] by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, Herts, UK)Google Scholar
Sandøe, P and Holtug, N 1998 Ethical aspects of biotechnology. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 29: 51–58Google Scholar
Sandøe, P, Nielsen, B L, Christensen, L G and Sørensen, P 1998 Staying good while playing God — the ethics of breeding farm animals. Animal Welfare 8: 313–328Google Scholar
Webster, A J F, Main, D C J and Whay, H R 2004 Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation. In: KirkWood, J K, Roberts, E A and Vickery, S (eds) Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Science in the Service of Animal Welfare’, Edinburgh, 2003. Animal Welfare 13: 593–598 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Wilmut, I 1998 Methods for genetic modification in farm animals and humans: present procedures and future opportunities. In: Holland, A and Johnson, A (eds) Animal Biotechnology and Ethics. Chapman and Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Wilmut, I, Beaujean, N, De Sousa, P A, Dinnyes, A, King T, J, Paterson, L A, Wells, D N and Young, L E 2002 Somatic nuclear transfer. Nature 419: 583–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar