Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:54:43.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tower of Babel: Variation in Ethical Approaches, Concepts of Welfare and Attitudes to Genetic Manipulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

M C Appleby
M C Appleby*
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
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.

Attitudes to animal biotechnology are diverse, partly because people have different viewpoints and often do not recognize or acknowledge this to be so. First, people adopt different ethical approaches. If an opponent of genetic manipulation says’ I don't like the idea of altering animals ‘biology’ and a proponent replies’… but it is useful’, they are failing to communicate, because one is asking whether the action is right or wrong, whereas the other emphasizes the consequences. Another approach focuses on the person carrying out the action. Many people have hybrid views combining elements of these different approaches. Second, people ‘s concepts of welfare vary, emphasizing animal minds, bodies or natures - or a combination of these. A proponent who argues that a particular genetic change will not cause suffering is unlikely to reassure an opponent who puts more emphasis on naturalness than on feelings or health. An improved dialogue, in which people attempt to understand one another's viewpoints, may enable common principles to be established and practical measures to be taken that enable more cooperation in attempts to improve both human and animal welfare.

Keywords

animal rightsanimal welfaredeontologyethicsgeneticsutilitarianism
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 8 , Issue 4: Special Issue: Genetics and Animal Welfare , November 1999 , pp. 381 - 390
Copyright
© 1999 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, M C 1999 What Should We Do About Animal Welfare? Blackwell Science: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Banner Committee 1995 Report of the Committee to Consider the Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Beauchamp, T L and Childress, J F 1994 Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th edition. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J 1789 Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. (1996 Imprint.) Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, S (ed) 1980 The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Bulfield, G 1997 Biotechnology and farm animals. Bulletin of Medical Ethics (September): 13–17Google Scholar
CIWF 1994 Whose heart is it anyway? Agscene 116: 13Google Scholar
CIWF 1997a Genetic engineering - through the smoke-screen. Agscene 125: 20Google Scholar
CIWF 1997b Fluorescent mice - a green light for farm animal experiments. Agscene 127: 18Google Scholar
CIWF 1998 Genescene. Agscene 132: 13Google Scholar
Coghlan, A 1993 Pressure group broods over altered turkeys. New Scientist (29 May): 9Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Fraser, D 1997 Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 19–31. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Fox, M 1990 Transgenic animals: ethical and animal welfare concerns. In: Wheale, P and McNally, R (eds) The Bio-Revolution: Cornucopia or Pandora ‘s Box? pp 31–45. Pluto Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, D M, Pajor, E A and Milligan, B M 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O, Hughes, G S, Waddington, D and Appleby, M C 1996 Behavioural comparison of transgenic and control sheep: movement order and behaviour on pasture and in covered pens. Animal Science 63: 91–10110.1017/S1357729800028320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, G and D’Silva, J 1998 Animal Organs in Humans: Uncalculated Risks and Unanswered Questions. Compassion in World Farming: Petersfleld, UKGoogle Scholar
Linzey, A 1986 Christianity and the Rights of Animals. Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Linzey, A 1997 Ethical and theological objections to animal cloning. Bulletin of Medical Ethics (September): 18–22Google Scholar
Midgley, M 1986 Letter to the editors. Between the Species 2: 195–6Google Scholar
Regan, T 1983 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press: Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
Reiss, M J and Straughan, R 1996 Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1995 The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Crisp, R and Holtug, N 1997 Ethics. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 3–17. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, C, Davidson, G, Seaton, A and Tebbit, V (eds) 1990 Chambers English Dictionary, 7th edition. Chambers: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Singer, P 1975 Animal Liberation. New York Review of Books: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Singer, P 1987 Animal liberation or animal rights? The Monist 70: 3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B 1972 Morality: An Introduction to Ethics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Wilmut, I, Schnieke, A E, McWhir, J, Kind, A J and Campbell, K H S 1997 Viable offspring derived from foetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385: 810–813Google ScholarPubMed