After Dolly—Ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals

Abstract

The cloning of Dolly the sheep gave rise to a widespread call for limits on interference with life. Until recently, the main limits were technical: what it is possible to do. Now scientists are faced with ethical limits as well: what it is acceptable to do. In this context, we take ethics to involve systematic and rational reflection on moral issues raised in the public sphere. The concerns of the general public are not necessarily valid, but they are the best point of departure if the discussion is to lead to a socially robust framework for setting limits to the use of animal biotechnology. To assess public understanding, we examine two sources of data: Eurobarometer surveys from 1991 to 2002 and a qualitative interview study carried out in Denmark in 2000. Based on these sources, we formulate, and then discuss closely, the following concerns: dangers to human health and the environment, animal welfare, animal integrity, and usefulness. In the final part of the article, it is proposed that a principle of proportionality should be the foundation for socially robust applications of animal biotechnology. Only in cases where the usefulness of the technology can be said to outweigh countervailing moral concerns, as in biomedical research, will applications of animal biotechnology stand up to scrutiny in the public sphere.

A Public Survey on Handling Male Chicks in the Dutch Egg Sector

“…The in ovo sex determination approach does not increase the resource use or waste output, and there is no change in the price or quality of the end products. However, this direction leads to new dilemmas, such as whether the killing of embryos is better or worse than killing day-old male chicks, or whether the techniques used to detect the sex of the eggs are acceptable, especially the GM technique (Lassen et al 2006).…”

Moral “Lock-In” in Responsible Innovation: The Ethical and Social Aspects of Killing Day-Old Chicks and Its Alternatives

“…The technique used would, however, influence the perception of food safety. The use of genetic modification, regardless of how it is applied, is generally perceived as a risk for food safety (Lassen et al 2006;Schuppli and Weary 2010). It probably does not matter to most people that GM is only used in the production chain and that the end product (eggs) is not genetically modified.…”

“…The aspect of consumer choice might be improved, as eggs would then become available for which no day-old chicks had been killed. The technique using GM in the production process brings up new issues as GM is rather controversial (Lassen et al 2006;Schuppli and Weary 2010). When there is discussion about using GM techniques on animals for food production, it raises many objections and often prompts accusations that moral boundaries will be exceeded (Lassen et al 2006;Leenstra et al 2011).…”

A study on some welfare-related parameters of hDAF transgenic pigs when compared with their conventional close relatives

“…Ever since 1993, Broom stated that systematic and comprehensive studies on the welfare of transgenic animals were necessary (Broom, 1993), and Sandøe and Holtug (1993) pointed out that in an analysis of concerns raised about transgenic animals, animal welfare was the only one deemed ethically significant. In the following decades, the debate has focused on a broader concept of moral acceptability of animal biotechnologies and possible means to reach a consensus on this topic in which animal welfare is part of a wider scenario (Olsson and Sandøe, 2004;Lassen et al, 2006;Ormandy et al, 2011 and. In this framework, it is noteworthy that European citizens consider biotechnologies more acceptable when aimed at medical applications rather than to food production, regardless of the implications for animal welfare (Eurobarometer, 2010).…”