The Pedigree Dog Breeding Debate in Ethics and Practice: Beyond Welfare Arguments

Abstract

Pedigree dog breeding has been the subject of public debate due to health problems caused by breeding for extreme looks and the narrow genepool of many breeds. Our research aims to provide insights in order to further the animal-ethical, political and society-wide discussion regarding the future of pedigree dog breeding in the Netherlands. Guided by the question 'How far are we allowed to interfere in the genetic make-up of dogs, through breeding and genetic modification?', we carried out a multi-method case-driven research, reviewing literature as well as identifying the perceptions of pedigree dog breeding of a variety of parties in the Netherlands. We examined what moral arguments and concepts different stakeholders, including breeders, veterinarians and animal protection societies, put forward when considering this question. While welfare arguments were often used as a final justification, we also frequently encountered arguments beyond welfare in practice, in particular the arguments that certain adaptations were unnatural, that they instrumentalised animals, or that they amounted to playing God. We argue that the way these arguments are employed points to a virtue ethical approach, foregrounding the virtue of temperance, as a balance between extreme positions was sought by our respondents in a variety of ways. Moreover, we argue against a rejection of unnaturalness arguments based on the naturalistic fallacy, as philosophers tend to do. We point out that unnaturalness arguments are related to people's worldviews, including views on the proper human-animal relationship. We argue that such arguments, which we label 'life-ethical', should be the subject of more public discussion and should not be relegated to the private sphere.

The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature

“…Finally, it was mentioned that genome editing could be used to serve the (economic) interests of particular groups, such as the agriculture or food industry [20], with little concern for the public interest [20,115]. Additionally, applications of gene drives to human disease and agricultural production could primarily benefit the current generation, with secondary benefits and potential risks placed upon future generations; it was argued that this may not be acceptable from a standpoint of intergenerational equity given the irreversibility and uncertainties inherent to the deployment of gene drives [143].…”

“…against (n ¼ [20,23,28,35,82,83,88,89,106,109,124,143] gene drives could introduce off-target mutations into the gene pool and spread these across a species 5 [7,20,35,83,143] gene drives could have novel features that are unprecedented and unexpected, so the risks and consequences are difficult or even impossible to characterize beforehand 4 [20,102,117,143] various (synthetic biology, gene drives, genetic modification) [105,117] synthetic biology (including genome editing), gene drives could be used to serve the (economic) interests of particular groups with little concern for the general interest 2 [20,115] various (ZFNs, TALEN, CRISPR, gene drives) could have unexpected effects because our knowledge and understanding of the genetic background of complex traits is incomplete 1 [96] various (ZFNs, TALEN, CRISPR) could have non-negligible risks because breaches of containment are impossible to rule out and, once released, just a few escaped genetically modified mosquitoes could be capable of spreading transgenes on a global scale 1 [22] gene drives could benefit humans if used for applications to human disease and agricultural production, however these applications could primarily benefit the current generation, with secondary benefits and potential risks placed upon future generations 1 [143] gene drives for (n ¼…”

“…could decrease animal suffering in dairy farming by creating dehorned cattle, preventing invasive and painful dehorning 10 [9,19,78 -80,85,96,126,139,140] various (ZFNs, TALEN, CRISPR) could counter welfare problems by creating the so-called diminished animals in which the ability to sense pain is impaired 8 [78,112,115,116,[119][120][121]137] genome editing (CRISPR); genetic engineering/modification could increase animal health and welfare by providing animals with disease resistance 8 [78,80,96,98,126,133,135,139] [19,137] various (ZFNs, TALEN, CRISPR); genetic engineering could be used to prevent the killing of day-old male chicks 2 [100,126] CRISPR; genetic modification re the possible creation of animals with welfare problems: if they have a life worth living we cannot say that they are worse off owing to the genetic modification, for if they had not been created with genetic modification, they would not have existed at all 2 [115,118] genetic modification re off-target effects: could result in fewer off-target effects than previous techniques, which could improve welfare of genetically modified animals 1 [9] CRISPR could reduce the numbers of animals used to create model organisms compared to traditional methods, which typically sacrifice many animals before achieving the desired genotype and phenotype 1 [110] CRISPR could remove known harmful recessive alleles that impair fertility or health and in that sense repair accumulated damage in the genome of breeding animals 1 [96] various (ZFNs, TALEN, CRISPR) could prevent wild animal suffering by using genome editing to change reproductive behaviour; the harm that would be prevented by doing so would outweigh the harm of developing and testing these strategies 1 [114] CRISPR could lead us to ignore the predicament of the animal and to accept negative effects on animal welfare for the sake of other goals; however, this concern may be addressed by using less drastic gene drive designs and using these to promote animal welfare 1…”

“…re breaching species norms if used for animal diminishment: species norms are only indirectly morally significant, as a generally useful guide to evaluating animal welfare 2 [118,119] genome editing (CRISPR) re violating animal dignity or integrity: such arguments focus only on respect for individual animals, they ultimately cannot justify an objection that is based on a species-norm, as is the case in the discussion on enhancement 2 [115,118] genetic modification re use to create diminished animals, which could be said to harm these animals as their species-typical essence would be changed: as the literature about human disability has taught us, we should not assume that 'disabilities' caused by diminishment make animals worse off 2 [78,112] various (ZFNs, TALEN, CRISPR; genetic engineering) (Continued. ) royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb Phil.…”

Особливості Поширення Токсаскарозу Собак У Місті Полтаві

“…При цьому не звертається увага на зараженість собак збудниками паразитарних хвороб. Зокрема нематодозами травного каналу [1][2][3][4][5].…”