To mitigate animal suffering under industrial farming conditions, biotechnology companies are pursuing the development of genetically disenhanced animals. Recent advances in gene editing biotechnology have brought this to reality. In one of the first discussions of the ethics of disenhancement, Thompson argued that it is hard to find compelling reasons to oppose it. We offer an argument against disenhancement that draws upon parallels with human disenhancement, ecofeminism’s concern with the “logic of domination,” and a relational ethic that seeks to preserve (...) a meaningful relationship between farmers and their animals. In addition, we respond to two arguments in favor of animal disenhancement—one grounded in the non-identity problem and one that argues disenhancement is the best we can do to protect animal well-being right now. We argue that animal disenhancement does not address the fundamental issue of oppression of animals in the context of contemporary animal agriculture. Therefore, we conclude that animal disenhancement is not nearly as valuable as it might appear initially. (shrink)

The meteoric rise of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology has ignited discussions of engineering agricultural animals to improve their welfare. While some have proposed enhancing animals, for instance by engineering for disease resistance, others have suggested we might diminish animals to improve their welfare. By reducing or eliminating species-typical capacities, the expression of which is frustrated under current conditions, animal diminishment could reduce or eliminate the suffering that currently accompanies industrial animal agriculture. Although diminishment could reduce animal suffering, there is a (...) widespread intuition that it would be wrong. One attempt to justify this intuition has been to claim that inhibiting the development of species-typical functions is wrong, even if it improves welfare. This has often been couched in terms of violating an animal’s dignity. I argue that the dignity objection to diminishment fails. In the first place, it fails to apply to some of the most troubling cases of diminishment, the creation of so-called animal microencepahlic lumps. In the second place, dignity views misplace the normative relevance of species norms; I argue that considerations from evolutionary biology should lead us to treat species norms - such as the possession of typical capacities - as merely a heuristic for rendering judgments about welfare. But diminishment cases are precisely the cases where the heuristic breaks down, and becomes a bias. I close my discussion with a sketch of my Historical Injustices Approach to animal ethics, and how it may help us vindicate our intuition that diminishment is wrong without appeal to species norms. (shrink)

In March 2022 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a risk assessment of a recent animal gene editing proposal submitted by Acceligen™. The proposal concerned the possibility of changing the cattle genome to obtain a slicker, shorter hair coat. Using CRISPR-Cas9 it was possible to introduce an intentional genomic alteration (IGA) to the prolactin receptor gene (PRLR), thereby producing PRLR-SLICK cattle. The goal was to diminish heat stress in the cattle by enhancing their heat-tolerance. With regard to unintended (...) alterations (i.e., off-target effects), the FDA stated that the IGA posed a low, but still present, risk to animal safety. The aim of this article is to present some initial insights into the welfare issues raised by PRLR-SLICK cattle by addressing the question: Do SLICK cattle have better welfare than non-SLICK cattle when exposed to heat stress? Two potential welfare concerns are examined. The first is pleiotropy, an issue that arises when one gene affects multiple traits. Given the pleiotropic nature of prolactin, it has been suggested that the IGA for SLICK cattle may also affect their hepatic and other functions. The second concern relates not primarily to direct effects on cattle health, but rather to the indirect risk that this more heat-tolerant animal would just be used in the livestock sector under farming conditions that are such that the net welfare improvement would be non-existent. (shrink)

The current issue of our journal features a special section on technoscientific developments and animals, an extremely sensitive and highly politicized issue. There is widespread unease and even outrage, at least in many Western societies, over the use and treatment of animals in various sectors, particularly in food production, in technoscience, and in entertainment. The spectrum of opponents to certain uses and treatments of animals extends from those who wish to see better protection of animals to proponents of far-reaching animal (...) rights. On a political level, recent decades have for example seen animal protection included in the German constitution [1] and the use of great apes in animal testing banned in several countries. Such activities are often based on animals being perceived as fellow beings and categorically different from objects. If we look at German history in particular, however, we are reminded that such appreciation of animals often goes hand in hand with a depreciati .. (shrink)