In this essay, we provide an overview of how production systems can be re-engineered to improve the welfare of the animals involved. At least three potential options exist: engineering their environments to better fit the animals, engineering the animals themselves to better fit their environments, and eliminating the animals from the system by growing meat in vitro rather than on farms. The morality of consuming animal products and the conditions under which agricultural animals are maintained remain highly contentious, and when (...) concerns about animal welfare are coupled with concerns about sustainability and global food security, the problem of welfare in animal agriculture constitutes “a wicked problem,” because it is unlikely that any proposed solution will simultaneously address all the issues of concern. In the final section of this essay, we offer some observations on how debate over reforms in animal agriculture could proceed going forward. (shrink)

By many accounts, CRISPR gene-editing technology is revolutionizing biotechnology. It has been hailed as a scientific game changer and is being adopted at a break-neck pace. This hasty adoption has left little time for ethical reflection, and so this paper aims to begin filling that gap by exploring whether CRISPR is as much an ethical game changer as it is a biological one. By focusing on the application of CRISPR to non-human animals, I argue that CRISPR has and will continue (...) to result in significant shifts in the ethical debate landscape. For instance, the fact that many CRISPR edits are non-transgenic has important implications for the ethical debate, particularly the popular objection to genetic engineering that it objectionably involves “crossing species boundaries,” as well as the regulatory debate in the United States, where currently only transgenic organisms are officially genetically modified organisms. I also explore various impacts CRISPR may have on animal welfare, suggesting that although the improved precision of CRISPR suggests fewer unintended welfare problems in comparison to past techniques, the greater versatility means that more animals than ever will be engineered. Finally, I end my discussion of animal welfare issues by exploring the possibility of using CRISPR to directly improve animal welfare, for instance through introducing disease resistance. (shrink)

Abstract In his paper “The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken problem” ( Nanoethics 2: 305-36, 2008) Thompson argued that technological attempts to reduce or eliminate selected non-human animals’ capabilities (animal disenhancements) in order to solve or mitigate animal welfare problems in animals’ use pose a philosophical conundrum, because there is a contradiction between rational arguments in favor of these technological interventions and intuitions against them. In her response “Animal Disenhancement and the Non-Identity Problem: A Response to (...) Thompson” ( Nanoethics 5:43–48, 2011), Palmer maintained that the philosophical conundrum is even deeper if we introduce the non-identity problem into the discussion. In my brief response, I claim that in order to avoid the pitfalls of speculative ethics, empirical facts related to the technologies involved as well as costs for the non-human animals have to be taken into account. Depending on which changes we are referring to, ethical problems can be seen very differently. Widening the consideration to the socio-economic context in which non-human animals are currently used by humans, I challenge the idea of genuine philosophical conundrums from an antispeciesist and abolitionist perspective. Only in a context of exploitation, in which non-human animals are deprived of basic rights and their existence is totally dependent on human exploitation, the contradictions between improvement of welfare and disenhancement of capabilities make sense. Content Type Journal Article Category Critical Discussion Notes Pages 1-12 DOI 10.1007/s11569-012-0139-1 Authors Arianna Ferrari, KIT/ITAS (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology/Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis), Karlsruhe, Germany Journal NanoEthics Online ISSN 1871-4765 Print ISSN 1871-4757. (shrink)

In this paper we examine the use of companion animals (pets) in studies of drugs and devices aimed at human and animal health and situate it within the context of philosophy of technology. We argue that companion animals serve a unique role in illuminating just what it means to use biological technologies and examine the implications for human-animal relationships. Though philosophers have often treated animals as technologies, we argue that the biomedical use of companion animals presents a new configuration of (...) ethical and technological concerns that deserves more attention. Though it seems that companion animals solve many of the ethical dilemmas caused by the use of laboratory animals, the use of companion animals presents its own set of ethical concerns. This paper contextualizes the use of companion animals in research. (shrink)

The US Food and Drug Administration’s final Guidance for Industry on the regulation of transgenesis in animal agriculture has paved the way for the commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) farm animals. The production-related diseases associated with extant breeding technologies are reviewed, as well as the predictable welfare consequences of continued emphasis on prolificacy at the potential expense of physical fitness. Areas in which biotechnology could be used to improve the welfare of animals while maintaining profitability are explored along with regulatory (...) schema to improve agency integration in GE animal oversight. (shrink)

'How should public debates be understood?' is the central question of this study. And it is answered by reconstructing a single public debate, namely the debate about the transgenic bull Herman. Herman the bull was created by Gene Pharming in 1989. An extra gene has been inserted in his genome as to induce the production of lactoferrin in the milk of his daughters. A debate started in the media about whether this should be allowed or not. This media debate has (...) lasted for nine years. In this study the debate is analysed and interpreted in order to make visible for others what has happened during this particular debate. It thus provides handles for disclosing other public debates and for better understanding public debates in general.Insight is provided in what has kept this debate going. This media debate, in which the public is involved as an audience, has needed a concrete cause (the case) to develop. This seems to be obvious, but in the Netherlands many debates are being organised without such a case. And one may witness that the media, and so the public, are hardly involved in these organised debates. But not only will a case be needed to induce a public debate. The urge of the debate has to be articulated as well. Virtually everybody can articulate problematic aspects of a case, but for a debate to have impact actors are needed that can provide continuity to the debate. In this particular debate this continuity has been provided by the Dierenbescherming (the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals). But, this still is not enough. If the media are not interested, the public will not know what is going on. So, for a vivid public debate, a case is needed to make the debate urgent, an organisation has to provide continuity, and the media have to publish about it.With respect to the content of the debate two discussions can be distinguished: a) the general controversy that has evoked the debate and b) the discussion about several specific applications of this technology.ad a) The general controversy. Four general principles are usually mentioned as integrating of the many norms that regulate interpersonal conduct. Two of these are generally reckoned to be applicable to animals as well, to wit 'do not harm' and 'do good'. With respect to the other two principles ('respect for autonomy' and 'be just') people do not agree about whether they apply to animals as well. It is obvious that these last principles cannot be applied directly to animals, as animals are not capable of being autonomous in the sense humans are. This implies for many people that the principle of justice does not apply to animals as well. At least a transformation of these principles is required, but this will alter their content substantially. Respect for autonomy can be transformed into respect for intrinsic value and bodily integrity, and justice can be transformed into equal and fair treatment. The debaters can now be divided into two groups: people that do and people that do not recognise these altered principles as applicable to animals. People that do not recognise these principles will argue in terms of 'do the benefits outweigh the harms' and they will be in favour of a 'yes, if the relevant conditions are met' policy (e.g. Gene Pharming and the biomedical researchers). People that do recognise these principles will either be opponents of animal transgenesis (the Dierenbescherming and some other societal organisations) or will be in favour of a 'no, unless there are good reasons to do so' policy (e.g. the Minister of Agriculture, most animal experts and animal ethicists). They will stress the search for alternatives and will ask for sufficient reasons before they enter a discussion about harms and benefits.ad b) Applications and contexts. With respect to the specific case at hand, it turned out that people have been arguing from different values and standards. These values and standards were connected with different practices of animal keeping and using. This has resulted, dependent on the specific applications of the lactoferrin obtained, in a discussion about what kind of animal Herman the bull is. Will his lactating daughters produce milk in the context of dairy cattle farming? Will they be better protected against mastitis, a cattle disease, which would mean that Herman the bull is functioning in a veterinary context? Will they produce medicines like many laboratory animals do, which would refer to a biomedical context? Or will his daughters produce food for patients in a specialised food production context? It turned out that these contexts, which are called practices, imply different standards for the treatment of animals.Neither the standards of veterinary practice, nor the standards of cattle farming practice do allow for the production of transgenic cattle. As the production of specialised food was mainly considered from the point of view of ordinary milk production practice, the standards of this practice were applied and so the production of transgenic cattle was rejected. In the case of the production of medicine by way of transgenic cattle, the standards for dealing with this case have not become clear at the end of the debate. People did not considered the standards of the biomedical practice adequate nor the standards of the dairy farming practice. Both perspectives remain open. It even may be the case that animal transgenesis develops as a practice of its own or that animal transgenesis will only be judged from the point of view of general standards and values instead of from contextual standards.The process of debating has been subject of the debate as well. The debaters have criticised each others inputs and have reacted to critique with respect to their conduct. These critiques provide insight in the implicit rules of debating in public.Public debates are debates in front of the public as an audience. If people are debating in public, they will not in it for understanding and convincing each other. Their main objective will be to influence public opinion and to gain public support for their views. They will reason as lucid as possible. And this has consequences for the evaluation of the conduct of the debaters. This does not mean that there are no rules, but it does mean that there will be specific rules for these kind of discussions. So, people will be criticised if they go too far, that is to say if they violate the rules of decent reasoning.Debating in public is more than reasoning only. There are all kinds of theatrical elements as well, like suggestive photo's or posters, or telling stories about other debaters, or suggestive reasoning. Here too, rules of decent conduct can be reconstructed from the critiques on several of these theatrical elements that were uttered during the debate at hand.This study ends with a reply to the people that have criticised this debate in general. From their critiques it can be derived that these critics have raised too high (too idealistic) expectations of public debates. The fruitfulness and sense of a public debate should not be assessed on the basis of convergence of opinions or on the orientation at consent of the debaters, but on the quality and rationality of the reasoning of the debaters. One may witness that all debaters have developed their views and reasoning; they have listened to others and have reacted to these inputs by better articulating their own reasoning or by adapting their actions. It is evident that the participants have not always conducted according to the rules of decent debating. But, they have taken critique on their conduct seriously and have adapted their behaviour. (shrink)