Abstract
As the debates over cloning and stem cell research indicate, issues raised by biotechnology combine research into the genetic sciences, perspectives and contexts articulated by the social sciences, and the ethical and anthropological concerns of philosophy. Consequently, I argue that intervening in the debates over biotechnology requires supra-disciplinary critical philosophy and social theory to illuminate the problems and their stakes. In addition, debates over cloning and stem cell research raise exceptionally important challenges to bioethics and a democratic politics of communication.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Cited in Carey Goldberg, and Gina Kolata, “Scientists Announce Births of Cows Cloned in New Way”. The New York Times. January 21, 1998: A 14. Companies are now preparing to sell milk from cloned cows; see Jennifer Mitol, “Got cloned milk?” http://www.abcnews.com/, July 16, 2001. For the story of Dolly and animal cloning, see Kolata (1998).
See Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Breakthrough in Pig Cloning Could Aide Organ Transplants” (New York Times, January 4, 2001). In July 2002, the Australian government announced draft guidelines that would regulate transplanting animal organs into humans and anticipated research with pig organs translated into humans within two years; see Benjamin Haslem, “Animal-to-human transplants get nod,” The Australian, July 8, 2002: A1
See Heather Moore, “The Modern-Day Island of Dr, Moreau,” http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11703, October 12, 2001. For a vivid description of the horrors of animal experimentation, see Singer (1975); for an acute diagnosis of the unscientific nature of vivisection, see Greek and Greek (2000).
See “In Test, Japanese Have No Beef With Cloned Beef,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/inatl/daily/sept99/japan10.htm. According to one report, it is more accurate to refer to this beef as being produced by “embryo twinning,” and not the kind of cloning process that produced Dolly; see “‘Cloned’ Beef Scare Lacks Meat,” http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,19146,00.html. As just one indicator of the corporate will to clone animals for mass consumption, the National Institute of Science and Technology has donated $4.7 million to two industries to fund research into cloning chickens for food. See “Cloned chickens on the menu,” New Scientist.com, August 15, 2001.
See Heather Moore, “The Modern-Day Island of Dr, Moreau,” op. cit., and Sharon Schmickle, “It’s what’s for dinner: milk and meat from clones,” http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/868271.html, December 2, 2001.
“Clonefarm: Billions of identical chickens could soon be rolling off production lines,” http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/cloning/cloning.jsp?id=23040300, August 18, 2001.
Cited in Heather Moore, “The Modern Day Island of Dr. Moreau,” op. cit.
The Missyplicity Project boasts a strong code of bioethics; see http://www.missyplicity.com/.
“In Cloning, Failure Far Exceeds Success,” Gina Kolata, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/11/science/11CLON.html.
See “Clones contain hidden DNA damage,” http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999982; see also the study published in Science (July 6, 2001), which discusses why so many clone pregnancies fail and why some cloned animals suffer strange maladies in their hearts, joints, and immune system.
“Clone Study Casts Doubt in Stem Cells: Variations in Mice Raise Human Research Issues,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23967-2001Jul5?language= printer, July 6, 2001.
See “Scientists Warn of Dangers of Human Cloning,” http://www.abcnews.com/. See also the commentaries in Gareth Cook, “Scientists say cloning may lead to long-term ills,” The Boston Globe, July 6, 2001; Steve Connor, “Human cloning will never be safe,” Independent, July 6, 2001; Carolyn Abraham, “Clone creatures carry genetic glitches,” July 6, 2001; Connor cites Dolly-cloner Ian Wilmut who noted: “It surely adds yet more evidence that there should be a moratorium against copying people. How can anybody take the risk of cloning a baby when its outcome is so unpredictable?”
See “Report Says Scientists See Cloning Problems“, http://abcnews.go.com/wire.US/reuters200103525_573.html.
The Westhusin quote is at http://abcnews.go.com/cloningflaw010705.htm; the “misplaced carbons” quote is in Philip Cohen, “Clone Killer,” http://www.newscientist.com/news.
“Human Clone Moves Sparks Global Outrage,” http://www.smh.com.au/, March 11, 2001.
Given this attitude, it is no surprise that in September, 2001, Texas A&M University, the same institution working on cloning cats and dogs, showed off newly cloned pigs, who joined the bulls and goat already cloned by the school, as part of the “world’s first cloned animal fair.”
See “Back from the Brink: Cloning Endangered Species,” Pamela Weintraub, http://news.bmn.com/hmsbeagle/109/notes/ feature2, August 31, 2001. “Gene Find No Small Fetus,” http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,41513,00.html
See the collection of responses to Joy’s article in Wired 8.07 (July 2000). Agreeing with Joy that there need to be firm guidelines regulating nanotechnology, the Foresight Institute has written a set of guidelines for its development that take into account problems such as commercialization, unjust distribution of benefits, and potential dangers to the environment. See http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/current.html. I encourage such critical dialog on both the benefits and dangers of new technologies and hope to contribute to these debates with our studies.
See http://www.wired.com/news/0,1294,36886,00.html.
On “new science” and “new sensibilities,” see Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man (Beacon Press, Boston, 1964) and An Essay on Liberation (Beacon Press, Boston 1969).
For a sharp critique of how bioethicists are bought off and co-opted by corporations in their bid for legitimacy, see “Bioethicists Fall Under Familiar Scrutiny,” http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/02/health/genetics/02BIOE.html.
References
Best S, Kellner D (2001) The postmodern adventure: science, technology, and cultural studies at the third millennium. Guilford Press, New York
Birke L, Ruth H (1995) Reinventing biology: respect for life and the creation of knowledge. Indiana University Press, Bloomington
Fox MW (1999) Beyond evolution: the genetically altered future of plants, animals, the earth, and humans. The Lyons Press, New York
Greek R, Greek JS (2000) Sacred cows and golden geese: the human cost of experiments on animals. Continuum, New York
Habermas J (1979) Communication and the evolution of society. Beacon Press, Boston, MA
Habermas J (1984) Theory of communicative action, vol 1. Beacon Press, Boston, MA
Habermas J (1987) Theory of communicative action, vol 2. Beacon Press, Boston, MA
Haraway D (1997) Modest witness@second millennium Female meets oncomouse. Routledge, New York
Huxley A (1989a) Brave new world. Perennial Library, New York
Kass L (1998) The wisdom of repugnance. In: Pence G (ed) Flesh of my flesh: the ethics of human cloning. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham MD, pp 13–37
Keller EF (1983) A feeling for the organism: the life and work of barbara mcclintock. WH Freeman and Co, New York
Marcuse H (1964) One-dimensional man. Beacon Press, Boston, MA
Marcuse H (1969) An essay on liberation. Beacon Press, Boston, MA
Rifkin J (1998) The biotech century: harnessing the gene and remaking the world. Tarcher/Putnam, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Best, S. Genetic science, animal exploitation, and the challenge for democracy. AI & Soc 20, 6–21 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0002-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0002-9