Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transgenic Livestock , Ethical Concerns and Debate

  • Reference work entry
Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology

  • 320 Accesses

Definition of the Subject

Humans have been able to manipulate the genomes of livestock through selective breeding for centuries; however, direct intervention has become possible only through the development of transgenic technology over the past 3 decades. So far, genetically modified animals have mainly been developed for basic research and biomedicine, but they are slowly beginning to enter the agricultural production system. In this article, livestock is defined to be all species used within the agricultural and aquacultural system. Note that such animals can be genetically modified for use within basic and medical research as well.

Most people would readily agree that there is a difference between what humans can do and what they oughtto do. Equally, most people would happily acknowledge that it is good to do the morally right thing. However, the harmony usually ends there, because although it is easy to agree that a good thing should be promoted, it is often hard to reach...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 6,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

Animal bioreactor:

Transgenic animal that produces recombinant proteins in its milk, egg white, blood, urine, or seminal plasma.

Antibody:

Protein produced as part of the immune reaction to render harmless a foreign substance (e.g., bacteria) entering the body of an organism.

Cloning:

(a) Production of exact copies (clones) of a gene/genes (gene cloning). The DNA strand containing the gene of interest is cut into suitably sized pieces (fragmentation) and the gene of interest is linked to a piece of DNA (cloning vector). This vector is then introduced into cells (transfection) which are cultured in vitro and then screened for the presence of the gene of interest. (b) Production of genetically identical organisms by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). It involves the introduction of the nucleus of a somatic cell from the organism to be cloned into an enucleated egg cell. The resulting cell divides after activation (application of electric shock) into an embryo which may then be implanted into a surrogate mother (reproductive cloning) or used to establish a tissue culture (therapeutic cloning).

Embryonic germ cell:

Pluripotent stem cells derived from early germ cells with properties similar to embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell:

Cell derived from an early embryo that is not differentiated by itself but may divide either to form (a) other stem cells or (b) cells that differentiate into specialized cell types.

Gene copy number:

Genes naturally exist in varying number of copies in the genome. In relation to genetic modification, gene copy number refers to the number of copies of a transgene that integrate into the host genome.

Gene expression:

The assembly of a product (mainly protein) based on the information coded in a gene.

Gene targeting:

The modification of a certain endogenous gene of an organism based on homologous recombination.

Germ cell:

Cell that produces gametes (egg cells in females, sperm in males).

Heterozygous:

Organism/cell in which the two chromosomes in a pair contain different alleles (alternative forms of a gene) at a given locus. The dominant allele will determine the phenotype.

Homologous recombination:

The exchange of genetic information between two similar or identical strands of DNA (often during meiosis, i.e., the formation of gametes). This process is used for the introduction of DNA sequences into the genome of organisms by gene targeting.

Homozygous:

Organism/cell in which the two chromosomes in a pair contain identical alleles (alternative forms of a gene) at a given locus. The alleles may either be dominant or recessive.

Hemizygous:

Organism/cell with only the given allele present at the given locus of only one of the chromosomes in a pair.

Knockout:

The replacement of a functioning endogenous gene with an inoperable version.

Lentiviruses:

Viruses that are able to infect both dividing and nondividing cells and are therefore used as tools as vectors for gene delivery.

Marker-assisted selection:

Method allowing the selection of breeding animals based on their genotype rather than their phenotype. Regions of the genome that control certain production traits are mapped and DNA markers that control production traits are identified. Animals whose genome contains the desired markers are selected for further breeding.

Motivation:

The internal state of an animal which makes it behave in a certain way; the overall summation of all internal and external factors affecting decision-making.

Pronucleus:

The nucleus of either a sperm (male p.) or an egg (female p.) cell before their fusion inside the egg cell in the process of fertilization. At pronuclear microinjection, the DNA containing the transgene is injected into one of the pronuclei which fuse. After implantation of the egg into a female, the resulting embryo develops into a hemizygous transgenic animal which must be bred to obtain homozygous transgenic animals.

Recombinant protein:

Proteins that are expressed based on recombinant DNA (rDNA). rDNA is obtained by genetic engineering techniques, i.e., the ´artificial´ combination of information contained in the transgene and in the host genome.

Somatic nuclear cell transfer:

See Cloning.

Subjective experience:

Conscious mental state, an experience that the individual is aware of.

Viral vector:

Virus-based vehicle to introduce genetic information into cells making use of the capacity of viruses to transfer their genome into the cells they infect. For transgenesis purposes, they are rendered replication-deficient to avoid replication once the transfer of the genetic information of interest into the cell has taken place.

Bibliography

  1. Clark J, Whitelaw B (2003) A future for transgenic livestock. Nat Rev Genet 4:825–833

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Laible G (2009) Enhancing livestock through genetic engineering – recent advances and future prospects. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 32:123–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lacy WB, Lacy LR, Busch L (1988) Agricultural biotechnology research: practices, consequences, and policy recommendations. Agric Hum Values 5(3):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baile CA, Krestel-Rickert DH (1988) Will society permit the potential of genetic engineering to advance the frontiers of biology? J Anim Sci 66:2125–2130

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fox MV (1989) Genetic engineering and animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci 22(2):105–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gavora JS, Lister EE (1989) Practical and ethical considerations of agricultural research assistance for the third world. J Agric Environ Ethics 2(4):307–322

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH (1997) Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385:810–813

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cooper DKC, Dorling A, Pierson RN III, Rees M, Seebach J, Yazer M, Ohdan H, Awwad M, Ayares D (2007) [Alpha]1, 3-galactosyltransferase gene-knockout pigs for xenotransplantation: where do we go from here? Transplantation 84(1):1–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kling J (2009) First US approval for a transgenic animal drug. Nat Biotechnol 27:302–304

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Thompson PB (1997) Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. Blackie Academic & Professional, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gamborg C, Gjerris M (2009) The price of responsibility. In: Gjerris M, Gamborg C, Olesen JE, Wolf J (eds) Earth on fire. Climate change from a philosophical and ethical perspective. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Open access. Available at www.earthonfire.foi.dk

    Google Scholar 

  12. European Commission (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC – Commission Declaration. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  13. Houdebine LM (2009) Methods to generate transgenic animals. In: Engelhard M, Hagen K, Boysen M (eds) Genetic engineering in livestock: new applications and interdisciplinary perspectives. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 31–48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Lai L, Kolber-Simonds D, Park KW, Cheong HT, Greenstein JL, Im GS, Samuel M, Bonk A, Rieke A, Day BN, Murphy CN, Carter DB, Hawley RJ, Prather RS (2002) Production of α-1,3-galactosyltransferase knockout pigs by nuclear transfer cloning. Science 295(5557):1089–1092

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Niemann H, Kues W, Carnwath JW (2007) Transgenic farm animals: current status and perspectives for agriculture and biomedicine. In: Engelhard M, Hagen K, Boysen M (eds) Symposium on new application of livestock genetic engineering. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 1–30

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gordon JW, Scangos GA, Plotkin DJ, Barbosa JA, Ruddle FH (1980) Genetic transformation of mouse embryos by microinjection of purified DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA Biol Sci 77:7380–7384

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hammer RE, Pursel VG, Rexroad CE, Wall R, Bolt DJ, Ebert KM, Palmiter RD, Brinster RL (1985) Production of transgenic rabbits, sheep and pigs by microinjection. Nature 315:680–683

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kong QR, Wu ML, Huan YJ, Zhang L, Liu HY, Bou G, Luo YB, Mu YS, Liu ZH (2009) Transgene expression is associated with copy number and cytomegalovirus promoter methylation in transgenic pigs. PLoS ONE 4:10

    Google Scholar 

  19. Le Provost F, Lillico S, Passet B, Young R, Whitelaw B, Vilotte JL (2009) Zinc finger nuclease technology heralds a new era in mammalian transgenesis. Trends Biotechnol 28:134–141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Niemann H, Kues W, Carnwath JW (2005) Transgenic farm animals: present and future. Rev Sci Tech 24(1):285–298

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Blasco A (2008) The role of genetic engineering in livestock production. Livest Sci 113:191–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Foresti F (2000) Biotechnology and fish culture. Hydrobiologia 420:45–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zbikowska HM (2003) Fish can be first – advances in fish transgenesis for commercial applications. Transgenic Res 12:379–389

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Rasmussen RS, Morrissey MT (2007) Biotechnology in aquaculture: transgenics and polyploidy. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 6:2–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kelly L (2005) The safety assessment of foods from transgenic and cloned animals using the comparative approach. Rev Sci Tech 24:61–74

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wall RJ (1996) Transgenic livestock: progress and prospects for the future. Theriogenology 45(1):57–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wolf E, Schernthaner W, Zakhartchenko V, Prelle K, Stojkovic M, Brem G (2000) Transgenic technology in farm animals – progress and perspectives. Exp Physiol 85:615–625

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Niemann H, Kues WA (2003) Application of transgenesis in livestock for agriculture and biomedicine. Anim Reprod Sci 79:291–317

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wheeler MB (2007) Agricultural applications for transgenic livestock. Trends Biotechnol 25:204–210

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bremel RD, Homan EJ, Howard TH (2001) Current and future promises of transgenesis for agricultural livestock in a global marketplace. J Dairy Sci 84:E1–E8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Prather RS (2006) Cloned transgenic heart-healthy pork? Transgenic Res 15:405–407

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hallerman EM, McLean E, Fleming IA (2007) Effects of growth hormone transgenes on the behaviour and welfare of aquacultured fishes: a review identifying research needs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 104:265–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nightingale P, Martin P (2004) The myth of the biotech revolution. Trends Biotechnol 22(1):564–569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Gjerris M, Olsson A, Sandøe P (2006) Animal biotechnology and animal welfare. In: Council of Europe (ed) Ethical eye – animal welfare. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, pp 8–110

    Google Scholar 

  35. Durant J, Bauer J, Gaskell G (1998) Biotechnology in the public sphere. Science Museum, London

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gaskell G, Bauer M (2002) Biotechnology 1996–2000: the years of controversy. Science Museum, London

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gaskell G, Allum N, Stares S (2003) Europeans and biotechnology in 2002. Eurobarometer 58.0

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gaskell G, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Corchero C, Fischler C, Hampel J, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Mejlgaard N, Revuelta G, Schreiner C, Stares S, Torgersen H, Wagner W (2006) Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: patterns and trends. Eurobarometer 64.3

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wagner W, Kronberger N, Allum N, Cheveigné de S, Diego C, Gaskell G, Heinßen M, Midden CJH, Ødegaard M, Öhman S, Rizzo B, Rusanen T, Stathopoulou A (2002) Pandora’s genes – images of genes and nature. In: Bauer MW, Gaskell G (eds) Biotechnology. The making of a global controversy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 244–276

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lassen J, Jamison A (2006) Genetic technologies meet the public: the discourses of concern. Sci Technol Hum Values 31(1):8–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Einsiedel EF (2005) Public perceptions of transgenic animals. Rev Sci Tech 24(1):149–157

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1997) Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci Technol Hum Values 22(1):98–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gaskell G, Bauer MW, Durant J (1998) Public perceptions of biotechnology in 1996: eurobarometer 46.1. In: Durant J, Bauer MW, Gaskell G (eds) Biotechnology in the public sphere. A European sourcebook. Science Museum, London, pp 189–214

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lassen J, Gjerris M, Sandøe P (2006) After dolly – ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology 65:992–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Beck U (1992) Risk society. Towards a new modernity. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  46. European Commission (2002) Eurobarometer 58.0. European Commission

    Google Scholar 

  47. Dahl K, Sandøe P, Johnsen PF, Lassen J, Hansen AK (2003) Outline of a risk assessment: the welfare of future xeno-donor pigs. Anim Welfare 12:219–237

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Rigaud N (2008) Biotechnology: ethical and social debates. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  49. Arluke A, Sanders CR (1996) Regarding animals. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  50. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2004) Safety of genetically engineered foods. Approaches to assessing unintended health effects. National Academy of Science, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  51. The Royal Society of Canada (2001) Elements of precaution: recommendations for the regulation of food biotechnology in Canada. An expert panel report on the future of food biotechnology. The Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lai L, Jing X, Kang X, Li R, Wang J, Witt WT, Yong HY, Hao Y, Wax DM, Murphy CN, Rieke A, Samuel M, Linville ML, Korte SW, Evans RW, Starz TE, Prather RS, Dai Y (2006) Generation of cloned transgenic pigs rich in omega-3 fatty acids. Nat Biotechnol 24:435–436

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Wall RJ, Kerr DE, Bondioli KR (1997) Transgenic dairy cattle: genetic engineering on a large scale. J Dairy Sci 80(9):2213–2224

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Fishman JA, Patience C (2004) Xenotransplantation: infectious risks revisited. Am J Transplant 2004(4):1383–1390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. PEW Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2003) Future fish. Issues in science and regulation of transgenic fish. PEW Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  56. Abram D (1996) The spell of the sensuous. Vintage Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pursel VG, Pinkert CA, Miller KF, Bolt DJ, Campbell RG, Palmiter RD, Brinster RL, Hammer RE (1989) Genetic engineering of livestock. Science 244:1281–1288

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Van Reenen CG, Meuwissen THE, Hopster H, Oldenbroek K, Kruip TAM, Blokhuis HJ (2001) Transgenesis may affect farm animal welfare: a case for systematic risk assessment. J Anim Sci 79:1763–1779

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Van Reenen CG (2007) Assessing the welfare of transgenic farm animals. In: Engelhard M, Hagen K, Boysen M (eds) Symposium on new application of livestock genetic engineering. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 119–143

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wheeler MB (2002) Production of transgenic livestock: promise fulfilled. In: Sixth international workshop on the biology of lactation in farm animals, Quebec, 2002. American Society of Animal Science, pp 32–37

    Google Scholar 

  61. Duncan IJH, Fraser D (1997) Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby MC, Hughes BO (eds) Animal welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 19–31

    Google Scholar 

  62. Dawkins MS (2004) Using behavior to assess welfare. Anim Welfare 13:3–7

    Google Scholar 

  63. Fraser D, Weary DM, Pajor EA, Milligan BN (1997) A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Anim Welfare 6:187–205

    Google Scholar 

  64. Appleby MC, Sandøe P (2002) Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: implications for animal welfare. Anim Welfare 11(3):283–294

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Rollin BE (1995) Frankenstein syndrome: ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  66. Shriver A (2009) Knocking out pain in livestock: can technology succeed where morality has stalled? Neuroethics 2(3):115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. D’Eath RB, Conington J, Lawrence AB, Olsson IAS, Sandøe P (2010) Breeding for behavioural change in farm animals: practical, economic and ethical considerations. Anim Welfare 19(5):17–27

    Google Scholar 

  68. Ali A, Cheng KM (1985) Early egg production in genetically blind (rc/rc) chickens in comparison with sighted (Rc+/rc) controls. Poult Sci 64(5):789–794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Lassen J, Sandøe P, Forkman B (2006) Happy pigs are dirty! – conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livest Sci 103(3):221–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Verhoog H (2003) Naturalness and the genetic modification of animals. Trends Biotechnol 21(7):294–297

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Sandøe P, Holtug N, Simonsen HB (1996) Ethical limits to domestication. J Agric Environ Ethics 19(5):469–493

    Google Scholar 

  72. Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology (1999) Ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnology. European Federation of Biotechnology, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  73. Reiss MJ, Straughan R (2000) Improving nature. The science and ethics of genetic engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  74. Chapman A (2005) Genetic engineering: the unnatural argument. Techné 9(2):81–93

    Google Scholar 

  75. Rutger B, Heeger R (1999) Inherent worth and respect for animal integrity. In: Dol M, van Vlissingen MF, Kasanmoentalib S, Visser T, Zwart H (eds) Recognizing the intrinsic value of nature. Van Gorcum, Assen, pp 41–53

    Google Scholar 

  76. De Vries R (2006) Genetic engineering and the integrity of animals. J Agric Environ Ethics 19(5):469–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Vorstenbosch J (1993) The concept of integrity. Its significance for the ethical discussion on biotechnology and animals. Livest Prod Sci 36:109–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Gottlieb S, Wheeler MD (2008) Genetically engineered animals and public health: compelling benefits for health care, nutrition, the environment, and animal welfare. BIO – The Biotehnology Organisation, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  79. Bovenkerk B, Brom FWA, Van Den Bergh BJ (2002) Brave new birds: the use of ‘animal integrity’ in animal ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 32:16–22

    Google Scholar 

  80. Cooper DE (1998) Intervention, humility and animal integrity. In: Holland A, Johnson A (eds) Animal biotechnology and ethics. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 145–155

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  81. Merleau-Ponty M (1969) The visible and the invisible. Northwestern University Press, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  82. Løgstrup KE (1995) Vidde og prægnans. Sprogfilosofiske betragtninger. Metafysik I. 2. udg. Gyldendal, København

    Google Scholar 

  83. Roosen J, Lusk JL, Fox JA (2001) Consumer demand for and attitudes toward alternative beef labeling strategies in France, Germany, and the UK. Agribusiness 19(1):77–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Nielsen AP, Lassen J, Sandøe P (2004) Involving the public – participatory methods and democratic ideals. Glob Bioeth 17:191–201

    Google Scholar 

  85. Gjerris M (2008) The three teachings of biotechnology. In: David K, Thompson P (eds) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Elsevier, Burlington, pp 91–106

    Google Scholar 

  86. Bauer MW, Bonfadelli H (2002) Controversy, media coverage and public knowledge. In: Bauer MW, Gaskell G (eds) Biotechnology. The making of a global controversy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 149–175

    Google Scholar 

  87. Meyer G (2005) Why clone farm animals? Goals, motives, assumptions, values and concerns among European scientists working with cloning of farm animals, Project report 8. Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Frederiksberg

    Google Scholar 

  88. Nielsen AP, Lassen J, Sandøe P (2007) Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective. J Agric Environ Ethics 20:13–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Gjerris M (2009) This is not a hammer – on ethics and technology. In: Bedau M, Parke E (eds) Our future with protocells: the social and ethical implications of the creation of living technology. MIT Press, Boston, pp 291–306

    Google Scholar 

  90. Gjerris M, Sandøe P (2006) Farm animal cloning: the role of the concept of animal integrity in debating and regulating the technology. In: Kaiser M, Lien ME (eds) Ethics and the politics of food: preprints of the 6. Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. Academic, Wageningen, pp 320–324

    Google Scholar 

  91. van de Lavoir MC, Mather-Love C, Leighton P, Diamond JH, Heyer BS, Roberts R, Zhu L, Winters-Digiacinto P, Kerchner A, Gessaro T, Swanberg S, Delany ME, Etches RJ (2006) High-grade transgenic somatic chimeras from chicken embryonic stem cells. Mech Dev 123:31–41

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Mickey Gjerris (Faculty of Life Sciences), Jesper Lassen (Faculty of Life Sciences) & Peter Sandøe (Faculty of Life Sciences)

  2. Laboratory Animal Science Group, IBMC – Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Rua Campo Alegre 823, Porto, Portugal

    Reinhard Huber & I Anna S Olsson

Authors
  1. Mickey Gjerris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reinhard Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jesper Lassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. I Anna S Olsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Sandøe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mickey Gjerris .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. RAMTECH LIMITED, Larkspur, CA, USA

    Robert A. Meyers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Gjerris, M., Huber, R., Lassen, J., Olsson, I.A.S., Sandøe, P. (2012). Transgenic Livestock , Ethical Concerns and Debate. In: Meyers, R.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation