Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Re-interpreting some common objections to three transgenic applications: GM foods, xenotransplantation and germ line gene modification (GLGM)

  • 162 Accesses

  • 3 Citations

Abstract

Concerns about safety to the individual, the wider community and the potential impact on the environment are typical consequentialist objections to transgenesis that feature prominently in public debates about its ethical acceptability. I consider some of these claims with respect to their motivation, validity and their overall influence on public policy using three well-discussed applications of transgenesis: GM foods, xenotransplantation and germ line gene modification (GLGM).

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

References

  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2002) Australian Social Trends: Health Related Actions: Organ Donation. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

  2. Australian and New Zealand Organ Donation Registry (ANZOD) (2003) Annual Report. ANZOD, South Australia.

  3. L Carter (2002) ArticleTitleThe ethics of germ line gene manipulation–a five dimensional debate Monash Bioethics Rev 21 66–81

  4. T Caulfield G Robertson (2001) ArticleTitleXenotransplantation: consent, public health and charter issues Med Law Int 5 81–99

  5. J Christensen (2000) Golden rice in a grenade-proof greenhouse November 21 New York Times

  6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2004) The State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004, Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor? FAO, Rome.

  7. P Florencio T Caulfield (1999) ArticleTitleXenotransplantation and public health: identifying the legal issues Can J Public Health 90 282–284

  8. J Glover (Eds) (1984) What Sort of People Should There Be? Penguin Books Hammondsworth

  9. J Lyford (2003) Gene therapy ‘caused t-cell leukemia’ The Scientist October 20

  10. D Macer L Cohen (2000) Regulation and jurisdiction. In: (eds) G Stock J Campbell (Eds) Engineering the Human Germline Oxford University Press New York 139–144

  11. H Mae-Wan (Eds) (1999) Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare? Gateway Books Bath

  12. Millennium Project Hunger Task Force (2004), Halving Hunger by 2015: A Framework for Action. Interim Report. Millennium Project, New York.

  13. E Millstone E Brunner S Mayer (1999) ArticleTitleBeyond substantial equivalence Nature 401 625–626

  14. D Murray (2003) Seeds of Concern University of New South Wales Press Sydney

  15. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (2003) Animal to Human Transplantation Research: How Should Australian Proceed? Response to the 2002 Public Consultation on Draft Guidelines and Discussion Paper on Xenotransplantation.

  16. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2004) The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries: A follow-up Discussion Paper, London.

  17. M Reiss R Straughan (1996) Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering Cambridge University Press Cambridge

  18. S Shreenivas (2000) ArticleTitleWho killed Jesse Gelsinger ethical issues in human gene therapy. Monash Bioethics Rev 19 35–43

  19. P Singer D Wells (1984) The Reproductive Revolution: New Ways of Making Babies Oxford University Press New York

  20. H Verhoog (2003) ArticleTitleNaturalness and the genetic modification of animals Trends Biotechnol 21 294–297

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Lucy Carter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carter, L. Re-interpreting some common objections to three transgenic applications: GM foods, xenotransplantation and germ line gene modification (GLGM). Transgenic Res 13, 583–591 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-004-2835-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • consequentialism
  • ethics of transgenesis
  • germ line gene modification
  • GM foods
  • playing God
  • xenotransplantation