, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 305–316 | Cite as

The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken Problem

  • Paul B. ThompsonEmail author
Original Paper


Nanotechnologies that have been linked to the possibility of enhancing cognitive capabilities of human beings might also be deployed to reduce or eliminate such capabilities in non-human vertebrate animals. A surprisingly large literature on the ethics of such disenhancement has been developed in response to the suggestion that it would be an ethically defensible response to animal suffering both in medical experimentation and in industrial livestock production. However, review of this literature illustrates the difficulty of formulating a coherent ethical debate. Well structured arguments for disenhancement can be made on the basis of mainstream views on the basis of ethical obligations to animals, but these arguments have not been persuasive against the moral intuition that disenhancements are unethical. At the same time, attempts to ground these intuitions in a coherent philosophical doctrine have been plagued by logical fallacies and question begging assertions. As such, the debate over animal disenhancement forecasts an enduring conundrum with respect to the core question of transforming the nature of sentient beings, and this conundrum is logically independent of claims that relate either to the distinctive of human beings or to issues deriving from the emphasis on enhancement.


Ethics Biotechnology Livestock Animal welfare Animal rights Intuition Behavior Perfectionism 


  1. 1.
    Appleby MC (1999) What should we do about animal welfare? Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balzer P, Rippe KP, Schaber P (2000) Two concepts of dignity for humans and non-human organisms in the context of genetic engineering. J Agric Environ Ethics 13:7–27Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bovenkirk B, Brom FWA, van den Bergh BJ (2001) Brave new birds: the use of integrity in animal ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 32(1):16–22 doi: 10.2307/3528292 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brambell FW (1969) Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colwell RK (1989) “Natural and unnatural history: biological diversity and genetic engineering”. In: Shea WR, Sitter B (eds) Scientists and their responsibilities. Watson Publishing International, Canton, OH, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis K (1996) “The ethics of genetic engineering and the futuristic fate of domestic fowl”. United Poultry Concerns Website. Available at (accessed January 13, 2006)
  7. 7.
    Edelman PD, McFarland DC, Mironov VA, Matheny JG (2005) In vitro-cultured meat production. Tissue Eng 11:659–662 doi: 10.1089/ten.2005.11.659 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fox MW (1990) “Transgenic animals: ethical and animal welfare concerns”. In: Wheale P, McNally P (eds) The bio-revolution: cornucopia or pandora’s box. Pluto, London, pp 31–54Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gifford F (2002) “Biotechnology”. In: Comstock G (ed) Life Science Ethics. Iowa State, Ames, IA, pp 191–224Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heeger R (2000) Genetic engineering and the dignity of creatures. J Agric Environ Ethics 13:43–51Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holland A (1995) “Artificial lives: philosophical dimensions of farm animal biotechnology”. In: Mepham TB, Tucker GA, Wiseman J (eds) Issues in agricultural bioethics. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, pp 293–306Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kass L (1997) “The wisdom of repugnance”. The New Republic June 2:17–26Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kastenbaum D (2001) “Analysis: debate over genetically altered fish and meat”. Morning Edition (December 4, 2001). Transcript available online at (accessed June 25, 2008)
  14. 14.
    Lin P, Allhoff F (2007) “Nanoscience and nanoethics: defining the disciplines”. In: Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: the ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mauron A (1989) “Ethics and the ordinary molecular biologist”. In: Shea WR, Sitter B (eds) Scientists and their responsibilities. Watson Publishing International, Canton, OH, pp 249–265Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McNaughton P (2004) Animals in their nature: a case study on public attitudes to animals genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology 38:533–551 doi: 10.1177/0038038504043217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Midgley M (2000) Biotechnology and monstrosity. Hastings Cent Rep 30(5):7–15 doi: 10.2307/3527881 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ortiz SEG (2004) Beyond welfare: animal integrity, animal dignity and genetic engineering. Ethics Environ 9:94–120 doi: 10.2979/ETE.2004.9.1.94 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Regan T (1995) “Are zoos morally defensible?”. In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, Stevens EF, Maple T (eds) Ethics on the ark. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp 38–51Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Regan T (2003) Animal rights, human wrongs: An introduction to moral philosophy. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rollin B (1986) “The frankenstein thing”. In: Evans JW, Hollaender A (eds) Genetic engineering of animals: An agricultural perspective. Plenum, New York, pp 285–298Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rollin B (1995) The frankenstein syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rollin B (1998) “On telos and genetic engineering”. In: Holland A, Johnson A (eds) Animal biotechnology and ethics. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 156–187Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rollin B (2006) Science and ethics. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rutgers B, Heeger R (1999) “Inherent worth and respect for animal integrity”. In: Dol M, Fentener van Vlissingen M, Kasanmoentalib S, Visser T, Zwart H (eds) Recognizing the intrinsic value of nature. Van Corcum, Assen, pp 41–53Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Savory CJ (1995) Feather pecking and cannibalism. Worlds Poult Sci J 51:215–219 doi: 10.1079/WPS19950016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sandøe P, Holtung N, Simonsen HB (1996) Ethical limits to domestication. J Agric Environ Ethics 9:114–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sandøe PB, Nielsen L, Christensen LG, Sørensen P (1999) Staying good while playing God—the ethics of breeding farm animals. Anim Welf 8:313–328Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sapontzis SF (1991) We should not manipulate the genome of domestic hogs. J Agric Environ Ethics 4:177–185 doi: 10.1007/BF01980315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singer P (1975) Animal liberation. Avon Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Singer P (2002) Animal liberation, revised edition. HarperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tausin R (2002) Furnished cages and aviaries: production and health. Worlds Poult Sci J 58:49–63 doi: 10.1079/WPS20020007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thompson PB (1997) Ethics and the genetic engineering of food animals. J Agric Environ Ethics 10:1–23 doi: 10.1023/A:1007758700818 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) 2006. “ARS Project: identification and manipulation of genetic factors to enhance disease resistance in cattle.” Available at (accessed January 13, 2006). Page last modified Jan. 12, 2006
  36. 36.
    Varner G (1990) Biological functions and biological interests. South J Philos 27:251–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    de Vries R (2006) Genetic engineering and the integrity of animals. J Agric Environ Ethics 19:469–493 doi: 10.1007/s10806-006-9004-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Warkentin T (2006) Dis/integrating animals: ethical dimensions of the genetic engineering of animals for human consumption. AI Soc 20:82–102 doi: 10.1007/s00146-005-0009-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations