Advertisement

NanoEthics

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 39–54 | Cite as

Biotechnology as End Game: Ontological and Ethical Collapse in the “Biotech Century”

  • Zipporah WeisbergEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

I argue in this paper that animal biotechnology constitutes a dangerous ontological collapse between animals and the technical-economic apparatus. By ontological collapse, I mean the elimination of fundamental ontological tensions between embodied subjects and the principles of scientific, technological, and economic rationalization. Biotechnology imposes this collapse in various ways: by genetically “reprogramming” animals to serve as uniform commodities, by abstracting them into data and code, and, in some cases, by literally manipulating their movements with computer technologies. These and other forms of ontological violence not only lead to profound physical suffering for the animals involved, but also distort the phenomenological basis of their existence, especially their perceptual experience and expression of subjective time and space. In subordinating nonhuman animals to the logic of “technological rationality” or “technique,” to borrow Herbert Marcuse and Jacques Ellul’s respective terms, biotechnology perpetuates the productive extermination of animals. Biotech animals are exterminated in the sense of being “drive[n] beyond the boundaries” of meaningful existence and “destroyed completely” or “completely wiped out” as subjects. But they are also exterminated in the sense of being “overproduced” and “overgenerated,” both quantitatively and qualitatively. I go on to argue that the collapse of the ontological is accompanied by a collapse of the ethical. This ethical collapse is characterized by the internalization of the logic of technique and the corresponding failure both within technoscientific culture itself and within some scholarly discourses about biotechnology to evaluate from a genuinely critical vantage point the fundamental ethical issues that animal biotechnology raises. The aim of this paper is to offer an alternative analysis of the ontological and ethical implications of biotechnology from the standpoint of Marcuse and Ellul’s critical theory of technology. To explore other ramifications of animal biotechnology, I draw on Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s insights into ideologies of extermination and Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of embodiment.

Keywords

Biotechnology Ontology Ethics Animal subjectivity Critical theory Phenomenology Species integrity Technological rationality Time-space compression 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am deeply indebted to a number of people for their helpful comments and suggestions on this article as it progressed through several drafts, especially Asher Horowitz, John Sanbonmatsu, Will Kymlicka, Sue Donaldson, Christopher Coenen, and Arianna Ferrari. I am also very grateful for the support of the Abby Benjamin Postdoctoral Fellowship Program in Animal Ethics in the Department of Philosophy at Queen’s University.

References

  1. 1.
    von Feuerbach L (1986) Principles of the philosophy of the future, trans. Manfred Vogel (Indianapolis; Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company), 42Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan R (2012) Thinking big: synthetic biology. Fidelity Investments. http://thinkingbig.fidelity.com/bio. Accessed June 24, 2012
  3. 3.
    Anthes E (2013) Don’t be afraid of genetic modification. The New York Times, March 9, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/dont-be-afraid-of-genetic-modification.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&. AquaBounty Technologies. 2014. "Products." http://aquabounty.com/company/products/. Accessed March 17, 2013
  4. 4.
    Hai T et al (2014) One-step generation of knockout pigs by zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas system. Cell Research 24:372–375. doi: 10.1038/cr.2014.11. Accessed 29 Oct. 2014
  5. 5.
    Best S (2011) Genetic science, animal exploitation, and the challenge for democracy. In: Carol G (ed) Leonardo’s choice: genetic technologies and animals. Springer, Dordrecht, p 7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Best S (2013) Genetic science, 9. “GloFish® FAQ,” GloFish®. http://www.glofish.com/about/faq/. Accessed 12 June 2013
  7. 7.
    Firm hails dog clone breakthrough (2009) BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7858566.stm. Accessed 11 June 2013
  8. 8.
    Jørgenson D (2013) Reintroduction and de-extinction. BioScience 63(9):719–720. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.9.6
  9. 9.
    Cohen S (2104) The ethics of de-extinction. NanoEthics 8:165–178. doi: 10.1007/s11569-014-0201-2
  10. 10.
    Derrida J (2008) The animal that therefore I am, trans. In: David W (ed) Marie-Louise Mallet. Fordham University Press, New York, p 26, Italics addedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bud R (1993) The uses of life: a history of biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 1Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    CCAC guidelines: on procurement of animals used in science (2007) The Canadian Council on Animal Care. http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Procurement.pdf. Accessed 17 March 2013
  13. 13.
    “UN Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)” United Nations. http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/default.shtml. Accessed 22 Feb 2012
  14. 14.
    Margawati ET (2003) Transgenic animals: their benefits to human welfare. ActionBioscience. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/margawati.html. Accessed 17 March 2013. Italics added
  15. 15.
    CCAC guidelines: on transgenic animals (1997) The Canadian Council on Animal Care. http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Transgenic_Animals.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2013
  16. 16.
    Bacon F (1999) "New Atlantis,". In: Sargent R-M (ed) Francis Bacon: selected philosophical works. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, p 263fGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weisberg Z (2009) The broken promises of monsters: Haraway, animals, and the humanist legacy. Journal for Critical Animal Studies 2(2):50Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stix G (2006) The land of milk and money. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=atryn-the-land-of-milk-and-mone. Accessed 7 May 2013
  19. 19.
    Rutherford A (2012) Synthetic biology and the rise of ‘spider-goats’. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/14/synthetic-biology-spider-goat-genetics. Accessed 17 March 2013
  20. 20.
    Ellul J (1964) The technological society, trans. John Wilkinson. Knopf, New York, p 135Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sample I (2009) Genetically modified monkeys give birth to designer babies. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/27/genetically-modified-gm-monkeys-germline. Accessed 28 May 2012
  22. 22.
    Cyranoski D (2009) Marmoset model takes centre stage. Nature 459, 492. doi: 10.1038/459492a, Accessed 28 Oct. 2014
  23. 23.
    Meidinger RM et al (2014) The EnviropigTM: reducing the environmental impact of animal agriculture through high health-status pigs that efficiently utilize dietary plant phosphorus. Journal of Biotechnology, IV1-O-001. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2008.07.458, Accessed 28 Oct 2014
  24. 24.
    Forsberg CW et al (2013) Integration, stability and expression of the E. coli phytase transgene in the Cassie line of Yorkshire Enviropig™. Transgenic Res 22:379–389. doi: 10.1007/s11248-012-9646-7, Accessed 28 Oct. 2014
  25. 25.
    Pollack A (2012) Move to market gene-altered pigs in Canada is halted. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/science/gene-altered-pig-project-in-canada-is-halted.html. Accessed 27 May 2012. Italics added
  26. 26.
    Chan R (2013) Thinking big: "Enviropig™". University of Guelph. http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/. Accessed 3 Oct. 2013
  27. 27.
    Service RF (2002) Mammalian cells spin a spidery new yarn. Science 295. doi: 10.1126/science.295.5554.419b, Accessed 28 Oct. 2014
  28. 28.
    Robo-pigeon: the pigeon that flies wherever you fancy. Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-439025/Robo-pigeon-pigeon-flies-fancy.html#ixzz1wHd6SaR6. Accessed 29 May 2012
  29. 29.
    Carmena JM et al (2003) Learning to control a brain–machine interface for reaching and grasping by primates. PLoS Biology 1: 2 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0000042, Accessed 28 Oc. 2014
  30. 30.
    Heaven D (2013) First mind-reading implant gives rats telepathic power. NewScientist, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23221-first-mindreading-implant-gives-rats-telepathic-power.html. Accessed 8 May 2013
  31. 31.
    Reardon S (2013) Interspecies telepathy: human thoughts make rats move. NewScientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23343-interspecies-telepathy-human-thoughts-make-rat-move.html. Accessed 8 May 2013
  32. 32.
    Adorno TW (1983) Negative dialectics, trans. E. B. Ashton. Continuum, New York, p 148Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marcuse H (1964) One-dimensional man: studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Beacon Press, Boston, p 137Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Horkheimer M, Adorno TW (2002) Dialectic of enlightenment: philosophical fragments. In: Gunzelin Schmid N (ed) trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford University Press, Stanford, p 4Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thacker E (2003) Data made flesh: biotechnology and the discourse of the posthuman. Cultural Critique 53:89Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eunice KY (2005) Britain pro-lifers row over cloning license to Dolly’s father, Christian Today. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/britain.prolifers.row.over.cloning.license.to.dollys.father/2109.htm. Accessed 28 May 2012
  37. 37.
    Sample I (2010) Craig Venter creates synthetic life form. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form, Accessed 29 May 2012
  38. 38.
    Rutherford A (2012) Synthetic biology and the rise of the ‘spider-goats’. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/14/synthetic-biology-spider-goat-genetics/print. Accessed 29 May 2012
  39. 39.
    Newell-McGloughlin M, Re E (2006) The evolution of biotechnology: from Natufians to nanotechnology. Springer, Dordrecht, p 52Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sell SK (2007) International institutions, intellectual property, and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. In: Ostergard RL Jr (ed) HIV/AIDS and the threat to national and international security. Palgrave MacMillan, New York, p 151Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Murray F (September 2010) The Oncomouse that roared: resistance and accommodation to patenting in academic science. American Journal of Sociology 116:351. doi: 10.1086/653599. Accessed 28 May 2012
  42. 42.
    Linzey A (2002) Genetic engineering. In: Richard S, Morrey JD (eds) Ethical issues in biotechnology. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, p 330, Author’s italicsGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Knight W (2003) Dolly the sheep dies young, New Scientist’. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3393-dollythe-sheep-dies-young.html. Accessed 5 June 2012
  44. 44.
    Shanks N, Greek R (2009) Animal models in light of evolution. BrownWalker Press, Boca Raton, p 310Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Best S (1990) Genetic science 10; KarlMarx, Capital Volume 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (London; New York: Penguin Books) 481Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Noske B (1997) Beyond boundaries: humans and animals. Black Rose Books, Montreal, p 18Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Von Uexküll J (2010) A foray into the worlds of animals and humans with a theory of meaning. In: Cary W (ed) trans. Joseph D. O’Neil, Posthumanities, vol. 12. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, p 43Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Merleau-Ponty M (2002) Phenomenology of perception, trans. Colin Smith. Routledge Classics, London; New York, Italics addedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Harvey D (1990) The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, Cambridge, p 240Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Marinetti FT (1973) The founding and manifesto of futurism 1909. In: Umbro A, Robert B, Flint RW, Higgitt JC, Caroline T (eds) Futurist Manifestos. Thames and Hudson, London, p 22Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Virilio P (2007) Speed and politics: an essay on dromology, trans. Mark Polizzotti. Semiotext(e), Los Angeles, p 167Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gigliotti C (2013) “Introduction,” xiv. Italics added. Best, “Genetic Science," 3. Italics added. See also Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan, "Engineering Freedom? A Critique of Biotechnological Routes to Animal Liberation,". Configurations 21:219Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rifkin J (1998) The biotech century: harnessing the gene and remaking the world. Tarcher/Putnam, New York, p 101Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Davis K (2011) Procrustean solutions to animal identity and welfare problems. In: Sanbonmatsu J, Gottlieb R (eds) Critical theory and animal liberation, Nature’s Meaning. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, p 35Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    “Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999)” Environment Canada. http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=24374285-1&offset=1&toc=show. Accessed 5 June 2012
  56. 56.
    Anthes E (2013) Don’t be afraid of genetic modification. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/dont-be-afraid-of-genetic-modification.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&. Accessed 10 May 2013
  57. 57.
    Prather RS, Stumpf TT, Rickords LF (1992) Nuclear transplantation as a method of producing genetically identical livestock. Animal Biotechnology 3:1–67. doi: 10.1080/10495399209525763. Accessed 22 Feb 2012
  58. 58.
    Ferrari A (2006) Genetically modified laboratory animals in the name of the 3Rs? Altex 23:299Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Twine R, Stephens N (2013) Introduction to special issue on animal biotechnology: do animal biotechnologies have a latent liberatory imaginary? Configurations 21:130Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rollin BE, Morrey JD (2002) The ‘Frankenstein thing'. In: Richard S (ed) Ethical issues in biotechnology. Rowman and Littlefield, Landham, p 275Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rollin BE (1995) The Frankenstein syndrome: ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 171Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Robert JS and Baylis F (2003) Crossing species boundaries. The American Journal of Bioethics 3, no. 3 (Summer 2003), 4Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Twine R (2010) Genomic natures read through posthumanisms. The Sociological Review 58(1):188Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ferrari A (2012) Animal disenhancement for animal welfare: the apparent philosophical conundrums and the real exploitation of animals. A response to Thompson and Palmer. Nanoethics 6:70Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Thompson PB (2008) The opposite of human enhancement: nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. Nanoethics 2:308Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Palmer C (2011) Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: a response to Thompson. Nanoethics 5:43–48Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hadley J (2012) Confining ‘disenhanced’ animals. Nanoethics 6:42Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Twine R (2013) Is biotechnology deconstructing animal domestication? Movements toward liberation. Configurations 21(2):146Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Twine R (2013) Is biotechnology deconstructing animal domestication. 138; 140Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Cole M, Morgan K (2011) Engineering freedom? Nanoethics 5:207Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Stephens N (2013) Growing meat in laboratories: the promise, ontology, and ethical boundary-work of using muscle cells to make food. Configurations 21(2):167Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Joy M (2011) Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: an introduction to carnism. Conari Press, San Francisco, pp 96–98Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, John Watson HallQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations