Genetic Engineering in Livestock pp 91-117

Part of the Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 34) | Cite as

Ethical Aspects of Livestock Genetic Engineering

  • Matthias Kaiser

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarhus Convention (1998) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (http://www.unece.org/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf, July 2008 and general information at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/, July 2008)
  2. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) (2007) (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/fsewiderissues/pdf/acre-wi-final.pdf, July 2008)
  3. Abrahams MV, Sutterlin A (1999) The foraging and antipredator behavior of growth-enhanced transgenic Atlantic salmon. Animal Behaviour 58:933–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. @ltweb: The global clearinghouse for information on alternatives on animal testing (http://altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/humane_exp/het-toc.htm, July 2008)
  5. Bayerische Rück (ed) (1993) Risiko ist ein Konstrukt. Knesebeck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2002) Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed) Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Brambell committee (1965) Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Command Report 2836, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Broom D (1996) Animal welfare defined in terms of attempts to cope with the environment. Acta Agric Scand, Sect A Animal Sci (Suppl 27):22–28Google Scholar
  9. Clarke SG, Simpson E (eds) (1989) Anti-Theory in Ethics and Moral Conservatism. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  10. Chadwick R (1989) Playing God. Cogito 3:189–193Google Scholar
  11. Comstock G (2002) Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods. In: Ruse M, Castle D (eds) Genetically Modified Foods. Debating Biotechnology. Prometheus Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooke RM (1991) Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. CEC (2007) Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-general for Research, EC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. Darwall S, Gibbard A, Railton P (eds) (1997) Moral Discourse and Practice. Oxford University Press, New York, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. De Melo-Martin I, Meghani Z (2008) Beyond risk. European Molecular Biology Organization reports vol 9(4):302–306Google Scholar
  16. Duncan, IJH (1996) Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agric Scand, Anim Sci Suppl 27:29–35Google Scholar
  17. Devlin RH, Yesaki TY, Donaldson EM, Hew C-L (1995) Transmission and phenotypic effects of an antifreeze/GH gene construct in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Aquaculture 137:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Devlin RH, Johnsson JI, Smailus DE, Biagi CA, Jönsson EB, Björnsson BT (1999) Increased ability to compete for food by growth hormone-transgenic coho salmon Oncoryhnchus kisutch (Walbaum). Aqua Res 30:479–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Group on Ethics of science and new technologies (EGE) (2008) Ethical aspectsofanimalcloningforfoodsupply. TheEuropeanGroupofEthicsinScienceand New Technologies to the European Commission. Opinion no 23. 16th January 2008 (http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/activities/docs/opinion23_en.pdf, July 2008)
  20. Enviropig™ 1 (http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/, July 2008)
  21. Enviropig™ 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviropig, July 2008)
  22. Eurobarometer (2005) Social Values, Science and technology. June 2005. Brussels (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf, July 2008)
  23. FAO/WHO Report (2004) Expert Consultation on Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Animals including Fish. November 2003 (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y5316E/y5316E00.pdf, July 2008)Google Scholar
  24. Farrell AP, Bennet W, Devlin RH (1997) Growth-enhanced transgenic salmon can be inferior swimmers. Can J Zool 75:335–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fjelland R (2002) Facing the Problem of Uncertainty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15(2):155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forsberg E-M (2007) A Deliberative Ethical Matrix Method – Justification of Moral Advice on Genetic Engineering in Food Production. Dr.art. dissertation. Faculty of Humanities, University of OsloGoogle Scholar
  27. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Theory and decision library. Series A. Philosophy and methodology of the social sciences (vol 15) Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  28. Gaskell G, Allum N, Stares S (2003) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002 (www.europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/ebs_177_en.pdf, July 2008)Google Scholar
  29. Grove-White R, MacNaghten P, Wynne B (2000) Wising up: the public and new technologies. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change. Lancaster UniversityGoogle Scholar
  30. Hedrick PW (2001) Invasion of transgenes from salmon or other genetically modified organisms into natural populations. Can J Fish Aquatic Sci 58:841–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Häyry M, Häyry H (1989) Genetic Engineering. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (vol 2):407–417Google Scholar
  32. Hviid Nielsen T (1997) Behind the color code of ‘no’. Nature Biotechnology 15:1320–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Joas, H (2000) The Genesis of Values. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaiser M (2003) Ethical issues surrounding the gm-animals/gm-fish production. Expert paper for the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Animals including Fish 2003 (http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/food/risk_biotech_animal_en.stm, July 2008)
  35. Kaiser M (2004) Xenotransplantation – Ethical Considerations based on Human and Societal Perspectives. In: Farstad W, Andresen Ø, Nyberg O, Christensen B (eds) Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. Proceedings of the 16th Internordic Symposium of the Nordic Committee for Veterinary Scientific Cooperation on Animal Organs to Save Human Lives. Suppl 99, pp 65–73Google Scholar
  36. Kaiser M (2005) Assessing ethics and animal welfare in animal biotechnology for farm production. OiE. Scientific and Technical Review of the World Organisation for Animal Health, Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz 24(1):75–87Google Scholar
  37. Kaiser M (2006) Practical ethics in search of a toolbox: Ethics of science and technology at the crossroads. In: Gunning J, Holm S (eds) (2006) Ethics, Law and Society. Vol II. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Cardiff, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  38. Kaiser M, Millar K, Thorstensen E, Tomkins S (2007) Developing the ethical matrix as a decision support framework: GM fish as a case study. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20:65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krayer von Krauss MP, Kaiser M, Almaas V, van der Sluijs J, Kloprogge P (2008) Diagnosing and prioritizing uncertainties according to their relevance for policy: The case of transgene silencing. Science of the Total Environment 390:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Latour B (1987) Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. Lemons J (ed) (1996) Scientific Uncertainty and environmental problem solving. Blackwell Science Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  42. McLean E, Devlin RH, Byatt JC, Clarke WC, Donaldson EM (1997) Impact of a controlled release formulation of recombinant growth hormone upon growth and seawater adaptation in coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and chinook (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) salmon. Aquaculture 156:113–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mepham B (1996) Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies: An evaluative framework. In: Mepham B (ed) Food Ethics. Routlede, London, pp 101–119Google Scholar
  44. Muir WM, Howard RD (2001) Fitness component and ecological risk of transgenic release; A model using Japanese medaka (Oryzius latipes). American Nature 159:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Muir WM, Howard RD (2002) Assessment of possible ecological risks and hazards of transgenic fish with implications for other sexually reproductive organisms. Transgenic Res 11:101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ostenfeld TH, McLean E, Devlin RH (1998) Transgenesis changes body and head shape in Pacific salmon. J Fish Biol 52:850–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2003) Future fish: issues in science and regulation of transgenic fish. Washington, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (http://pewagbiotech.org/research/fish/fish.pdf, July 2008)Google Scholar
  48. Pojman LP (ed) (2001) Environmental Ethics. Readings in theory and application. Wadsworth, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  49. Royal Society of Canada (2001) Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada. The Ottawa, Ontario Canada (http://www.rsc.ca//files/publications/expert_panels/foodbiotechnology/ GMreportEN.pdf, July 2008)Google Scholar
  50. Russell WMS, Burch RL, Hume CW (1992) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. New edition (original 1959). Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW)Google Scholar
  51. Sanvido O, Romeis J, Bigler F (2007) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Adv Biochem Engin/Biotechnol 107:235–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sen A (1987) On Ethics & Economics. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Shrader-Frechette KS (1991) Environmental Ethics. 2nd ed. The Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
  54. van Asselt MBA (2000) Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Dordrecht, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. van der Sluijs JP (2007) Uncertainty and Precaution in Environmental Management: Insights from the UPEM conference. Environmental Modelling and Software 22(5):590–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. von Schomberg R (2007) From the Ethics of Technology towards an Ethics of Knowledge Policy and Knowledge Assessment. A working document from the European Commission Services, January 2007 (http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/ethicsofknowledgepolicy_ en.pdf, July 2008)
  57. UNESCO/COMEST (2005) The Precautionary Principle. A report of an ad hoc working group, endorsed by COMEST/UNESCO April 2005. UNESCO, Paris (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf, July 2008)Google Scholar
  58. Vetenskapsrådet (2008) Public Opinion in Sweden on the Use of Animals in Research, Vetenskapsrådets Rapportserie 8:2008, Stockholm (http://www.v-a.se/downloads/rapport-8-2008.pdf, July 2008)
  59. Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, Van der Sluijs JP, van Asselt MBA, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining Uncertainty. A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support. Integrated Assessment. Vol. 4(1) Vancouver, 5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Xenodiaries. Diaries of despair: The secret history of pig-to-primate organ transplants (http://www.xenodiaries.org/summary.htm, July 2008)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Kaiser

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations