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

Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society book series (YNTS, volume 3)

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Appleby, M.C. 1999. What should we do about animal welfare? Oxford: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
  2. Balzer, P., K.P. Rippe, and P. Schaber. 2000. Two concepts of dignity for humans and non-human organisms in the context of genetic engineering. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 13: 7–27.Google Scholar
  3. Bovenkirk, B., F.W.A. Brom, and B.J. van den Bergh. 2001. Brave new birds: The use of integrity in animal ethics. The Hastings Center Report 32(1): 16–22. doi:10.2307/3528292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brambell, F.W. 1969. Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  5. Colwell, R.K. 1989. Natural and unnatural history: Biological diversity and genetic engineering. In Scientists and their responsibilities, ed. W.R. Shea and B. Sitter, 1–40. Canton: Watson Publishing International.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, K. 1996. The ethics of genetic engineering and the futuristic fate of domestic fowl. United Poultry Concerns Website. Available at http://www.upc-online.org/genetic. html. Accessed 13 Jan 2006.Google Scholar
  7. de Vries, R. 2006. Genetic engineering and the integrity of animals. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 19: 469–493. doi:10.1007/ DOI:dx.doi.org s10806-006-9004-y DOI:dx.doi.org.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edelman, P.D., D.C. McFarland, V.A. Mironov, and J.G. Matheny. 2005. In vitro-cultured meat production. Tissue Engineering 11: 659–662. doi:10.1089/ten.2005.11.659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fox, M.W. 1990. Transgenic animals: Ethical and animal welfare concerns. In The bio-revolution: Cornucopia or Pandora’s box, ed. P. Wheale and P. McNally, 31–54. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  10. Gifford, F. 2002. Biotechnology. In Life science ethics, ed. G. Comstock, 191–224. Ames: Iowa State Press.Google Scholar
  11. Heeger, R. 2000. Genetic engineering and the dignity of creatures. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 13: 43–51.Google Scholar
  12. Holland, A. 1995. Artificial lives: Philosophical dimensions of farm animal biotechnology. In Issues in agricultural bioethics, ed. T.B. Mepham, G.A. Tucker, and J. Wiseman, 293–306. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  13. Kass, L. 1997. The wisdom of repugnance. The New Republic 216: 17–26. June 2.Google Scholar
  14. Kastenbaum, D. 2001. Analysis: Debate over genetically altered fish and meat. Morning Edition (December 4, 2001). Transcript available online at http://www.npr.org. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1134248. Accessed 25 June 2008.
  15. Lin, P., and F. Allhoff. 2007. Nanoscience and nanoethics: Defining the disciplines. In Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology, ed. F. Allhoff, P. Lin, J. Moor, and J. Weckert, 3–16. Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  16. Mauron, A. 1989. Ethics and the ordinary molecular biologist. In Scientists and their responsibilities, ed. W.R. Shea and B. Sitter, 249–265. Canton: Watson Publishing International.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Midgley, M. 2000. Biotechnology and monstrosity. Hastings Center Report 30(5): 7–15. doi:10.2307/3527881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ortiz, S.E.G. 2004. Beyond welfare: Animal integrity, animal dignity and genetic engineering. Ethics and the Environment 9: 94–120. doi:10.2979/ETE.2004.9.1.94.Google Scholar
  20. Regan, T. 1983. The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Regan, T. 1995. Are zoos morally defensible? In Ethics on the ark, ed. B.G. Norton, M. Hutchins, E.F. Stevens, and T. Maple, 38–51. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
  22. Regan, T. 2003. Animal rights, human wrongs: An introduction to moral philosophy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  23. Rollin, B. 1986. The Frankenstein thing. In Genetic engineering of animals: An agricultural perspective, ed. J.W. Evans and A. Hollaender, 285–298. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rollin, B. 1995. The Frankenstein syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rollin, B. 1998. On telos and genetic engineering. In Animal biotechnology and ethics, ed. A. Holland and A. Johnson, 156–187. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rollin, B. 2006. Science and ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rutgers, B., and R. Heeger. 1999. Inherent worth and respect for animal integrity. In Recognizing the intrinsic value of nature, ed. M. Dol, M. Fentener van Vlissingen, S. Kasanmoentalib, T. Visser, and H. Zwart, 41–53. Assen: Van Corcum.Google Scholar
  28. Sandøe, P., N. Holtung, and H.B. Simonsen. 1996. Ethical limits to domestication. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 9: 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sandøe, P.B., L. Nielsen, L.G. Christensen, and P. Sørensen. 1999. Staying good while playing God—The ethics of breeding farm animals. Animal Welfare 8: 313–328.Google Scholar
  30. Sapontzis, S.F. 1991. We should not manipulate the genome of domestic hogs. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 4: 177–185. doi:10.1007/BF01980315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Savory, C.J. 1995. Feather pecking and cannibalism. World’s Poultry Science Journal 51: 215–219. doi:10.1079/WPS19950016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singer, P. 1975. Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  33. Singer, P. 2002. Animal liberation, revisedth ed. New York: Harper- Collins.Google Scholar
  34. Tausin, R. 2002. Furnished cages and aviaries: Production and health. World’s Poultry Science Journal 58: 49–63. doi:10.1079/ DOI:dx.doi.org WPS20020007 DOI:dx.doi.org.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thompson, P.B. 1997. Ethics and the genetic engineering of food animals. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 10: 1–23. doi:10.1023/ DOI:dx.doi.org A:1007758700818 DOI:dx.doi.org.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2006. ARS Project: Identification and manipulation of genetic factors to enhance disease resistance in cattle. Available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm? ACCN_NO=405817&showpars=true&fy=2003. Accessed 13 Jan 2006. Page last modified 12 Jan 2006.Google Scholar
  37. Varner, G. 1990. Biological functions and biological interests. Southern Journal of Philosophy 27: 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warkentin, T. 2006. Dis/integrating animals: Ethical dimensions of the genetic engineering of animals for human consumption. AI & Society 20: 82–102. doi:10.1007/s00146-005- DOI:dx.doi.org0009-2 DOI:dx.doi.org.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations