Literature DB >> 15672839

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

Lucy Carter1.   

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).

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Genetics and Reproduction; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15672839     DOI: 10.1007/s11248-004-2835-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transgenic Res        ISSN: 0962-8819            Impact factor:   2.788


  5 in total

1.  Beyond 'substantial equivalence'.

Authors:  E Millstone; E Brunner; S Mayer
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999-10-07       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 2.  Xenotransplantation and public health: identifying the legal issues.

Authors:  P S Florencio; T Caulfield
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug

3.  Xenotransplantation: consent, public health and charter issues.

Authors:  T A Caulfield; G B Robertson
Journal:  Med Law Int       Date:  2001

4.  Naturalness and the genetic modification of animals.

Authors:  Henk Verhoog
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 19.536

5.  The ethics of germ line gene manipulation--a five dimensional debate.

Authors:  Lucy Carter
Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev       Date:  2002-10
  5 in total
  1 in total

1.  Should we enhance animals?

Authors:  S Chan
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.903

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.