Literature DB >> 24496650

Telos, conservation of welfare, and ethical issues in genetic engineering of animals.

Bernard E Rollin1.   

Abstract

The most long-lived metaphysics or view of reality in the history of Western thought is Aristotle's teleology, which reigned for almost 2,000 years. Biology was expressed in terms of function or telos, and accorded perfectly with common sense. The rise of mechanistic, Newtonian science vanquished teleological explanations. Understanding and accommodating animal telos was essential to success in animal husbandry, which involved respect for telos, and was presuppositional to our "ancient contract" with domestic animals. Telos was further abandoned with the rise of industrial agriculture, which utilized "technological fixes" to force animal into environments they were unsuited for, while continuing to be productive. Loss of husbandry and respect for telos created major issues for farm animal welfare, and forced the creation of a new ethic demanding respect for telos. As genetic engineering developed, the notion arose of modifying animals to fit their environment in order to avoid animal suffering, rather than fitting them into congenial environments. Most people do not favor changing the animals, rather than changing the conditions under which they are reared. Aesthetic appreciation of husbandry and virtue ethics militate in favor of restoring husbandry, rather than radically changing animal teloi. One, however, does not morally wrong teloi by changing them-one can only wrong individuals. In biomedical research, we do indeed inflict major pain, suffering and disease on animals. And genetic engineering seems to augment our ability to create animals to model diseases, particularly more than 3,000 known human genetic diseases. The disease, known as Lesch-Nyhan's syndrome or HPRT deficiency, which causes self-mutilation and mental retardation, provides us with a real possibility for genetically creating "animal models" of this disease, animals doomed to a life of great and unalleviable suffering. This of course creates a major moral dilemma. Perhaps one can use the very genetic engineering which creates this dilemma to ablate consciousness in such animal models, thereby escaping a moral impasse.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 24496650     DOI: 10.1007/7854_2014_279

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Top Behav Neurosci        ISSN: 1866-3370


  3 in total

1.  Consideration and checkboxes: incorporating ethics and science into the 3Rs.

Authors:  Margaret S Landi; Adam J Shriver; Anne Mueller
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.232

2.  The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature.

Authors:  Nienke de Graeff; Karin R Jongsma; Josephine Johnston; Sarah Hartley; Annelien L Bredenoord
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  A meta-analysis on the effect of environmental enrichment on feather pecking and feather damage in laying hens.

Authors:  Nienke van Staaveren; Jennifer Ellis; Christine F Baes; Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 3.352

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.