Animal genetic manipulation

a utilitarian response

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

I examine the process and outcomes of animal genetic manipulation ('transgenesis') with reference to its morally salient features. I consider several objections to transgenesis. I examine and reject the alleged intrinsic wrongness of 'deliberate genetic sequence alteration', as I do the notion that transgenesis may lead to human genetic manipulation. I examine the alleged wrongness of killing inherent in transgenesis, and suggest that the concept of 'replaceability' successfully justifies such killing, although not for entities deemed to possess 'personhood'. I examine 'significant suffering' associated with transgenesis and propose the radical conclusion that, although it would be wrong to prohibit animal genetic manipulation per se, utilitarians ought to support a 'default prohibition' on transgenic experiments that entail significant suffering.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)55-71
Number of pages17
JournalBioethics
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2002

Fingerprint

Gene Transfer Techniques
manipulation
animal
Psychological Stress
Personhood
Medical Genetics
Animals
Manipulation
experiment
Wrongness
Killing

Cite this

@article{030fdd873bd948eeb0cb8e60d533e949,
title = "Animal genetic manipulation: a utilitarian response",
abstract = "I examine the process and outcomes of animal genetic manipulation ('transgenesis') with reference to its morally salient features. I consider several objections to transgenesis. I examine and reject the alleged intrinsic wrongness of 'deliberate genetic sequence alteration', as I do the notion that transgenesis may lead to human genetic manipulation. I examine the alleged wrongness of killing inherent in transgenesis, and suggest that the concept of 'replaceability' successfully justifies such killing, although not for entities deemed to possess 'personhood'. I examine 'significant suffering' associated with transgenesis and propose the radical conclusion that, although it would be wrong to prohibit animal genetic manipulation per se, utilitarians ought to support a 'default prohibition' on transgenic experiments that entail significant suffering.",
author = "Smith, {Kevin R.}",
year = "2002",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1111/1467-8519.00267",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "55--71",
journal = "Bioethics",
issn = "0269-9702",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Animal genetic manipulation : a utilitarian response. / Smith, Kevin R.

In: Bioethics, Vol. 16, No. 1, 02.2002, p. 55-71.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Animal genetic manipulation

T2 - a utilitarian response

AU - Smith, Kevin R.

PY - 2002/2

Y1 - 2002/2

N2 - I examine the process and outcomes of animal genetic manipulation ('transgenesis') with reference to its morally salient features. I consider several objections to transgenesis. I examine and reject the alleged intrinsic wrongness of 'deliberate genetic sequence alteration', as I do the notion that transgenesis may lead to human genetic manipulation. I examine the alleged wrongness of killing inherent in transgenesis, and suggest that the concept of 'replaceability' successfully justifies such killing, although not for entities deemed to possess 'personhood'. I examine 'significant suffering' associated with transgenesis and propose the radical conclusion that, although it would be wrong to prohibit animal genetic manipulation per se, utilitarians ought to support a 'default prohibition' on transgenic experiments that entail significant suffering.

AB - I examine the process and outcomes of animal genetic manipulation ('transgenesis') with reference to its morally salient features. I consider several objections to transgenesis. I examine and reject the alleged intrinsic wrongness of 'deliberate genetic sequence alteration', as I do the notion that transgenesis may lead to human genetic manipulation. I examine the alleged wrongness of killing inherent in transgenesis, and suggest that the concept of 'replaceability' successfully justifies such killing, although not for entities deemed to possess 'personhood'. I examine 'significant suffering' associated with transgenesis and propose the radical conclusion that, although it would be wrong to prohibit animal genetic manipulation per se, utilitarians ought to support a 'default prohibition' on transgenic experiments that entail significant suffering.

U2 - 10.1111/1467-8519.00267

DO - 10.1111/1467-8519.00267

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 55

EP - 71

JO - Bioethics

JF - Bioethics

SN - 0269-9702

IS - 1

ER -