Abstract
Genome editing in livestock could potentially be used in ways that help resolve some of the most urgent and serious global problems pertaining to livestock, including animal suffering, pollution, antimicrobial resistance, and the spread of infectious disease. But despite this potential, some may object to pursuing it, not because genome editing is wrong in and of itself, but because it is the wrong kind of solution to the problems it addresses: it is merely a ‘technological fix’ to a complex societal problem. Yet though this objection might have wide intuitive appeal, it is often not clear what, exactly, the moral problem is supposed to be. The aim of this paper is to formulate and shed some light on the ‘technological fix objection’ to genome editing in livestock. I suggest that three concerns may underlie it, make implicit assumptions underlying the concerns explicit, and cast some doubt on several of these assumptions, at least as they apply to the use of genome editing to produce pigs resistant to the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome and hornless dairy cattle. I then suggest that the third, and most important, concern could be framed as a concern about complicity in factory farming. I suggest ways to evaluate this concern, and to reduce or offset any complicity in factory farming. Thinking of genome editing’s contribution to factory farming in terms of complicity, may, I suggest, tie it more explicitly and strongly to the wider obligations that come with pursuing it, including the cessation of factory farming, thereby addressing the concern that technological fixes focus only on a narrow problem.
Highlights
As the world population grows and developing countries become more affluent, demand for meat, dairy and eggs is expected to increase significantly in the coming decades, especially in lower and middle-income countries (Robinson & Pozzi, 2011)
I suggest that three concerns may underlie the technological fix objection to genome editing livestock, make implicit assumptions underlying the concerns explicit, and cast some doubt on several of these assumptions, at least as they apply to the use of genome editing to produce pigs resistant to the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) and polled cattle
This concern, insofar as it applies to the use of genome editing to prevent PRRS and to painful dehorning and disbudding procedures, is grounded in at least two implicit assumptions that we should make explicit in order to evaluate it
Summary
As the world population grows and developing countries become more affluent, demand for meat, dairy and eggs is expected to increase significantly in the coming decades, especially in lower and middle-income countries (Robinson & Pozzi, 2011). This could prevent animal suffering and diminish the need for labour-intensive sorting of hatched chicks.2 It seems that genome editing in livestock could enable a win–win situation for humans and livestock and could help resolve some of the most urgent and serious global problems pertaining to livestock. On Greenpeace’s website, we can read that, GE [genetically engineered] ‘Golden’ rice does not address the underlying causes of VAD [vitamin A deficiency], which are mainly poverty and lack of access to a healthy and varied diet This GE rice is a technological fix that may generate new problems (Greenpeace Southeast Asia, 2013). An organic pig farmer expressed this concern about genome editing to prevent the spread of PRRS: If gene editing is being used for disease resistance and it is not encouraging companies to change the way they keep their pigs so they don’t get disease in the first place, it becomes a problem rather than a solution (Ghosh, 2018)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.