Genome Editing in Livestock, Complicity, and the Technological Fix Objection.

IF 2.2 4区 哲学 Q2 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-05-11 DOI:10.1007/s10806-021-09858-z
Katrien Devolder
{"title":"Genome Editing in Livestock, Complicity, and the Technological Fix Objection.","authors":"Katrien Devolder","doi":"10.1007/s10806-021-09858-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50258,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","volume":"34 3","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10806-021-09858-z","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-021-09858-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
家畜基因组编辑,共谋,和技术修复反对。
牲畜基因组编辑可能有助于解决与牲畜有关的一些最紧迫和最严重的全球问题,包括动物的痛苦、污染、抗菌素耐药性和传染病的传播。但是,尽管有这种潜力,一些人可能会反对追求它,不是因为基因组编辑本身是错误的,而是因为它对它所解决的问题是一种错误的解决方案:它只是对一个复杂的社会问题的“技术修复”。然而,尽管这种反对意见可能具有广泛的直觉吸引力,但通常并不清楚道德问题究竟应该是什么。本文的目的是阐述和阐明对牲畜基因组编辑的“技术修复异议”。我认为,可能存在以下三种担忧,对这些担忧做出明确的隐含假设,并对其中的一些假设提出一些怀疑,至少当它们适用于使用基因组编辑来生产对猪繁殖和呼吸综合征(猪繁殖和呼吸综合征)具有抗性的猪和无角奶牛时。然后,我建议第三个,也是最重要的一个担忧,可以被框定为对工厂化养殖的共谋的担忧。我提出了一些方法来评估这种担忧,并减少或抵消工厂化养殖中的任何共谋。从共谋的角度考虑基因组编辑对工厂化养殖的贡献,我建议,可以更明确、更强烈地将其与追求它所带来的更广泛的义务联系起来,包括停止工厂化养殖,从而解决技术修复只关注一个狭隘问题的担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics welcomes articles on ethical issues confronting agriculture, food production and environmental concerns. The goal of this journal is to create a forum for discussion of moral issues arising from actual or projected social policies in regard to a wide range of questions. Among these are ethical questions concerning the responsibilities of agricultural producers, the assessment of technological changes affecting farm populations, the utilization of farmland and other resources, the deployment of intensive agriculture, the modification of ecosystems, animal welfare, the professional responsibilities of agrologists, veterinarians, or food scientists, the use of biotechnology, the safety, availability, and affordability of food.
期刊最新文献
Societal Acceptability of Insect-Based Livestock Feed: A Qualitative Study from Europe A Kantian Approach to the Moral Considerability of Non-human Nature Right to Food Politically Branding India’s “First Fully Organic State”: Re-Signification of Traditional Practices and Markets in Organic Agriculture Strategies for Increasing Participation of Diverse Consumers in a Community Seafood Program
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1