About this topic
Summary This category is about the possibility of altering the characteristics of non human animals and plants through genetic engineering. Among those who believe that genetic engineering is wrong, some regard genetic engineering to be wrong per se and some focus on its consequences. If it is wrong per se, it might be because (1) it violates the rights of animals, (2) it fails to accord to animals the respect that is their due, (3) it is unnatural, i.e. it violates the "telos" of animals. 
Key works Rollin 1995 rejects genetic engineering based on consequentialist considerations. Rifkin 1985, Fox 1990, Fox 1992, and Dobson 1995 argue, from a biocentric perspective, that genetic engineering is wrong per se.
Introductions Burgess & Walsh 1998
  Show all references
Related categories
Siblings:See also:
102 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 102
  1. Marko Ahteensuu (2012). Assumptions of the Deficit Model Type of Thinking: Ignorance, Attitudes, and Science Communication in the Debate on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):295-313.
    This paper spells out and discusses four assumptions of the deficit model type of thinking. The assumptions are: First, the public is ignorant of science. Second, the public has negative attitudes towards (specific instances of) science and technology. Third, ignorance is at the root of these negative attitudes. Fourth, the public’s knowledge deficit can be remedied by one-way science communication from scientists to citizens. It is argued that there is nothing wrong with ignorance-based explanations per se. Ignorance accounts at least (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Fatima Agha Al-Hayani (2007). Biomedical Ethics: Muslim Perspectives on Genetic Modification. Zygon 42 (1):153-162.
    Technology pertaining to genetically modified foods has created an abundance of food and various methods to protect new products and enhance productivity. However, many scientists, economists, and humanitarians have been critical of the application of these discoveries. They are apprehensive about a profit-driven mentality that, to them, seems to propel the innovators rather than a poverty-elimination mentality that should be behind such innovations. The objectives should be to afford the most benefit to those in need and to prevent hunger around (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Eric Baack & Loren Rieseberg (2006). The Hope, Hype and Reality of Genetic Engineering: Remarkable Stories From Agriculture, Industry, Medicine, and the Environment (Review). Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 49 (1):150-152.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Philipp Balzer, Klaus Peter Rippe & Peter Schaber (2000). Two Concepts of Dignity for Humans and Non-Human Organisms in the Context of Genetic Engineering. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (1):7-27.
    The 1992 incorporation of an article by referendum in the SwissConstitution mandating that the federal government issue regulations onthe use of genetic material that take into account the dignity ofnonhuman organism raises philosophical questions about how we shouldunderstand what is meant by ``the dignity of nonhuman animals,'' andabout what sort of moral demands arise from recognizing this dignitywith respect to their genetic engineering. The first step in determiningwhat is meant is to clarify the difference between dignity when appliedto humans and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Lynda Birke (2006). Meddling with Medusa: On Genetic Manipulation, Art and Animals. [REVIEW] AI and Society 20 (1):103-117.
    Turning animals into art through genetic manipulation poses many questions for how we think about our relationship with other species. Here, I explore three rather disparate sets of issues. First, I ask to what extent the production of such living “artforms” really is as transgressive as advocates claim. Whether or not it counts as radical in terms of art I cannot say: but it is not at all radical, I argue, in terms of how we think about our human place (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Russell Blackford (2006). Dr. Frankenstein Meets Lord Devlin: Genetic Engineering and the Principle of Intangible Harm. The Monist 89 (4):526-547.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Robert Blank (1981). Genetic Engineering and Contemporary Democratic Theory. World Futures 18 (3):239-267.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Eva M. Buccioni (1998). Michael J. Reiss and Roger Straughan, Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 11 (1):49-55.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. J. A. Burgess & Adrian Walsh (1998). Is Genetic Engineering Wrong, Per Se? Journal of Value Inquiry 32 (3):393-406.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Daniel Callahan (1981). Arguing the Morality of Genetic Engineering. In Marc D. Hiller (ed.), Medical Ethics and the Law: Implications for Public Policy. Ballinger Pub. Co..
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Liebe F. Cavalieri (1981/1985). The Double-Edged Helix: Genetic Engineering in the Real World. Praeger.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. T. Chappell (1997). Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering. [REVIEW] Journal of Medical Ethics 23 (5):329-331.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Larry R. Churchill, Myra L. Collins, Nancy M. R. King, Stephen G. Pemberton & Keith A. Wailoo (1998). Genetic Research as Therapy: Implications of "Gene Therapy" for Informed Consent. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 26 (1):38-47.
  14. Lucas Alexander Haley Commons-Miller, Michael Lamport Commons & Geoffrey David Commons (2008). Genetic Engineering and the Speciation of Superions From Humans. World Futures 64 (5 - 7):436 – 443.
    Using ideas from evolution and postformal stages of hierarchical complexity, a hypothetical scenario, premised on genetic engineering advances, portrays the development of a new humanoid species, Superions. How would Superions impact and treat current humans? If the Superion scenario came to pass, it would be the ultimate genocidal terrorism of eliminating an entire species, Homo Sapiens. We speculate about defenses Homo Sapiens might mount. The tasks to relate two species (systems) constitutes a postformal, Metasystematic task. Developing a system of discourse (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Stéphane Courtois (2006). Genetic Engineering, Moral Autonomy, and Equal Treatment. The Monist 89 (4):442-465.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Yvonne M. Cripps (1980). Controlling Technology: Genetic Engineering and the Law. Praeger.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Richard Dawkins, Where Do the Real Dangers of Genetic Engineering Lie?
    To listen to some people, you'd think genetically modified foods were radioactive. But genetic engineering is not, of itself, either bad or..
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Inmaculada de Melo-Martín (2013). Sex Selection and the Procreative Liberty Framework. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23 (1):1-18.
    Although surprising to some proponents of sex selection for non-medical reasons (Dahl 2005), a considerable amount of critical debate has been raised by this practice (Blyth, Frith, and Crawshaw 2008; Dawson and Trounson 1996; Dickens 2002; Harris 2005; Heyd 2003; Holm 2004; Macklin 2010; Malpani 2002; McDougall 2005; Purdy 2007; Seavilleklein and Sherwin 2007; Steinbock 2002; Strange and Chadwick 2010; Wilkinson 2008). While abortion or infanticide has long been used as means of sex selection, a new technology—preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)—has (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Inmaculada de Melo-Martín (2008). Chimeras and Human Dignity. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (4):pp. 331-346.
    Discussions about whether new biomedical technologies threaten or violate human dignity are now common. Indeed, appeals to human dignity have played a central role in national and international debates about whether to allow particular kinds of biomedical investigations. The focus of this paper is on chimera research. I argue here that both those who claim that particular types of human-nonhuman chimera research threaten human dignity and those who argue that such threat does not exist fail to make their case. I (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Inmaculada de Melo-Martín (2004). On Our Obligation to Select the Best Children: A Reply to Savulescu. Bioethics 18 (1):72–83.
  21. Castaño de Restrepo, María Patricia, Romeo Casabona & Carlos María (eds.) (2004). Derecho, Genoma Humano y Biotecnología. Temis.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Rob De Vries (2006). Genetic Engineering and the Integrity of Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (5):469-493.
    Genetic engineering evokes a number of objections that are not directed at the negative effects the technique might have on the health and welfare of the modified animals. The concept of animal integrity is often invoked to articulate these kind of objections. Moreover, in reaction to the advent of genetic engineering, the concept has been extended from the level of the individual animal to the level of the genome and of the species. However, the concept of animal integrity was not (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Celia E. Deane-drummond (1995). Genetic Engineering for the Environment: Ethical Implications of the Biotechnology Revolution. Heythrop Journal 36 (3):307–327.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. James Delaney (2009). The Catholic Position on Germ Line Genetic Engineering. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (11):33-34.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Andrew Dobson (1997). Genetic Engineering and Environmental Ethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (2):205-.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Scott Eastham (2003). Biotech Time-Bomb: How Genetic Engineering Could Irreversibly Change Our World. Rsvp Pub..
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Ezekiel J. Emanuel (1994). Prescribing Our Future: Ethical Challenges in Genetic Counseling (Book). Ethics and Behavior 4 (1):69 – 73.
  28. H. Tristram Engelhardt (1996). Germ-Line Genetic Engineering and Moral Diversity: Moral Controversies in a Post-Christian World. Social Philosophy and Policy 13 (02):47-.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Ron Epstein, A Modest Proposal Regarding Genetic Engineering in Mendocino County.
    The new millennium will be ushered in by the biotech century. The earlier we prepare the better. In the short term, we will be affected in these main areas: medical treatment; industrial, agricultural, and forest use; and food. First, let us take a brief look at some problems with the use of genetic engineering in agriculture and in our food. Then I would like to make some simple suggestions about steps we can take to assess the situation here in Mendocino (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Ron Epstein, Genetic Engineering: A Buddhist Assessment.
    What might it be like to be a Buddhist in a future world where your life started with your parents designing your genes? In addition to screening for unwanted genetic diseases, they would have selected your genes for sex; height; eye, hair, and skin color; and, if your parents are Buddhists, maybe even for genes that allow you to sit easily in the full lotus position. Pressured by current social fads, they may also have chosen genes whose overall functions are (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Ron Epstein, Genetic Engineering: A Major Threat to Vegetarians.
    Imagine a world in which as part of their basic substances tomatoes contain fish and tobacco, potatoes contain chicken, moths and other insects, and corn contains fireflies. Is this science-fiction? No, these plant-animal hybrids already exist today and may soon be on your supermarket shelves without any special labeling to warn you. Furthermore, in a few years the types of these genetically engineered "vegetables" are sure to increase and may very possibly also include human genes. If you are a vegetarian, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Ron Epstein, Ethical and Spiritual Issues in Genetic Engineering.
    The choices I will be talking about have to do with biotechnology and genetic engineering, choices which we are currently not making consciously because we really don't know what is going on. I would like to tell you what is going on in these areas, and then talk about how we might approach this matter in ethical ways.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Ron Epstein, Ethical Dangers of Genetic Engineering.
    From the very first milk you suckle, your food is genetically engineered. The natural world is completely made over, invaded and distorted beyond recognition by genetically engineered trees, plants, animals, insects, bacteria, and viruses, both planned and run amok. Illnesses are very different too. Most of the old ones are gone or mutated into new forms, yet most people are suffering from genetically engineered pathogens, either used in biowarfare, or mistakenly released into the environment, or recombined in toxic form from (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Yiftach J. H. Fehige (2009). The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. [REVIEW] American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (4):636-639.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. K. T. Fitzgerald (2002). Knowledge Without Wisdom: Human Genetic Engineering Without Religious Insight. Christian Bioethics 8 (2):147-162.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. K. T. Fitzgerald (2002). Knowledge Without Wisdom: Human Genetic Engineering Without Religious Insight. Christian Bioethics 8 (2):147-162.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Joseph F. Fletcher (1974). The Ethics of Genetic Control: Ending Reproductive Roulette. Garden City, N.Y.,Anchor Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. F. A. Flinter (1992). The Ethical Problems of Genetic Engineering of Human Beings. Journal of Medical Ethics 18 (4):221-221.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Birgitta Forsman (1995). The Treatment of Ethics in a Swedish Government Commission on Gene Technology. The Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg, Centre for Research Ethics.
  40. Michael Fox (1990). Transgenic Animals: Ethical and Animal Welfare Concerns. In Peter Wheale & Athene Trust (eds.), The Bio-revolution: cornucopia or Pandora's box? Pluto Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Michael W. Fox (1992). Superpigs and Wondercorn: The Brave New World of Biotechnology and Where It All May Lead. Lyons & Burford.
    Michael W. Fox, the respected Vice President of the Humane Society of the United States, here looks at the biogenetic controversy and draws some troubling conclusions. Biogenetic research is capable of producing new life forms whose effects may alter the intricate balance of Nature in ways no one can foretell. "Superpigs" that grow larger than any pig before, cows that breed on an accelerated cycle, "new" vegetables, tomatoes that won't freeze - such new life forms can now be patented, making (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Benjamin Freedman (1980). Leviticus and DNA: A Very Old Look at a Very New Problem. Journal of Religious Ethics 8 (1):105 - 113.
    This paper is an attempt to achieve a moral understanding of recombinant DNA technology through an examination of the Biblical ban on the cross-breeding of species, as that ban was understood by traditional Jewish commentators. By paying close attention to the concept of natural law which some of those commentators employed in this connection, a nuanced response to the modern moral problem can be developed, which is immune to the standard arguments employed against those who rely upon natural law.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Jeanne Salmon Freeman (1996). Arguing Along the Slippery Slope of Human Embryo Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (1):61-81.
    One frequent argument in the debate over federal funding of human embryo research is the slippery slope argument. Slope arguments can be of several types: either logical, empirical, or full (a combination of logical and empirical slope arguments, with an additional psychological premise). A full slope argument against human embryo research suggests that funding embryo reseach could undermine current protections for human subjects research, erode respect for persons with disabilities, and encourage eugenics practices. While the Panel commissioned by the National (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Sara Elizabeth Gavrell Ortiz (2004). Beyond Welfare: Animal Integrity, Animal Dignity, and Genetic Engineering. Ethics and the Environment 9 (1):94-120.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Martin Gunderson (2007). Seeking Perfection: A Kantian Look at Human Genetic Engineering. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (2):87-102.
    It is tempting to argue that Kantian moral philosophy justifies prohibiting both human germ-line genetic engineering and non-therapeutic genetic engineering because they fail to respect human dignity. There are, however, good reasons for resisting this temptation. In fact, Kant’s moral philosophy provides reasons that support genetic engineering—even germ-line and non-therapeutic. This is true of Kant’s imperfect duties to seek one’s own perfection and the happiness of others. It is also true of the categorical imperative. Kant’s moral philosophy does, however, provide (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Amy Gutmann (2011). The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Guiding Principles for Emerging Technologies. Hastings Center Report 41 (4):17-22.
    The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues released its first report, New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies, on December 16, 2010.1 President Barack Obama had requested this report following the announcement last year that the J. Craig Venter Institute had created the world’s first self-replicating bacterial cell with a completely synthetic genome. The Venter group’s announcement marked a significant scientific milestone in synthetic biology, an emerging field of research that aims to combine the knowledge (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Lucas Haley Commons-Miller, Michael Lamport Commons & Geoffrey David Commons (2008). Genetic Engineering and the Speciation of Superions From Humans. World Futures 64 (5):436-443.
    (2008). Genetic Engineering and the Speciation of Superions from Humans. World Futures: Vol. 64, Postformal Thought and Hierarchical Complexity, pp. 436-443.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Louis Marx Hall, The Ethics of Using Genetic Engineering for Sex Selection.
    It is quite probable that one will soon be able to use genetic engineering to select the gender of one’s child by directly manipulating the sex of an embryo. Some might think that this method would be a more ethical method of sex selection than present technologies such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), since, unlike PGD, it does not need to create and destroy “wrong-gendered” embryos. This paper argues that those who object to present technologies on the ground that the (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Jessica Hammond (2010). Genetic Engineering to Avoid Genetic Neglect: From Chance to Responsibility. Bioethics 24 (4):160-169.
    Currently our assessment of whether someone is a good parent depends on the environmental inputs (or lack of such inputs) they give their children. But new genetic intervention technologies, to which we may soon have access, mean that how good a parent is will depend also on the genetic inputs they give their children. Each new piece of available technology threatens to open up another way that we can neglect our children. Our obligations to our children and our susceptibilities to (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Zaid Hamzah (2007). Biomedical Science: Law & Practice: From R & D to Market. Sweet & Maxwell Asia.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 102