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:
197 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 197
  1. Eli Y. Adashi & I. Glenn Cohen (2015). Editing the Genome of the Human Germline: May Cool Heads Prevail. American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):40-42.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. Jonny Anomaly (forthcoming). Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection. In Gregg Caruso (ed.), Handbook of Philosophy and Public Policy. Palgrave MacMillan
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Rev Nicanor Austriaco (2001). Genetic Engineering, Post-Genomic Ethics, and the Catholic Tradition. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 1 (4):497-506.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Harold W. Baillie, William A. Galston, Sara Goering, Deborah Hellman, Mark Sagoff, Paul B. Thompson, Robert Wachbroit, David T. Wasserman & Richard M. Zaner (2003). Genetic Prospects: Essays on Biotechnology, Ethics, and Public Policy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    The essays in this volume apply philosophical analysis to address three kinds of questions: What are the implications of genetic science for our understanding of nature? What might it influence in our conception of human nature? What challenges does genetic science pose for specific issues of private conduct or public policy?
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  8. L. A. Baines, W. Carpenter & G. Stanley (2000). Genetic Engineering: The Standardization of Teacher Education. Journal of Thought 35 (2):35-44.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Brian Balmer (1999). Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering, by Michael J. Reiss and Roger Straughan; Birth to Death: Science and Bioethics, Edited by David C. Thomasma and Thomasine Kushner. [REVIEW] Minerva 37 (1):95-97.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  11. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Joshua Blackburn (2010). Professor Andrew Garnar Philosophy 326 9 December 2010 Genetically Engineered Crops: For the Better or Worse? Philosophy 326:9.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Robert Blank (1981). Genetic Engineering and Contemporary Democratic Theory. World Futures 18 (3):239-267.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Gernot Böhme (2008). Ethik Leiblicher Existenz: Über Unseren Moralischen Umgang Mit der Eigenen Natur. Suhrkamp.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  16. Ingrid Brena Sesma (ed.) (2007). Panorama Internacional En Salud y Derecho: Culturas y Sistemas Jurídicos Comparados. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Frans W. A. Brom (2000). The Good Life of Creatures with Dignity Some Comments on the Swiss Expert Opinion. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (1):53-63.
    The notion of Dignity of Creatures has been voted into the Swiss Federal Constitution by a plebiscite. Philipp Balzer, Klaus-Peter Rippe, and Peter Schaber have given an expert opinion for the Swiss government to clarify the notion of Dignity of Creatures. According to them, by voting this notion into the Swiss constitution, the Swiss have chosen for a limited biocentric approach towards biotechnology. In such an approach genetic engineering of non-human beings is only allowed insofar that their own good is (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18. Richard Geoffrey Brown (1989). The Image of God: Theological Ethics for Human Creative Genetic Engineering. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
    The dissertation deals with the protestant doctrine of the Imago Dei as espoused by Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich. The dissertation seeks to answer the question whether or not there will be an harmonious ethical approach arising from their diverse formulations of the Imaqo Dei from which to address human creative genetic engineering, or more specifically, the scientific likelihood of the chimera and the specialized human mutant. ;The opening two chapters are spent in establishing the legitimacy of this (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Allen E. Buchanan, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels & Daniel Wikler (2000). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge University Press.
    This book, written by four internationally renowned bioethicists and first published in 2000, was the first systematic treatment of the fundamental ethical issues underlying the application of genetic technologies to human beings. Probing the implications of the remarkable advances in genetics, the authors ask how should these affect our understanding of distributive justice, equality of opportunity, the rights and obligations as parents, the meaning of disability, and the role of the concept of human nature in ethical theory and practice. The (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   89 citations  
  21. Glenn Bugos (1996). Molecular Politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972–1982. [REVIEW] British Journal for the History of Science 29 (1):118-119.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  23. Derek Burke (forthcoming). Genetic Engineering of Food. Christians and Bioethics.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Jeremy Caddick (1999). Essay Reviews-Genetic Engineering and Ethical Arithmetic. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 30 (4):545.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Claude Calame (2005). From the Civiliation of Prometheus to Genetic Engineering: The Role of Technology and the Uses of Metaphor. Arion 13 (2).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. A. Caplan (forthcoming). A Dark Side of Glowing Fish? More Oversight of Genetic Engineering Needed. Bioethics on Msnbc.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Carlos María Romeo Casabona (1999). Biotechnology, Law and Bioethics Comparative Perspectives.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Esther Casanueva, Ruben Lisker, Alessandra Carnevale & Elisa Alonso (1998). Opinions of Mexican Physicians on the Use of Genetic Engineering. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 8 (1):6-9.
    The purpose of this paper is to explore and compare the opinion on matters related to genetic engineering among Mexican physicians with different specialties. Physicians from four of Mexico City's National Health Institutes were selected for the study. The following specialties were sampled: internists ; pediatricians ; gynecologists and obstetricians and neurologists . The questionnaires designed by Macer were used. Even when 8 out of 10 physicians questioned responded they were interested or very interested in science, their knowledge on science (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Liebe F. Cavalieri (1981). The Double-Edged Helix: Genetic Engineering in the Real World. Praeger.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. 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 & Ethics 26 (1):38-47.
  33. 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Marilyn E. Coors (2006). Considering Chimeras: The Confluence of Genetic Engineering and Ethics. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 6 (1):75-87.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Stéphane Courtois (2006). Genetic Engineering, Moral Autonomy, and Equal Treatment. The Monist 89 (4):442-465.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Yvonne M. Cripps (1980). Controlling Technology: Genetic Engineering and the Law. Praeger.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. John Danaher (2016). Human Enhancement, Social Solidarity and the Distribution of Responsibility. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (2):359-378.
    This paper tries to clarify, strengthen and respond to two prominent objections to the development and use of human enhancement technologies. Both objections express concerns about the link between enhancement and the drive for hyperagency. The first derives from the work of Sandel and Hauskeller—and is concerned with the negative impact of hyperagency on social solidarity. In responding to their objection, I argue that although social solidarity is valuable, there is a danger in overestimating its value and in neglecting some (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Inmaculada de Melo-Martin (forthcoming). When the Milk of Human Kindness Becomes a Luxury (and Untested) Good. A Reply to Harris’ Unconditional Embrace of Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.
    A new reprogenetic technology, mitochondrial replacement, is making its appearance and, unsurprisingly given its promise to wash off our earthly stains --or at least the scourges of sexual reproduction--, John Harris finds only reasons to celebrate this new scientific feat.1 In fact, he finds mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) so “unreservedly welcome” that he believes those who reject them suffer from “a large degree of desperation and not a little callousness.”2 Believing myself to be neither desperate nor callous, but finding myself (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. 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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42. Inmaculada de Melo-Martín (2004). On Our Obligation to Select the Best Children: A Reply to Savulescu. Bioethics 18 (1):72–83.
  43. Castaño de Restrepo, María Patricia, Romeo Casabona & Carlos María (eds.) (2004). Derecho, Genoma Humano y Biotecnología. Temis.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  45. 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 (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47. R. DiSilvestro (2012). Three Christian Arguments Against Germline Engineering. Christian Bioethics 18 (2):201-218.
    Are there any specifically Christian grounds for prohibiting, in principle, human germline engineering? In addressing this question, I deliberately limit my investigation in scope (by focusing narrowly on germline engineering itself) and in perspective (by focusing narrowly on the direct and often distinctive contributions of Christian theology). The three arguments I consider for the conclusion that germline engineering is morally prohibited are the argument from playing God, the argument from self-defeat, and the argument from genetic prevention.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Andrew Dobson (1997). Genetic Engineering and Environmental Ethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (2):205-.
    When God gave humankind dominion over the earth he may not have known exactly what we would be able to do with it. The technical capacities to which the production and reproduction of our everyday life have given rise have grown at an astonishing and, it seems, ever-increasing rate. The instruments that we use to do work on the world have become sharper and more refined, and the implications of human interventions in the nonhuman environment are much more far-reaching than (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  49. Andrew Dobson (1995). Biocentrism and Genetic Engineering. Environmental Values 4 (3):227-239.
    I consider the contribution that a biocentric perspective might make to the ethical debate concerning the practice of genetic engineering. I claim that genetic engineering itself raises novel ethical questions, and particularly so when confronted with biocentric sensibilities. I outline the nature of these questions and describe the biocentric basis for them. I suggest that fundamentalist opposition to projects of genetic engineering is unhelpful, but that biocentric claims should now be a feature of ethical consideration. I conclude, though, that while (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  50. Scott Eastham (2003). Biotech Time-Bomb: How Genetic Engineering Could Irreversibly Change Our World. Rsvp Pub..
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 197