Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:58:55.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does a Fish Need a Bicycle? Animals and Evolution in the Age of Biotechnology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2011

SARAH CHAN  and
JOHN HARRIS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Animals, in the age of biotechnology, are the subjects of a myriad of scientific procedures, interventions, and modifications. They are created, altered, and experimented upon—often with highly beneficial outcomes for humans in terms of knowledge gained and applied, yet not without concern also for the effects upon the experimental subjects themselves: consideration of the use of animals in research remains an intensely debated topic. Concerns for animal welfare in scientific research have, however, been primarily directed at harm to and suffering of animal subjects and their prevention. Little attention has been paid to the benefits research might potentially produce for animals themselves and the interests that some animals may therefore have in the furtherance of particular avenues of science.

Type
Bioethics and Biotechnology
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 484 - 492
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For a recent examination of this subject, see Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2005Google Scholar.

2. Chan, S.Should we enhance animals? Journal of Medical Ethics 2009;35(11):678–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

3. Sen, A.The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books; 2010:20Google Scholar.

4. Australia’s “rabbit-proof fence” was constructed in the early 20th century as a way of keeping unwanted animals (rabbits) out of agricultural areas. It later appeared in the title of a book (Pilkington, D.Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press; 1996)Google Scholar and film adaptation (Rabbit-Proof Fence. Miramax Films; 2002Google Scholar) about the “Stolen Generation” of Indigenous Australians, hence becoming a symbol of racial and ethnic discrimination.

5. Fukuyama, F.Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2002Google Scholar; Harris, J.Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2007Google Scholar.

6. Harris, J.Taking the “human” out of human rights. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2011;20(1):9–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7. Inter-species embryos, A report by The Academy of Medical Sciences. London: Academy of Medical Sciences; 2007Google Scholar. John Harris acknowledges his coauthorship of this report and thanks fellow members of The Academy Working Group for many useful insights; in particular he would like to remember Peter Lipton, with whom he worked on the sections of the report quoted above and whose tragic premature death has prevented us benefiting from what would have been an important contribution to this ongoing debate.

8. To give a nonhuman analogy, the existence of mules does not decrease or compromise the dignity of horses.

9. See note 7, Inter-species embryos, p. 29.

10. See note 7, Inter-species embryos, p. 40.

11. See note 3, Chan 2009:678–83; see note 5, Harris 2007; Harris, J.Wonderwoman and Superman: The Ethics of Human Biotechnology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992Google Scholar; Chan, S.Humanity 2.0? Enhancement, evolution and the possible futures of humanity. EMBO Report 2008;9(Suppl. 1):S70–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Chan, S, Harris, J.In support of human enhancement. Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 2007;1(1):Article 10; available at: http://www.bepress.com/selt/vol1/iss1/art10Google Scholar.

12. See note 3, Chan 2009.

13. Harris, J.The Value of Life. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1985:7–27Google Scholar.

14. As declared abominable by one of the heresiarchs of Borges’ fictional world Uqbar, speaking of both mirrors and copulation! Borges, JL.Labyrinths; Selected Stories & Other Writings. Augmented, ed. New York: New Directions Publishing Corp.; 1964Google Scholar.

15. Streiffer, R.At the edge of humanity: Human stem cells, chimeras and moral status. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2005;15(4):347–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

16. See note 7, Harris 2010:1–12.

17. We are thinking here of identical twins who are the most perfect clones in nature and occur remarkably frequently (1 in every 270 births, three per thousand births). See Harris, J.On Cloning. London: Routledge; 2004Google Scholar.

18. Zurlo, J, Rudacille, D, Goldberg, AM.The three Rs: The way forward. Environmental Health Perspectives 1996;104(8):878–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

19. To the point of Derek Parfit’s “repugnant conclusion.” See his Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1984Google Scholar.

20. It is important to note that we do not wish by this to imply that evolution is in any way a directed process, nor necessarily beneficial, except insofar as an increased chance of survival, with reproduction as the by-product that confers the selective advantage, constitutes a benefit. Survival, however, does undoubtedly constitute a benefit for some animals—not least humans, generally speaking!

21. Tallis R. Darwinism Yes, Darwinitis No: Reaffirming Human Exceptionalism. Paper presented at “Humans and Other Animals: Challenging the Boundaries of Humanity,” Institute of Philosophy, London, June 11–12, 2010.

22. See The Manchester Manifesto; 2009; available at http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/TheManchesterManifesto.pdf (last accessed 1 Jan 2011); Chan, S, Harris, J, Sulston, J. Ethical incentives for innovation. In: Stiglitz, J. et al. , eds. Intellectual Property Rights: Legal and Economic Challenges for Development (forthcoming).Google Scholar