Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transforming animal species: the case of ‘oncomouse’

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper I deal with ethical implications arising from animal biotechnology. I analyse some general questions surrounding the production of transgenic animals through a specific case study: the oncomouse. In particular, I explore ethical factors involved in the production of oncomice. This is because biologists genetically modify animals’ germ cells and refuse to modify human germ cells. I will underline how the international community has thus far justified this ‘ethical difference’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The future developments in farm animal breeding and reproduction and their ethical, legal and consumer implications (1999) Report to the European Commission DG RTD.

  2. Macer, D. (1990) Shaping Genes: Ethics, Law and Science of Using Genetic Technology in Medicine and Agriculture, EUBIOS Press. New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fox, M. (1992) Superpigs and Wondercorm, Lyons & Bufford, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rollin B. (1989) The Frankestein Syndrome. Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Terrgni F. (1984) Il codice manomesso, Feltrinelli, Milano.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fincham, J.R. & Ravez, J.J. (1991) Genetically Engineered Organisms: Risks and Benefits, University of Toronto Press, Toronto-Buffalo.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Suzuki, D. & Knudson, P. (1987) Genethics on, the ethics of engineering life, Stoddart Publishing Co., Toronto, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hubbard & Krimsky (1988) The Patented Mouse, WATCH 1:6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Battaglia, L. (1996) Ethica e Diritti degli Animali, Roma-Bari Laterza

  10. Singer, P. (1985) In Defence of Animals, Blackwell, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Singer P. (1990) Animal Liberation, Avon Books, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kant I. (1781) Kritik der Reiner Vernunft

  13. Edelman, G.M. (1992) Bright Air Brilliant Fire. On the Matter of the Mind, Basic Books, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Edelman, G.M. (1989) The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of Consciousness, Basic Books, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mayr, E. (1982) The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Griffin, D.R. (1976) The Question of Animal Awareness: Evolutionary Continuity and Mental Experience, Rockefeller University Press, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Meijsing, M. (1997) Awareness self-awareness and perception: an essay on animal consciousness in Van den Bos (ed.) Animal Consciousness and Animal Ethics, Van Gorcum & Comp. Assen: 48–61.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gallup, G. (1982) Self awareness and the emergence of mind in primates. American Journal of Primatology 2: 237–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Parker, S.T., Mitchell R. M. & Boccia M. L. (1994) Self-Awareness in Animals and Humans: Developmental Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Van den Bos et al. (1997) Animal Consciousness and Animal Ethics, Van Gorcum & Comp, Assen.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Walker, S. (1983) Animal Thought, Routledge & Jegan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gallup, G. (1997) Self-recognition in primates, American Psychology 32: 329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rachels, J. (1990) Created from animals: the moral implications of Darwinism, Oxford University Press Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rollin, B. (1998) The Unheeded Cry. Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Norton, B. (1986) Why preserve natural Variety? Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rollin, B. (1998) On telos and genetic engineering, in: Holland and Jonson (eds.) Animal Biotechnology and Ethics, Chapman and Hall, p. 162.

  27. Anderson, I. (1999) The pigs must die! New Scientist, 3 April, p. 4.

  28. Regan, T. & Singer, P. (1976) Animal Rights and Human Obligations, Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Regan, T. (1983) The Case for Animal Rights, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dol et al. (1999) Recognizing the intrinsic value of animals, Van Gorcum & Comp. Assen

    Google Scholar 

  31. Salvi M. (2000) Integrità e Valore Intrinseco negli animali, Il caso Olandese. Codice per gli animali, Università di Firenze, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Salvi, M. (1998) Ethics and Germ-line Manipulations: Germ-line transformation of the transgenic mouse, Scientific Report to the European Commission, Programme BIOTECH.

  33. Salvi, M. (1999) Casualità Biologica Causalità Biotecnologica, in: Bioetica e professione medico veterinaria Quaderni di Bioetica, July 1999, Bologna Macro Edizioni, pp. 109–134.

  34. Naess, A. (1984) In defence of deep ecology, Environmental Ethics 6(3): 265–270.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nozick R (1981) Philosophical Explanations, Oxford University Press, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Blackburn, S. (1984) Spreading the world: groundings in the philosophy of language, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mackie, J. (1977) Ethics, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Directorate-General, Directorate B.11-Life Sciences 11-Bioethics, European Commission, Rue de la Loi/Westraat 200, B-1049, Brussels, Belgium

    Maurizio Salvi

  2. Higher Institute of Philosophy, University of Leuven, Belgium

    Maurizio Salvi

Authors
  1. Maurizio Salvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurizio Salvi.

Additional information

The opinions here expressed are personal and do not commit the European Commission.

Maurizio Salvi is member of the Scientific Staff of the Higher Institute of Philosophy, University of Leuven. Currently he is a Scientific Officer (National Expert Detached) of the European Commission, (Directorate-General XII, Science Research and Development, Directorate B.II.3) dealing with Bioethics research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salvi, M. Transforming animal species: the case of ‘oncomouse’. SCI ENG ETHICS 7, 15–28 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-001-0022-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-001-0022-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation