Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken Problem

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nanotechnologies that have been linked to the possibility of enhancing cognitive capabilities of human beings might also be deployed to reduce or eliminate such capabilities in non-human vertebrate animals. A surprisingly large literature on the ethics of such disenhancement has been developed in response to the suggestion that it would be an ethically defensible response to animal suffering both in medical experimentation and in industrial livestock production. However, review of this literature illustrates the difficulty of formulating a coherent ethical debate. Well structured arguments for disenhancement can be made on the basis of mainstream views on the basis of ethical obligations to animals, but these arguments have not been persuasive against the moral intuition that disenhancements are unethical. At the same time, attempts to ground these intuitions in a coherent philosophical doctrine have been plagued by logical fallacies and question begging assertions. As such, the debate over animal disenhancement forecasts an enduring conundrum with respect to the core question of transforming the nature of sentient beings, and this conundrum is logically independent of claims that relate either to the distinctive of human beings or to issues deriving from the emphasis on enhancement.

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. Appleby MC (1999) What should we do about animal welfare? Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  2. Balzer P, Rippe KP, Schaber P (2000) Two concepts of dignity for humans and non-human organisms in the context of genetic engineering. J Agric Environ Ethics 13:7–27

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bovenkirk B, Brom FWA, van den Bergh BJ (2001) Brave new birds: the use of integrity in animal ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 32(1):16–22 doi:10.2307/3528292

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brambell FW (1969) Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  5. Colwell RK (1989) “Natural and unnatural history: biological diversity and genetic engineering”. In: Shea WR, Sitter B (eds) Scientists and their responsibilities. Watson Publishing International, Canton, OH, pp 1–40

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis K (1996) “The ethics of genetic engineering and the futuristic fate of domestic fowl”. United Poultry Concerns Website. Available at http://www.upc-online.org/genetic.html (accessed January 13, 2006)

  7. Edelman PD, McFarland DC, Mironov VA, Matheny JG (2005) In vitro-cultured meat production. Tissue Eng 11:659–662 doi:10.1089/ten.2005.11.659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fox MW (1990) “Transgenic animals: ethical and animal welfare concerns”. In: Wheale P, McNally P (eds) The bio-revolution: cornucopia or pandora’s box. Pluto, London, pp 31–54

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gifford F (2002) “Biotechnology”. In: Comstock G (ed) Life Science Ethics. Iowa State, Ames, IA, pp 191–224

    Google Scholar 

  10. Heeger R (2000) Genetic engineering and the dignity of creatures. J Agric Environ Ethics 13:43–51

    Google Scholar 

  11. Holland A (1995) “Artificial lives: philosophical dimensions of farm animal biotechnology”. In: Mepham TB, Tucker GA, Wiseman J (eds) Issues in agricultural bioethics. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, pp 293–306

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kass L (1997) “The wisdom of repugnance”. The New Republic June 2:17–26

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kastenbaum D (2001) “Analysis: debate over genetically altered fish and meat”. Morning Edition (December 4, 2001). Transcript available online at http://www.npr.org.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1134248 (accessed June 25, 2008)

  14. Lin P, Allhoff F (2007) “Nanoscience and nanoethics: defining the disciplines”. In: Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: the ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mauron A (1989) “Ethics and the ordinary molecular biologist”. In: Shea WR, Sitter B (eds) Scientists and their responsibilities. Watson Publishing International, Canton, OH, pp 249–265

    Google Scholar 

  16. McNaughton P (2004) Animals in their nature: a case study on public attitudes to animals genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology 38:533–551 doi:10.1177/0038038504043217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Midgley M (2000) Biotechnology and monstrosity. Hastings Cent Rep 30(5):7–15 doi:10.2307/3527881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ortiz SEG (2004) Beyond welfare: animal integrity, animal dignity and genetic engineering. Ethics Environ 9:94–120 doi:10.2979/ETE.2004.9.1.94

    Google Scholar 

  19. Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  20. Regan T (1995) “Are zoos morally defensible?”. In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, Stevens EF, Maple T (eds) Ethics on the ark. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp 38–51

    Google Scholar 

  21. Regan T (2003) Animal rights, human wrongs: An introduction to moral philosophy. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rollin B (1986) “The frankenstein thing”. In: Evans JW, Hollaender A (eds) Genetic engineering of animals: An agricultural perspective. Plenum, New York, pp 285–298

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rollin B (1995) The frankenstein syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rollin B (1998) “On telos and genetic engineering”. In: Holland A, Johnson A (eds) Animal biotechnology and ethics. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 156–187

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rollin B (2006) Science and ethics. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rutgers B, Heeger R (1999) “Inherent worth and respect for animal integrity”. In: Dol M, Fentener van Vlissingen M, Kasanmoentalib S, Visser T, Zwart H (eds) Recognizing the intrinsic value of nature. Van Corcum, Assen, pp 41–53

    Google Scholar 

  27. Savory CJ (1995) Feather pecking and cannibalism. Worlds Poult Sci J 51:215–219 doi:10.1079/WPS19950016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sandøe P, Holtung N, Simonsen HB (1996) Ethical limits to domestication. J Agric Environ Ethics 9:114–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sandøe PB, Nielsen L, Christensen LG, Sørensen P (1999) Staying good while playing God—the ethics of breeding farm animals. Anim Welf 8:313–328

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sapontzis SF (1991) We should not manipulate the genome of domestic hogs. J Agric Environ Ethics 4:177–185 doi:10.1007/BF01980315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Singer P (1975) Animal liberation. Avon Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Singer P (2002) Animal liberation, revised edition. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tausin R (2002) Furnished cages and aviaries: production and health. Worlds Poult Sci J 58:49–63 doi:10.1079/WPS20020007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Thompson PB (1997) Ethics and the genetic engineering of food animals. J Agric Environ Ethics 10:1–23 doi:10.1023/A:1007758700818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) 2006. “ARS Project: identification and manipulation of genetic factors to enhance disease resistance in cattle.” Available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=405817&showpars=true&fy=2003 (accessed January 13, 2006). Page last modified Jan. 12, 2006

  36. Varner G (1990) Biological functions and biological interests. South J Philos 27:251–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. de Vries R (2006) Genetic engineering and the integrity of animals. J Agric Environ Ethics 19:469–493 doi:10.1007/s10806-006-9004-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Warkentin T (2006) Dis/integrating animals: ethical dimensions of the genetic engineering of animals for human consumption. AI Soc 20:82–102 doi:10.1007/s00146-005-0009-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, 503 South Kedzie Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Paul B. Thompson

Authors
  1. Paul B. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul B. Thompson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thompson, P.B. The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken Problem. Nanoethics 2, 305–316 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0052-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0052-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation