David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):135-145 (2001)
In the face of criticisms about the current generationof agricultural biotechnology products, some proponents ofagricultural biotechnology offer a ``future benefitsargument''''(FBA), which is a utilitarian ethical argument thatattempts to justify continued R&D. This paper analyzes severallogical implications of the FBA. Among these are that acceptanceof the FBA implies (1) acceptance of a precautionary approach torisk, (2) the need for a more proportional and equitabledistribution of the benefits of agricultural biotechnology, andmost important, (3) the need to reorient and restructurebiotechnology R&D institutions (and the agriculturalbiotechnology community''s values and attitudes) so that futurebenefits are indeed achieved through agricultural biotechnology.
|Keywords||agricultural biotechnology future benefits future risks GMOs institutional change precautionary approach utilitarianism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Daniel Gregorowius, Petra Lindemann-Matthies & Markus Huppenbauer (2012). Ethical Discourse on the Use of Genetically Modified Crops: A Review of Academic Publications in the Fields of Ecology and Environmental Ethics. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):265-293.
Similar books and articles
Wes Jackson (1991). Our Vision for the Agricultural Sciences Need Not Include Biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 4 (2):207-215.
Donald N. Duvick (1991). Our Vision for the Agricultural Sciences Needs to Include Biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 4 (2):200-206.
Donald N. Duvick (1995). Biotechnology is Compatible with Sustainable Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 8 (2):112-125.
Paul B. Thompson (1988). Ethics in Agricultural Research. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (1):11-20.
Susanna Hornig Priest & Allen W. Gillespie (2000). Seeds of Discontent: Expert Opinion, Mass Media Messages, and the Public Image of Agricultural Biotechnology. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (4):529-539.
Tony Smith (1999). Biotechnology and Global Justice. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 11 (3):219-242.
Dane Scott (2011). The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (3):207-226.
Ronald Sandler (2004). An Aretaic Objection to Agricultural Biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (3):301-317.
Dane Scott (2005). The Magic Bullet Criticism of Agricultural Biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3):189-197.
Jeffrey Burkhardt (2008). The Ethics of Agri-Food Biotechnology : How Can an Agricultural Technology Be so Important? In Kenneth H. David & Paul B. Thompson (eds.), What Can Nanotechnology Learn From Biotechnology?: Social and Ethical Lessons for Nanoscience From the Debate Over Agrifood Biotechnology and Gmos. Elsevier/Academic Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #111,833 of 1,098,129 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #78,521 of 1,098,129 )
How can I increase my downloads?