Graduate studies at Western
Nanoethics 2 (2):163-178 (2008)
|Abstract||Livestock production has been confronted with several epidemics over the last decades. The morality of common animal disease strategies—stamping out and vaccination—is being debated and provokes controversies among farmers, authorities and the broader public. Given the complexity and controversy of choosing an appropriate control strategy, this article explores the potential of nano-enabled diagnostics in future livestock production. At first glance, these applications offer promising opportunities for better animal disease surveillance. By significantly shortening the reaction time from diagnosis to appropriate control, they could complement the current disease management strategies. Although nano-enabled diagnostics will not make livestock disease eradication strategies redundant or completely free of the culling of infected animals, these diagnostics could significantly reduce the number of culled animals and animal suffering. This article aims to demonstrate that the ethical assessment of advanced diagnostics can build on the experiences with decision making in biomedical ethics where nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice serve as important benchmarks. Nano-enabled diagnostics may be an ethically sound solution if it can resolve the dilemma between stamping out and vaccination in favor of the latter and if it can balance the autonomy–paternalism dilemma between farmers and authorities. The technology should allow to be switched on and off by farmers, whilst simultaneously allowing for a weak paternalism on behalf of authorities in order to benefit the farmer and broader society and to protect them from harm.|
|Keywords||Livestock disease management Nano-enabled diagnostics Ethics Principlism Sustainability|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Clemens Driessen (2012). Farmers Engaged in Deliberative Practices; An Ethnographic Exploration of the Mosaic of Concerns in Livestock Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (2):163-179.
Paul B. Thompson (1999). Ethical Issues in Livestock Cloning. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 11 (3):197-217.
Michael C. Appleby (2005). Sustainable Agriculture is Humane, Humane Agriculture is Sustainable. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3):293-303.
M. Gjerris, C. Gamborg, H. Röcklinsberg & R. Anthony (2011). The Price of Responsibility: Ethics of Animal Husbandry in a Time of Climate Change. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):331-350.
Kamilla Lein Kjølberg (2009). Representations of Nanotechnology in Norwegian Newspapers — Implications for Public Participation. Nanoethics 3 (1):61-72.
Saul Mpeshe, Heikki Haario & Jean Tchuenche (2011). A Mathematical Model of Rift Valley Fever with Human Host. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (3):231-250.
Katinka Waelbers, Frans Stafleu & Frans W. A. Brom (2004). Not All Animals Are Equal Differences in Moral Foundations for the Dutch Veterinary Policy on Livestock and Animals in Nature Reservations. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):497-515.
David C. Hall, Simeon Ehui & Christopher Delgado (2004). The Livestock Revolution, Food Safety, and Small-Scale Farmers: Why They Matter to Us All. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (4-5):425-444.
Abigail Woods (2009). 'Partnership' in Action: Contagious Abortion and the Governance of Livestock Disease in Britain, 1885–1921. Minerva 47 (2):195-216.
Kurt Bayertz (1998). What's Special About Molecular Genetic Diagnostics? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23 (3):247 – 254.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #189,863 of 754,244 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?