The rapid adoption of transgenic crops in the United States, Argentina, and Canada stands in strong contrast to the situation in the European Union (EU), where a de facto moratorium has been in place since 1998. This article reviews recent scientific literature relevant to the problematic introduction of transgenic crops in the EU to assess if there are specific reasons why transgenic crops have a potentially greater adverse impact on sustainable agriculture in the EU context than elsewhere. Sustainable agriculture integrates (...) three main goals: environmental health, economic profitability, and socioeconomic equity. Transgenic crops do not appear a suitable tool for sustainable agriculture in the EU due to specific environmental, economic, and socioeconomic reasons. Therefore, a moratorium on transgenic crops based on the precautionary principle should be officially adopted until proper risk assessment. In addition, agroecological alternatives to transgenic crops fit better the EU vision of agriculture. (shrink)

There is no doubt that soybean is the most important crop for Argentina, with a planted surface that rose 11,000,000 hectares and a production of around 35,000,000 metric tons. During the 1990s, there was a significant agriculture transformation in the country, motorize by the adoption of transgenic crops (soy-bean, maize, and cotton) under the no-tillage system. The expansion of this model has been spread not only in the Pampas but also in very rich areas with high biodiversity, opening a new (...) agricultural border to important eco-regions like the Yungas, Great Chaco, and the Mesopotamian Forest. Transgenic cropping is a powerful technology. This produced relevant transformations over the environment and society where it is allowed. Migration, concentration of agribusiness, and loss of food sovereignty are some of the social results. Landscape transformation in the rural sector is evident, and the appearance of tolerance weeds to glyphosate is a reality. Nutrient depletion, soil-structure degradation, potential desertification, and loss of species are other consequences on the environmental level. (shrink)

: The introduction of transgenic organisms into agriculture has raised a firestorm of controversy. Many view the technology as a pathway to a much better future society, whereas others condemn it for endangering people and the environment. One defective argument against transgenics is the Unnatural Is Unethical argument (UIU). UIU attempts to prove if transgenic organisms are unnatural and all unnatural things are morally bad, then transgenics are morally bad. However, the argument fails once it is shown that there is (...) no plausible definition for "unnatural." Therefore, UIU should be abandoned in favor of arguments more likely to succeed. (shrink)

The ability to transfer genes from one species to another provides a powerful method to study genetic regulatory differences between species in a homogeneous genetic background. A survey of several transgenic animal experiments indicates that the vast majority of regulatory differences observed between species are due to differences in the cis‐acting elements associated with the genes under study. A corollary is that in almost all cases the host species provides the necessary regulatory proteins for expression of the transgenes in specific (...) tissues in which the endogenous homolog is not expressed. Although the details of the cis‐acting differences are unknown for most cases, it appears that these differences may consist of the acquisition or loss of unique elements or subtle variation of conserved elements. It is unknown whether much of this variation is directly related to adaptive evolution. The identification of the promoter enhancer elements responsible for these differences is an important first step in examining the functional significance of this variation. (shrink)

In the current controversy about the value of transgenic crops, matters open to empirical inquiry are centrally at issue. One such matter is a key premise in a common argument (that I summarize) that transgenic crops should be considered to have universal value. The premise is that there are no alternative forms of agriculture available to enable the production of sufficient food to feed the world. The proponents of agroecology challenge it, claiming that agroecology provides an alternative, and they deny (...) the claim that it is well founded on empirical evidence. It is, therefore, a matter of both social and scientific importance that this premise and the criticisms of it be investigated rigorously and empirically, so that the benefits and disadvantages of transgenic-intensive agriculture and agroecology can be compared in a reliable way. Conducting adequate investigation about the potential contribution of agroecology requires that the cultural conditions of its practice (and, thus, of the practices and movements of small-scale farmers in the “third world”) be strengthened—and this puts the interests of investigation into tension with the socio-economic interests driving the development of transgenics. General issues about relationship between ethical argument and empirical (scientific) investigation are raised throughout the article. (shrink)

By conducting a critical discourse analysis of a scientific research article that claims additional potential for using transgenic marmosets in biomedical experiments, this article critiques instrumental approaches to scientific progress as they are expressed in scientific research that uses nonhuman animal experiments. Following an analysis that focuses on issues associated with access to publication, assertions about scientific breakthrough and scientific facts, and the construction of science as impartial, the article concludes that manipulating the genetics of nonhuman animals to engineer a (...) predisposition to the development of feared human health hazards represents moral deterioration rather than progress. (shrink)

Transgenic mice constitute an entirely new dimension of mammalian molecular genetics. They allow us to observe genes at work in the intact organism. Virtually every sector of biomedical research is likely to be affected.

Industry and mainstream research and policy institutions often suggest that transgenic crop varieties can raise the productivity of poor third world farmers, feed the hungry, and reduce poverty. These claims are critically evaluated by examining global-hunger data, the constraints that affect the productivity of small farmers in the third world, and the factors that explain their poverty. No significant role is found for crop genetics in determining hunger, productivity, or poverty, casting doubt on the ability of new transgenic crop varieties (...) produced by genetic engineering to address these problems. An examination of the special risks these varieties pose for poor farmers in the complex, diverse, and risk-prone environments that characterize peasant agriculture on a global scale suggests that transgenic crop varieties are likely to be more of hindrance than a help to the advancement of poor farmers. (shrink)

Transgenic crops currently available foruse potentially provide environmental benefits, suchas reduction in insecticide use and substitution ofless toxic for more toxic herbicides. These benefitsare contingent on a host of factors, such as thepotential for development of resistant pests,out-crossing to weedy relatives, and transgenic cropmanagement regimes. Three scenarios are used toexamine the potential sustainability of transgeniccrop technologies. These scenarios demonstrate thatexisting transgenic varieties, while potentiallyimproving the sustainability of agriculture relativeto existing chemical based production systems, fail inenabling a fully sustainable agriculture. Genetictraits (...) that have a higher potential for promoting asustainable agriculture have been precluded fromdevelopment for a number of reasons. These include thelack of EPA and USDA regulatory policies thatexplicitly promote sustainable traits; the structureof the agricultural biotechnology industry, which isdominated by agricultural chemical companies; andpatent law and industry policies that proscribe farmhouseholds from saving transgenic seed and tailoringtransgenic crops to their local environmentalconditions – ecological, social, and economic. (shrink)

When I wrote “The Case Against bGH” in the late 1980s, I enjoyed eating meat, enjoyed serving it to my family, and believed one could simultaneously defend traditional family farms and the welfare of animals. Shortly after finishing that article, I read again, and more carefully, Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights. 2 Regan’s arguments challenged my presuppositions.

This dialogue concerns the nature of ethical responsibility in contemporary art practice, and its relation to questions of creativity; the role of writing in shaping the perception of transgenic art and related practices; and the problems that may be associated with trusting artists to act with integrity in the unchartered waters of their enthusiastic engagement with genetic technologies.

The potential for genetically modified (GM) crops to threaten biodiversity conservation and sustainable agriculture is substantial. Megadiverse countries and centers of origin and/or diversity of crop species are particularly vulnerable regions. The future of sustainable agriculture may be irreversibly jeopardized by contamination of in situ preserved genetic resources threatening a strategic resource for the world—s food security. Because GM crops are truly biological novelties, their release into the environment poses concerns about the unpredictable ecological and evolutionary responses that GM species (...) themselves and the interacting biota may express in the medium and long term. One of the consequences of these processes may be a generalized contamination of natural flora by GM traits and a degradation and erosion of the commonly owned genetic resources available today for agricultural development. GM plants carrying pharmaceutical and industrial traits will pose even more dangerous risks if released in the environment. (shrink)

Expression of transgenes in mice, when examined with assays that can distinguish individual cells, is often found to be heterocellular, or variegated. Line‐to‐line variations in expression of a transgene may be due largely to differences in the proportion of cells in which it is expressed. Variegated silencing by centromeric heterochromatin is well described, but other factors may also affect transgene silencing in mice. Tandem arrays of transgenes themselves form heterochromatin, and some cell lineages may tend to silence transgenes (...) because of extensive facultative heterochromatin in their nuclei. The cis‐acting transcriptional control elements within a transgene inhibit silencing, and strainspecific differences in chromatin proteins may strongly influence the extent of variegation. The accessibility of multiple differentiated cell lineages in mice suggests that they may provide a tool for dissecting the role of chromatin‐mediated silencing in cell differentiation and tissue‐specific gene expression. (shrink)

Multidrug resistance resulting from expression of an energy‐dependent drug efflux pump encoded by the human MDR1 gene is a major impediment to effective cancer therapy. Pharmacologic intervention aimed at inhibiting this multidrug transporter should improve existing chemotherapy of human cancer, but drug development has been delayed by the difficulty and expense of developing valid animal models. Using recombinant DNA technology, a transgenic mouse has been engineered whose bone marrow is protected from the toxic effects of chemotherapy by expression of the (...) MDR1 gene. This animal system allows the rapid screening of drugs which inhibit the multidrug transporter and heralds a new era of using transgenic animals for pharmacologic screening. (shrink)

After discussing the transformation of age-old agricultural practices that has been occurring since the mid nineteenth century, and its impact on the natural environment, I identify four features of technology that point to the ambiguity of the idea of "technological progress". These are linked to the intrinsic unpredictability of technological applications and have implications for evaluating technological risks. I then show that large scale technological applications and innovations - such as expanding the practice of smallpox inoculation in the second half (...) of the eighteenth century - occur in states of 'technological exception'. In them, values are suspended and rules, limits and security norms are absent; and, in the face of risks, losses and harm to health and environment that are occasioned by technological applications introduced in the name of economical progress , normal social inhibitions become suspended in the name of furthering the values of capital and market. In addition, I show that maintaining technological exception has favored, on the one hand, the development by large corporations of antiscientific practices that threaten the moral integrity of science by impeding the proper use of the scientific method for evaluating the consequences of using technologies that are protected by patents; and, on the other hand, under the cover of ignorance, continued deterioration of the environment that threatens the very survival of the human species. (shrink)

Many argue that transgenic technology will have wide-ranging implications for farmers in developing nations. A key concern is that competencies may be destroyed by predominantly foreign multinational transgenic technologies, exacerbating problems of social exclusion in the case of subsistence farmers. Conversely, those that fail to adopt the technology may become uncompetitive, particularly in commodity-based export markets. Drawing on interview data conducted in Brazil and supporting data collected in North America, Europe and China, we found that the impact of transgenic technology (...) varies. It has less impact on farmers that adapt the products to their crop systems and environment, and greater negative implications for less formally educated subsistence farmers in consequence of both complexity and compatibility. Earlier attempts at industrializing agriculture through technological innovation led to vastly improved agricultural output and exports, but the benefits of productivity was not equitably distributed [D. Lee: 2005, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87, 1325-1334], nor was it designed to meet specific local environmental and socioeconomic farmer conditions, exacerbating social exclusion. Multinationals attempting to introduce transgenic technology without considering the broader social and ethical implications will invite resistance. We discuss the implications for policy makers, multinationals and small-scale farmers. (shrink)

The creation of transgenic animals has application in the following areas of pharmaceutical and biomedical research: the production of biopharmaceuticals for human use; the production of organs for xenotransplantation; and the generation of animal models for human genetic diseases. Nuclear transfer technology offers a more precise and efficient way of performing genetic modification and creating transgenic animals than the more traditional method of pronuclear microinjection. This paper will review nuclear transfer as ameans of producing transgenic animals; introduce advantages nuclear transfer (...) technology offers in the field of animal transgenesis; and highlight some of the animal welfare issues and ethical concerns raised by the generation and use of transgenic animals in the aforementioned fields of study. Finally, the influence of objectifying language and terminology used to describe transgenic animals will be considered, and the impact of phrases such as “living bioreactor” and “spare part supplier” examined. (shrink)

Public debate in Britain surrounding the cloning of Dolly the sheep has primarily focused on the legitimacy of cloning humans, not sheep. This bracketing of the human question relies on a distinction between humans and animals belied by the very constitution of transgenic animals who are made with human DNA, such as Polly. Moreover, the ways in which human beings think about, manipulate and classify animals have distinct cultural consequences, for example in relation to cultural understandings of life, property, kinship (...) and other forms of social interconnection. This article introduces the term 'breedwealth' to examine Dolly as a unique form of property in order to make some of these connections more visible. (shrink)

New agricultural technologies are often justified morally in terms of their expected benefits, e.g., feeding the world's hungry. Such justifications stand or fall, not only on whether such benefits are indeed forthcoming, but on whether or not they are outweighed by attendant dangers. The practical details of easch case are, therefore, all-important. In this paper agriculture and aquaculture are examined from the perspective of ecosystem integrity, and with further reference to the uncertain effects of anthropogenic changes in the earth's atmosphere. (...) The principle of integrity provides a strong justification for a cautious approach to new technologies, and particularly so in the case of transgenics. (shrink)

In Drosophila, the genetic approach is still the method of choice for answering fundamental questions on cell biology, signal transduction, development, physiology and behavior. In this approach, a gene's function is ascertained by altering either the amount or quality of the gene product, and then observing the consequences. The genetic approach is itself polymorphous, encompassing new and more complex techniques that typically employ the growing collections of transgenes. The keystone of these modern Drosophila transgenic techniques has been the Gal4 binary (...) system. Recently, several new techniques have modified this binary system to offer greater control over the timing, tissue specificity and magnitude of gene expression. Additionally, the advances in post‐transcriptional gene silencing, or RNAi, have greatly expanded the ability to knockdown almost any gene's function. Regardless of the growing experimental intricacy, the application of these advances to modify gene activity still obeys the fundamental principles of genetic analysis. Several of these transgenic techniques, which offer more precise control over a gene's activity, will be reviewed here with a discussion on how they may be used for determining a gene's function. BioEssays 26:1243–1253, 2004. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

Public policy on the development and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has mainly been concerned with defining proper strategies of risk management. However, surveys and focus group interviews show that although lay people are concerned with risks, they also emphasize that genetic modification is ethically questionable in itself. Many people feel that this technology “tampers with nature” in an unacceptable manner. This is often identified as an objection to the crossing of species borders in producing transgenic organisms. Most scientists (...) reject these opinions as based on insufficient knowledge about biotechnology, the concept of species, and nature in general. Some recent projects of genetic modification aim to accommodate the above mentioned concerns by altering the expression of endogenous genes rather than introducing genes from other species. There can be good scientific reasons for this approach, in addition to strategic reasons related to greater public acceptability. But are there also moral reasons for choosing intragenic rather than transgenic modification? I suggest three interrelated moral reasons for giving priority to intragenic modification. First, we should respect the opinions of lay people even when their view is contrary to scientific consensus; they express an alternative world-view, not scientific ignorance. Second, staying within species borders by strengthening endogenous traits reduces the risks and scientific uncertainty. Third, we should show respect for nature as a complex system of laws and interconnections that we cannot fully control. The main moral reason for intragenic modification, in our view, is the need to respect the “otherness” of nature. (shrink)

The expression "artificial animal" denotes a range of different objects from teddy bears to the results of genetic engineering. As a basis for further investigation, this article first of all presents the main interpretations and traces their systematic interconnections. The subsequent sections concentrate on artificial animals in the context of play. The development of material toys is fueled by robotics. It gives toys artificial sense organs, limbs, and cognitive abilities, thus enabling them to act in the real world. The second (...) line of development, closely related to research into Artificial Life, creates virtual beings "living" on computer screens. Themost essential difference between these variants are the sense modalities involved in interaction. Virtual beings can only be seen and heard, whereas material toys can be touched as well. Therefore, the simulation of haptic qualities plays an important role. In order to complete the proposed typology, two further areas are outlined, namely artificial animals outside play and "artificial animals in the medium of flesh" which are alive but designed and created by man. Research on artificial animals belongs to an extended notion of ecosemiotics, as they are part of ecosystems which may themselves be virtual such as the Internet. (shrink)

The discovery of transgenes in maize landraces in Mexico, a center of diversity for this crop, raises questions about the potential impact of transgene diffusion on maize diversity. The concept of diversity and farmers’ role in maintaining diversity is quite complex. Farmers’ behavior is expected to have a significant influence on causing transgenes to diffuse, to be expressed differently, and to accumulate within landraces. Farmers’ or consumers’ perceptions that transgenes are “contaminants” and that landraces containing transgenes are “contaminated” could (...) cause these landraces to be rejected and trigger a direct loss of diversity. (shrink)

Transgenic plants are now being used to develop pharmaceutical and industrial products in addition to their use in crop improvement. Using confinement requirements, these transgenic plants are grown and processed under conditions that prevent intermixing with commodity crops. Regulatory agencies in the United States have provided guidance of zero tolerance of these new industrial crops with commodity crops. While this is a worthy goal, it is theoretically unattainable. In spite of the best containment practices, there is a potential risk using (...) any system of production due to unforeseen incidences including natural disasters or exposure to workers. The precautionary principle has been used for numerous regulated articles in addressing the potential risks of new products and technology based on a risk assessment in similar situations. We present here a risk assessment model that could be used as a start to develop an accepted model for the industry. The model is based on current risk models used for other regulated articles, but adapted for these types of products. This could be used to determine action levels in the event of an unintended exposure or to ensure that detection or confinement methods are adequate to avoid risks. As an example, aprotinin, a therapeutic protein now being produced in maize, was evaluated for potential risk to humans using this model. (shrink)

The creation of transgenic animals by means of modern techniques of genetic manipulation is evaluated in the light of different interpretations of the concept of intrinsic value. The zoocentric interpretation, emphasizing the suffering of individual, sentient animals, is described as an extension of the anthropocentric interpretation. In a biocentric or ecocentric approach the concept of intrinsic value first of all denotes independence of humans and a non-instrumental relation to animals. In the zoocentric approach of Bernard Rollin, genetic engineering is seen (...) as a morally neutral tool, as long as the animal does not suffer as a result of it. Robert Colwell who defends an ecocentric ethic, makes a sharp distinction between wild animals and domesticated animals. Genetic manipulation of wild species is a serious moral issue, in contrast to genetic manipulation of domesticated species which is no problem at all for Colwell. Both authors do not take the species-specific nature (or telos) of domesticated animals seriously. When domestication is seen as a process between the two poles of the wild animal and the human construct (which can be patented), the technique of genetic manipulation can only be seen as a further encroachment upon the intrinsic value of animals. At the level of molecular biology, the concept of an animal's telos loses its meaning. (shrink)

The term moral considerability refers to the question of whether a being or set of beings is worthy of moral consideration. Moral considerability is most readily afforded to those beings that demonstrate the clearest relationship to rational humans, though many have also argued for and against the moral considerability of species, ecosystems, and “lesser” animals. Among these arguments there are at least two positions: “environmentalist” positions that tend to emphasize the systemic relations between species, and “liberationist” positions that tend to (...) emphasize the attributes or welfare of a particular individual organism. Already, this classic conflict provides for some challenging theoretical clashes between environmentalists and animal liberationists. The question of moral considerability is complicated, however, by recent developments in genetic engineering. Some animals, like pigs and fish, have been genetically modified by humans to grow organs that can then be transplanted into humans. If environmental arguments for the moral consideration of species are correct, then we are released from our obligations to morally consider those animals that we have genetically modified, since they are by their nature always an “invader species.” If, instead, the welfare of the animal is of penultimate importance, then there is a case for strengthening the moral considerability of GM animals over “naturally-occurring” animals, since they bear a closer relationship to humans. This would appear to be an intractable problem, a “bad marriage,” as Mark Sagoff once proposed. This paper argues that the case of invasive transgenic animals exposes weaknesses in this classic conflict, and particularly, in the framing of this conflict. To remedy this framing problem, this paper argues for a reconceptualization of the term “moral considerability,” instead urging a strong distinction between moral considerability, moral relevance, and moral significance. (shrink)