Abstract
Public controversy over animalbiotechnology is analyzed as a case that illustratestwo broad theoretical approaches for linking science,political or ethical theory, and public policy. Moralpurification proceeds by isolating the social,environmental, animal, and human health impacts ofbiotechnology from each other in terms of discretecategories of moral significance. Each of thesecategories can also be isolated from the sense inwhich biotechnology raises religious or metaphysicalissues. Moral purification yields a comprehensive andsystematic account of normative issues raised bycontroversial science. Hybridization proceeds bytaking concern for all these elements to be a mark ofsound moral character. The advocate of hybridizationinfers that those who employ a strategy ofpurification seek to avoid accountability by dividingissues, and hence are not to be trusted. Lack of trustincreases perceived risk and challenges the legitimacyof government regulations to control social,environmental, and human health risks that areestablished under separate mandate, and administeredby separate agencies.The close alignment between government agencies, theiracademic affines, and the categories of purificationplaces the purified analysis in a favored politicalposition. Legitimation of science-based policy inareas like animal biotechnology becomes problematicbecause the concern of those who would take a hybridapproach (arguably the majority of lay persons) tounderstanding controversial science are excluded.Ironically, this exclusion heightens the perception ofrisk from animal biotechnology. The paper concludeswith a call for procedural approaches to incorporatingthe hybrid view of science‘s moral significance.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aiken, W. (1984). Ethical issues in agriculture, in T. Regan (ed.), Earthbound: New introductory essays in environmental ethics (pp. 257–288). New York: Random House.
Attfield, R. (1995). Genetic engineering: Can unnatural kinds be wronged?, in P. Wheale & R. McNally (eds.), Animal genetic engineering: Of pigs, oncomice and men (pp. 201–210). London: Pluto Press.
Comstock, G. (1988). The case against BST, Agriculture and Human Values 5(3): 36–52.
Descartes, R. (1637 [republished 1950]). Discourse on method. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Donnelley, S., McCarthy, C.R. & Singleton, R. Jr (1994). The brave new world of animal biotechnology, Special supplement, Hastings Center Report 24(1): S1–S31.
Doyle, M.P.& Marth, E.H. (1991). Food safety issues in biotechnology, in B. Baumgardt & M. Martin (eds.), Agricultural biotechnology: Issues and choices (pp. 55–67). Lafayette, IN: Purdue Research Foundation.
Executive Office of the President (1994). Use of bovine somatotropin (BST) in the United States: Its potential effects, a study conducted by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Washington, DC.
Feenstra, G. (1993). Is BGH sustainable? The consumer perspective, in W. C. Liebhardt (ed.), The dairy debate: Consequences of bovine growth hormone and rotational grazing technologies. Davis, CA: University of California, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.
Foreman, C.T. (1991). Food safety and quality for the consumer: Policies and communication, in J.F. MacDonald (ed.), Agri-cultural biotechnology, food safety, and nutritional quality for the consumer (pp. 74–81). Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
Fox, M.W. (1992). Superpigs and wondercorn: The brave new world of biotechnology and where it all may lead.New York: Lyons & Burford.
Fyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: Vero.
Hallberg, M. (1992). BST: Issues, facts and controversies, in M. Hallberg (ed.), Bovine somatotropin and emerging issues (pp. 293–301). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Hoban, T. & Kendall, P. (1992). Consumer attitudes about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production.Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
Hobbelink, H. (1991). Biotechnology and the future of world agriculture. London: Zed Books.
Hobbes, T. (1651 [republished 1951]). Leviathan. New York: Penguin Books.
Hornig, S. (1990). Science stories: Risk, power and perceived emphasis, Journalism Quarterly 67(4): 767–777.
Hornig, S. (1992).Gender differences in responses to news about science and technology, Science, Technology, and Human Values 17(4): 532–543.
Hotchkiss, J.H. (1991). Food related risks: A food scientist‘s perspective, in J.F. MacDonald (ed.), Agricultural biotechnology, food safety, and nutritional quality for the consumer.Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
Hunter, D. (1992). To live free as natives, free of fear: What citizens should require from animal biotechnology, in J.F. MacDonald (ed.), Animal biotechnology: opportunities and challenges (pp. 133–140). Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
Johnson, G.L.& Thompson, P.B. (1991). Ethics and values associated with agricultural biotechnology, in B. Baumgardt & M. Martin (eds.), Agricultural biotechnology: Issues and choices (pp. 121–137). Lafayette, IN:, Purdue Research Foundation.
Kalter, R. (1985). The new biotech agriculture: Unforeseen economic consequences, Issues in Science and Technology 2: 125–133.
Krimsky, S. & Wrubel, R. (1996). Agricultural biotechnology and the environment: Science, policy and social issues. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kroger, M. (1992). Food safety and product quality, in M. Hallberg (ed.), Bovine somatotropin and emerging issues (pp. 265–270). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Lanyon, L.E. & Beegle, D.B. (1989). The role of on-farm nutrient balance assessments in an integrated approach to nutrient management, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44: 164–168.
Latour, B. (1986). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France(includes irreductions). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1992).We have never been modern.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lesser, W.H. (1989). Animal patents: The legal, economic and social issues. New York: Stockton Press.
Lewis, H. (1990). Technological risk. New York: W.W. Norton.
Munro, I.C. & Hall, R.L. (1991). Food safety and quality: Assessing the impact on biotechnology, in J.F. MacDonald (ed.), Agricultural biotechnology, food safety, and nutritional quality for the consumer (pp. 64–73). Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council
NABC (1991). Summary, in J.F. MacDonald (ed.), Agricultural biotechnology, food safety, and nutritional quality for the consumer (pp. 58–62). Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
Norton, B. (1991). Toward unity among environmentalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pastoret, P.-P. (1994). Vaccine case study: Development and deliberate release of a vaccinia-rabies recombinant virus for fox vaccination against rabies, in M. McGlaughlin (ed.), Proceedings of the international workshop on animal biotechnology issues (pp. 27–30). Davis, CA: University of California at Davis.
Rayburn, E.B. (1993). Potential ecological and environmental health effects of pasture and BGH technology, in W. Leibhardt (ed.), The dairy debate: Consequences of bovine growth hormone and rotational grazing technologies. Davis, CA: University of California, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.
Rollin, B.E. (1981). Animal rights and human morality. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Rollin, B.E. (1985 [republished 1990]). The Frankenstein thing, in S.M. Gendel, A.D. Kline, D.M.Warren & F. Yates (eds.), Agricultural bioethics: Implications of agricultural biotechnology (pp. 292–308). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Rollin, B.E. (1992). The creation of transgenic animal ‘models’ for human genetic disease, in J.F. MacDonald (ed.), Animal biotechnology: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 85–94). Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
Rollin, B.E. (1995). The Frankenstein syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ruscio, K.P. (1994). Policy cultures: The case of science policy in the United States, Science, Technology, and Human Values 19: 205–222.
Shapin, S. & Shaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1993). Burying uncertainty: The case against permanent geological disposal of high level radioactive waste. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Stich, S. (1978 [republished 1989]). The recombinant DNA debate, in M. Ruse (ed.), Philosophy of biology (pp. 229–243). New York: Macmillan.
Tauer, L. (1992). Impact of BST on small versus large dairy farms, inM. Hallberg (ed.),Bovine somatotropin and emerging issues (pp. 207–217). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Taylor, K. (1991). Many voices: Citizens and the issues of biotechnology and food safety, in J.F. MacDonald (ed.), Agricultural biotechnology, food safety, and nutritional quality for the consumer (pp. 96–102). Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
Taylor, K. (1995). Differences in church positions on genetic patenting, Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics Newsletter 5(2): 2–3.
Thompson, P.B. (1992). BST and ethical issues, in M. Hallberg (ed.), Bovine somatotropin and emerging issues (pp. 33–49). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Thompson, P.B. (1995). The spirit of the soil: Agriculture and environmental ethics. London: Routledge.
Thompson, P.B., Matthews, R. & VanRavenswaay, E. (1994). Ethics, public policy and agriculture.NewYork: Macmillan.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 3–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verhoog, H. (1992a). Ethics and genetic engineering of animals, in A.W. Musschenga et al (eds.), Morality, worldview and law (pp. 267–278). Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
Verhoog, H. (1992b). The concept of intrinsic value and transgenic animals, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5(2): 147–160.
Verhoog, H. (1993). Biotechnology and ethics, in T. Brante, S. Fuller & W. Lynch (eds.), Controversial science (pp 83–106). New York: SUNY Press.
Yilma, T. (1994). A vaccinia virus recombinant vaccine for rinderpest, in M. McGloughlin (ed.), Proceedings of the international workshop on animal biotechnology issues (pp. 19–21). Davis, CA: University of California at Davis.
Yonkers, R. (1992). Potential adoption and diffusion of BST among dairy farmers, in M. Hallberg (ed.), Bovine somatotropin and emerging issues (pp. 177–192). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thompson, P.B. Science policy and moral purity: The case of animal biotechnology. Agriculture and Human Values 14, 11–27 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007397315714
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007397315714