Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science policy and moral purity: The case of animal biotechnology

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, G. (1988). The case against BST, Agriculture and Human Values 5(3): 36–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1637 [republished 1950]). Discourse on method. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M.W. (1992). Superpigs and wondercorn: The brave new world of biotechnology and where it all may lead.New York: Lyons & Burford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: Vero.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallberg, M. (1992). BST: Issues, facts and controversies, in M. Hallberg (ed.), Bovine somatotropin and emerging issues (pp. 293–301). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, T. & Kendall, P. (1992). Consumer attitudes about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production.Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbelink, H. (1991). Biotechnology and the future of world agriculture. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. (1651 [republished 1951]). Leviathan. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornig, S. (1990). Science stories: Risk, power and perceived emphasis, Journalism Quarterly 67(4): 767–777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornig, S. (1992).Gender differences in responses to news about science and technology, Science, Technology, and Human Values 17(4): 532–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalter, R. (1985). The new biotech agriculture: Unforeseen economic consequences, Issues in Science and Technology 2: 125–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S. & Wrubel, R. (1996). Agricultural biotechnology and the environment: Science, policy and social issues. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroger, M. (1992). Food safety and product quality, in M. Hallberg (ed.), Bovine somatotropin and emerging issues (pp. 265–270). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1986). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France(includes irreductions). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1992).We have never been modern.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesser, W.H. (1989). Animal patents: The legal, economic and social issues. New York: Stockton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, H. (1990). Technological risk. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B. (1991). Toward unity among environmentalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B.E. (1981). Animal rights and human morality. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruscio, K.P. (1994). Policy cultures: The case of science policy in the United States, Science, Technology, and Human Values 19: 205–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. & Shaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (1993). Burying uncertainty: The case against permanent geological disposal of high level radioactive waste. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stich, S. (1978 [republished 1989]). The recombinant DNA debate, in M. Ruse (ed.), Philosophy of biology (pp. 229–243). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K. (1995). Differences in church positions on genetic patenting, Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics Newsletter 5(2): 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B. (1992). BST and ethical issues, in M. Hallberg (ed.), Bovine somatotropin and emerging issues (pp. 33–49). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B. (1995). The spirit of the soil: Agriculture and environmental ethics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B., Matthews, R. & VanRavenswaay, E. (1994). Ethics, public policy and agriculture.NewYork: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H. (1992b). The concept of intrinsic value and transgenic animals, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5(2): 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H. (1993). Biotechnology and ethics, in T. Brante, S. Fuller & W. Lynch (eds.), Controversial science (pp 83–106). New York: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

    Paul B. Thompson

Authors
  1. Paul B. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007397315714

Search

Navigation