Authors
Katrien Devolder
Oxford University
Abstract
Genome editing in livestock could potentially be used in ways that help resolve some of the most urgent and serious global problems pertaining to livestock, including animal suffering, pollution, antimicrobial resistance, and the spread of infectious disease. But despite this potential, some may object to pursuing it, not because genome editing is wrong in and of itself, but because it is the wrong kind of solution to the problems it addresses: it is merely a ‘technological fix’ to a complex societal problem. Yet though this objection might have wide intuitive appeal, it is often not clear what, exactly, the moral problem is supposed to be. The aim of this paper is to formulate and shed some light on the ‘technological fix objection’ to genome editing in livestock. I suggest that three concerns may underlie it, make implicit assumptions underlying the concerns explicit, and cast some doubt on several of these assumptions, at least as they apply to the use of genome editing to produce pigs resistant to the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome and hornless dairy cattle. I then suggest that the third, and most important, concern could be framed as a concern about complicity in factory farming. I suggest ways to evaluate this concern, and to reduce or offset any complicity in factory farming. Thinking of genome editing’s contribution to factory farming in terms of complicity, may, I suggest, tie it more explicitly and strongly to the wider obligations that come with pursuing it, including the cessation of factory farming, thereby addressing the concern that technological fixes focus only on a narrow problem.
Keywords Gene editing  Agricultural ethics  Technological Fix  Complicity  Environmental ethics
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10806-021-09858-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 60,021
External links

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

On Complicity and Compromise.Chiara Lepora - 2013 - Oxford University Press.
Individual Complicity: The Tortured Patient.Chiara Lepora - 2013 - In Chiara Lepora & Robert Goodin (eds.), On complicity and compromise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate.Dane Scott - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (3):207-226.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Genome Editing and Responsible Innovation, Can They Be Reconciled?Ann Bruce & Donald Bruce - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (5):769-788.
Human Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations.Kewal Krishan, Tanuj Kanchan & Bahadur Singh - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2):597-599.
Untangling the Promises of Human Genome Editing.Katherine Drabiak - 2018 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 46 (4):991-1009.
Public Views on Gene Editing and its Uses.Hub Zwart, George Gaskell & Imre Bard - 2017 - Nature Biotechnology 35 (11):121-123.
Genome Editing with CRISPR.Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco - 2016 - Ethics and Medics 41 (3):1-3.
Debating Genome Editing Technologies.Lukas Kaelin - 2018 - In Matthias Braun, Hannah Schickl & Peter Dabrock (eds.), Between Moral Hazard and Legal Uncertainty: Ethical, Legal and Societal Challenges of Human Genome Editing. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. pp. 187-201.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-05-11

Total views
7 ( #1,020,801 of 2,433,540 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #97,872 of 2,433,540 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes