Ethics, Policy and Environment:1-21 (forthcoming)

Authors
Ann C Thresher
University of California, San Diego
Abstract
Most current techniques to deal with invasive species are ineffective or have highly damaging side effects. To this end suppression-drives based on clustered regularly inter-spaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR/Cas9) have been touted as a potential silver bullet for the problem, allowing for a highly focused, humane and cost-effective means of removing a target species from an environment. Suppression-drives come with serious risks, however, such that the precautionary principle seems to warrant us not deploying this technology. The focus of this paper is on one such risk – the danger of a suppression-drive escaping containment and wiping out the target species globally. Here, I argue that in most cases this risk is significant enough to warrant not using a gene-drive. In some cases, however, we can bypass the precautionary principle by using an approach that hinges on what I term the ‘Worst-Case Clause’. This clause, in turn, provides us with a litmus test that can be fruitfully used to determine what species are viable targets for suppression-drives in the wild. Using this metric in concert with other considerations, I suggest that only three species are currently possible viable targets – the European rabbit, ship rat and Caribbean Tree Frog.
Keywords bioethics  gene-editing  CRISPR/cas9  invasive species  conservation  precautionary principle
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/21550085.2020.1848197
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.Lynn White Jr - forthcoming - Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application, Belmont: Wadsworth Company.
Genes, Genesis, and God: Values and Their Origin in Natural and Human History.Holmes Rolston - 2000 - American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 21 (1):85-88.
The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate.Dane Scott - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (3):207-226.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Should We Engineer Species in Order to Save Them?Ronald Sandler - 2019 - Environmental Ethics 41 (3):221-236.
De-Extinction as Artificial Species Selection.Derek Turner - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (4):395-411.
Who Loves Mosquitoes? Care Ethics, Theory of Obligation and Endangered Species.Eleni Panagiotarakou - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (6):1057-1070.
Reconceptualizing Species as Species-Towards-Extinction.Matt Rosen - 2018 - Southwest Philosophy Review 34 (2):117-123.
De-Extinction and the Conception of Species.Leonard Finkelman - 2018 - Biology and Philosophy 33 (5-6):32.
The Nature of Extinction.Julien Delord - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38 (3):656-667.
The Extinction and De-Extinction of Species.Helena Siipi & Leonard Finkelman - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (4):427-441.
EU DAISIE Research Project: Wanted—Death Penalty to Keep Native Species Competitive? [REVIEW]M. Zisenis - 2012 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (4):597-606.
The Ethics of De-Extinction.Shlomo Cohen - 2014 - NanoEthics 8 (2):165-178.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-11-10

Total views
70 ( #162,625 of 2,499,250 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #50,828 of 2,499,250 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes