Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Animal genetic manipulation--a utilitarian response.

Kevin R Smith1

  • 1School of Science & Engineering, Division of Molecular & Life Sciences, University of Abertay Dundee, Kydd Building, Bell Street, Dundee, Scotland DD1 1HG. mltkrs@tay.ac.uk

Bioethics
|June 14, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Harnessing Immunomodulatory Polymers for Treatment of Autoimmunity, Allergy, and Transplant Rejection.

Annual review of biomedical engineering·2024
Same author

Stem-cell clinics in the UK: a web-based study.

Regenerative medicine·2021
Same author

Inflammation and emphysema in cigarette smoke-exposed mice when instilled with poly (I:C) or infected with influenza A or respiratory syncytial viruses.

Respiratory research·2016
Same author

Religion, secular medicine and utilitarianism: a response to Biggar.

Journal of medical ethics·2015
Same author

Paternal age bioethics.

Journal of medical ethics·2015
Same author

Wood smoke enhances cigarette smoke-induced inflammation by inducing the aryl hydrocarbon receptor repressor in airway epithelial cells.

American journal of respiratory cell and molecular biology·2014
Same journal

Between Safeguard and Constraint: Navigating Patient Autonomy in Protective Laws for Medical Assistance in Dying.

Bioethics·2026
Same journal

Bioethics of Space Exploration: Life, Risk, and Responsibility Beyond Earth.

Bioethics·2026
Same journal

The Concept of Harm in Medical Ethics.

Bioethics·2026
Same journal

On the Destruction and Humanitarianisation of the Health System in Gaza and the Need for a Biopolitical Bioethics.

Bioethics·2026
Same journal

Shaping Future Children, Sex Selection, and "Normal" Human Capacities.

Bioethics·2026
Same journal

Health Research Funders and Justice: Obligations to Coordinate and Counterbalance.

Bioethics·2026
See all related articles

Animal genetic manipulation (transgenesis) is examined for ethical concerns. While not intrinsically wrong, significant suffering in transgenic experiments warrants a default prohibition, even if killing is justifiable via replaceability.

Area of Science:

  • Bioethics
  • Animal Welfare
  • Genetics

Background:

  • Animal genetic manipulation, or transgenesis, involves altering an organism's genetic makeup.
  • Ethical considerations surrounding transgenesis are complex, involving potential suffering and the morality of genetic alteration.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To ethically evaluate the process and outcomes of animal transgenesis.
  • To address objections concerning genetic alteration, human transgenesis, killing, and animal suffering.

Main Methods:

  • Philosophical examination of moral arguments related to transgenesis.
  • Analysis of concepts such as 'deliberate genetic sequence alteration,' 'replaceability,' and 'personhood.'

Main Results:

Keywords:
Analytical ApproachBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchGenetics and Reproduction

Related Experiment Videos

  • Rejection of the intrinsic wrongness of genetic sequence alteration and the inevitability of human genetic manipulation.
  • Justification of killing in transgenesis through 'replaceability,' except for entities with 'personhood.'
  • Identification of 'significant suffering' as a key ethical concern.

    • Conclusions:

    • Animal transgenesis is not intrinsically wrong and should not be prohibited per se.
    • Utilitarians should support a default prohibition on transgenic experiments causing significant suffering.
    • Ethical frameworks must carefully weigh the benefits against the potential for animal suffering.