Genetically engineered herbicide resistance, part two

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (2):114-146 (1990)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Should we continue to support publicly funded research on genetically engineered herbicide resistant crops? In Part One, I discussed the difference between science and ethics, presented a brief history of weed control, and explained three moral principles undergirding my environmentalist perspective. I then argued that unqualified endorsement (E) of the research is unjustified, as is unqualified opposition (O). In Part Two, I argue against qualified endorsement (QE), and for qualified opposition (QO).

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,783

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
38 (#418,635)

6 months
15 (#165,714)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gary Comstock
North Carolina State University

References found in this work

The dialectical biologist.Richard Levins - 1985 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Edited by Richard C. Lewontin.
The Dialectical Biologist.Philip Kitcher, Richard Levins & Richard Lewontin - 1989 - Philosophical Review 98 (2):262.
Unfinished Business.Jonathan Knutzen - 2023 - Philosophers' Imprint 23 (1): 4, 1-15.
Genetically engineered herbicide resistance, part one.Gary Comstock - 1989 - Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2 (4):263-306.

View all 10 references / Add more references