Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (5):469-493 (2006)
AbstractGenetic engineering evokes a number of objections that are not directed at the negative effects the technique might have on the health and welfare of the modified animals. The concept of animal integrity is often invoked to articulate these kind of objections. Moreover, in reaction to the advent of genetic engineering, the concept has been extended from the level of the individual animal to the level of the genome and of the species. However, the concept of animal integrity was not developed in the context of genetic engineering. Given this external origin, the aim of this paper is to critically examine the assumption that the concept of integrity, including its extensions to the level of the genome and the species, is suitable to articulate and justify moral objections more specifically directed at the genetic engineering of animals.
Similar books and articles
Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering.S. Matthew Liao - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (5):973-991.
The Concept of Intrinsic Value and Transgenic Animals.H. Verhoog - 1992 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):147-160.
Genetic Engineering and Our Duties to Laboratory Animals: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of the Concepts of Intrinsic Value and Animal Integrity.R. B. M.de Vries - unknown
The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering.Russell Powell - 2012 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (1):22.
Ethics and the Genetic Engineering of Food Animals.Paul B. Thompson - 1997 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 10 (1):1-23.
Beyond Welfare: Animal Integrity, Animal Dignity, and Genetic Engineering.Sara Elizabeth Gavrell Ortiz - 2004 - Ethics and the Environment 9 (1):94-120.
Genetic Engineering and the Moral Status of Non-Human Species.Anders Melin - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):479-495.
Future Animal: Environmental and Animal Welfare Perspectives on the Genetic Engineering of Animals.Lyle Munro - 2001 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10 (3):314-324.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken Problem. [REVIEW]Paul B. Thompson - 2008 - NanoEthics 2 (3):305-316.
Integrating Philosophy of Science Into Research on Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in the Life Sciences.Simon Lohse, Martin S. Wasmer & Thomas A. C. Reydon - 2020 - Perspectives on Science 28 (6):700-736.
Is CRISPR an Ethical Game Changer?Marcus Schultz-Bergin - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (2):219-238.
How Good? Ethical Criteria for a ‘Good Life’ for Farm Animals.James Yeates - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (1):23-35.
Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility. [REVIEW]Yann Devos, Pieter Maeseele, Dirk Reheul, Linda Van Speybroeck & Danny De Waele - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (1):29-61.
References found in this work
A Radical Solution to the Species Problem.Michael T. Ghiselin - 1974 - Systematic Zoology 23:536-44.
Crossing Species Boundaries.Jason Scott Robert & Françoise Baylis - 2003 - American Journal of Bioethics 3 (3):1 – 13.