Humanising and dehumanising pigs in genomic and transplantation research

History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 44 (4):1-27 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Biologists who work on the pig (_Sus scrofa_) take advantage of its similarity to humans by constructing the inferential and material means to traffic data, information and knowledge across the species barrier. Their research has been funded due to its perceived value for agriculture and medicine. Improving selective breeding practices, for instance, has been a driver of genomics research. The pig is also an animal model for biomedical research and practice, and is proposed as a source of organs for cross-species transplantation: xenotransplantation. Genomics research has informed transplantation biology, which has itself motivated developments in genomics. Both have generated models of correspondences between the genomes of pigs and humans. Concerning genomics, I detail how researchers traverse species boundaries to develop representations of the pig genome, alongside ensuring that such representations are sufficiently porcine. In transplantation biology, the representations of the genomes of humans and pigs are used to detect and investigate immunologically-pertinent differences between the two species. These key differences can then be removed, to ‘humanise’ donor pigs so that they can become a safe and effective source of organs. In both of these endeavours, there is a tension between practices that ‘humanise’ the pig (or representations thereof) through using resources from human genomics, and the need to ‘dehumanise’ the pig to maintain distinctions for legal, ethical and scientific reasons. This paper assesses the ways in which this tension has been managed, observing the differences between its realisations across comparative pig genomics and transplantation biology, and considering the consequences of this.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,296

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Commentary on Koplin and Wilkinson.David B. Resnik - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (7):449-450.
The Animal Issue in Xenotransplantation: Controversies in France and the United States.Catherine Rémy - 2009 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 31 (3-4):405 - 428.
Potential benefits and risks of clinical xenotransplantation.D. K. C. Cooper & D. Ayares - 2012 - Transplant Research and Risk Management 2012.
Advances in pig welfare.Marek Špinka (ed.) - 2018 - Duxford, United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing, an imprint of Elsevier.
The governance of genomic information: will it come of age?Adèle Langlois - 2006 - Genomics, Society and Policy 2 (3):1-15.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-12-01

Downloads
6 (#1,485,580)

6 months
3 (#1,046,015)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Philosophy of Microbiology.Maureen O'Malley - 2014 - Cambridge University Press.
What’s so special about model organisms?Rachel A. Ankeny & Sabina Leonelli - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (2):313-323.
The many faces of biological individuality.Thomas Pradeu - 2016 - Biology and Philosophy 31 (6):761-773.

View all 25 references / Add more references