1. Ethics and Genetic Engineering

2. What Is Genetic Engineering?
“Genetic Engineering” = Creating organisms with novel genetic sequences.
Reiss and Straughan 1996

3. Pest Resistance: Bt Corn

4. Herbicide Tolerance
“Roundup Ready”

5. Enhanced Nutrition Golden rice
Dr. Ingo Potrykus and his team found a way to engineer rice so that the grain contains beta carotene, the precursor to vitamin A, which is not present in regular rice. The United Nations estimates that vitamin A deficiency affects more than 100 million children worldwide, and may be implicated in increased risks of maternal death. Golden rice might help alleviate vitamin A deficiency in countries where rice is a large part of the diet, but many who agree that vitamin A deficiency is a major health problem question whether golden rice is the appropriate solution.

6. Commercial Value Fast-growing salmon
“Scientists have created a genetically engineered variety of Atlantic salmon that grows to market weight in about 18 months, compared to the 24 to 30 months that it normally takes for a fish to reach that size.” (USFDA)
“Purdue University animal scientist Bill Muir and biologist Rick Howard conducted a study funded by USDA on genetically engineered fish, which led them to warn of possible risks from transgenic fish escaping into nature. They worry that transgenic fish escaping from aquaculture facilities into the wild, for example, could damage native populations, even to the point of extinction. But Elliot Entis, president of A/F Protein, Inc., an international biotechnology firm based in Waltham, Mass., feels that environmental concerns can be addressed by producing transgenic fish in closed aquaculture systems (controlled, artificial environments) or by producing all female, sterile fish.” --Carol Lewis, A New Kind of Fish Story: The Coming of Biotech Animals”,

7. Ethical Arguments About Biotechnology
Intrinsic: Biotechnology is good/bad in itself
Extrinsic: Biotechnology is good/bad because of:
its consequences
the motivations behind:
advocacy of biotech or
opposition to biotech
Murder is intrinsically bad; we do not have to wait to see its consequences before proclaiming murder bad. Other actions may be morally neutral in themselves, so that any ethical evaluation of the action will depend on the consequences of the action.

8. Intrinsic Arguments Against Biotechnology
Premise: Genetic engineering is unnatural.
Conclusion: Therefore, genetic engineering is intrinsically wrong.
Is this a good argument?
This is a common argument against GMOs. However, it is not clear that it is a good argument. Important questions to ask about this argument are:
Is genetic engineering really unnatural? What does unnatural mean?
Are all unnatural things also unethical? Surely airplanes are “unnatural,” so are they also unethical?

9. Intrinsic Arguments Against Biotechnology
Genetic engineering requires that we take a reductionist view of life that sees only genes, not individuals, as important.
“From the reductionist perspective, life is merely the aggregate representation of the chemicals that give rise to it and therefore they see no ethical problem whatsoever in transferring…even a hundred genes from one species into the heredity blueprint of another species.”
Jeremy Rifkin
This is another prominent argument against GMOs, but one could also question this one. For example, why should we think that genetic engineering requires a reductionist view of life? Don’t scientists value the traits of GMOs, rather than just their genetic structure?

10. Extrinsic Arguments About Biotechnology
Biotechnology is good/bad because of its consequences.
Three ways to evaluate consequences:
Do no harm (avoid bad consequences).
Maximize good consequences and minimize bad ones for all affected.
Justice: Fair distribution of good and bad consequences among all affected.
The three different ways of evaluating consequences are very different. For example, according to the principle that we should cause no harm, very many things would be unethical, including driving our cars (which causes environmental harm by burning fossil fuels and puts ourselves and others at risk of harm from accidents), for example. Maximizing good consequences and minimizing bad ones looks only at the aggregate effects of one’s actions, while the principle of justice requires an analysis of the distribution of consequences--are those who benefit from an action or policy also the ones who pay the costs or bear the risks? If not, it is possible that the policy or action is unjust.

11. Extrinsic Arguments About Biotechnology
Biotechnology is good/bad because of the motivations of its proponents/opponents.

12. Extrinsic Arguments: Motivations
Friends of the Earth: “Golden rice may never help poor farmers, but it could give the beleaguered European biotech industry a new grasp on life.”
Florence Wambugu: “These critics [of biotech], who have never experienced hunger and death on the scale we sadly witness in Africa, are content to keep Africans dependent on food aid from industrialized nations while mass starvation occurs.”
These are quotations from participants in the global debate about biotechnology. These quotations show the deep suspicion that the different sides have regarding the motives of those on the other side.

13. Extrinsic Arguments About Biotechnology
Environmental consequences
Human health consequences
Who benefits?
Who decides?
These are just a few more questions that are relevant to the ethical evaluation of biotechnology, in no particular order.

14. The Precautionary Principle
“When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998
“Lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
Rio Declaration 1992
The precautionary principle is widely used in environmental ethics. How would it apply to biotechnology? Some argue that it implies that no biotechnology should be used, especially where there is any danger of gene flow, but others argue that it implies that biotechnology should be used to try to alleviate problems with food shortages and malnutrition.

15. Image Credits
Bt Corn: United States General Accounting Office. Genetically Modified Foods: Experts view regimen of safety tests as adequate, but FDA’s evaluation process could be enhanced. May 2002.

16. Citations
Reiss and Straughan (1996), Improving Nature? (Cambridge University Press).
Precautionary Principle: The Science and Environmental Health Network,