User:Angelika.Sachdev/Sample page
The Social, Ethical, and Legal Implications of Bioengineering of Animal Species[edit]
Bioengineering of a animal species[edit]
Scientists may now genetically design genetic material through one or more plants or animals into the DNA of another animal, resulting in the creation of new species[1]. This enables scientists to build animals that are both entirely unique to our earth and particularly designed to exhibit only the characteristics that people want in animals[1]. This implies that agricultural animals can be genetically modified to grow quicker, provide better meat and flesh, by being less aware of the pain and suffering common in current industrial farms[1].Medical researchers use genetically altered animals to aid in the research for therapies for hereditary diseases such as breast cancer[1]. Ultimately, endangered animal species can be cloned, assisting wildlife conservation in its aims of sustaining natural populations and guaranteeing that endangered animals' genetic information is preserved until the last of species passes[1]. This application of advanced technology was not without its flaws or detractors[1]. Opponents argue that by genetically altering agricultural and research animals, we risk ruining what nature has fought so hard to achieve over millions of years[1].Wild animals are uniquely suited to their surroundings, and if technology tries to manipulate the DNA of only few species in the ecosystem, the ecosystem's overall equilibrium may be thrown off, leading an undisclosed number of natural species of animals to become extinct[1]. Some say that animals should have the right to be free of genetic alteration and a loss in their natural capacities at the very least[1]. Although this dispute, the legislation in both the US and Europe tends to favour genetically engineered research and development by enabling the patenting of genetically altered species[1]. Trademarks provide scientists an ownership over the genetically modified animal species, which has never happened before in modern economic structures. Animals can usually be acquired, but not entire species. Nevertheless, we must not wait to discover whatever the consequences of genetically modified animals will be for the planet.[1]
The negative implications of Bioengineering an animal species[edit]
Although genetic engineering is swiftly becoming an irreversible part of civilization, and its potential is enormous, there are a variety of worries regarding its societal and environmental implications. Environmentalists and animal rights organisations are frequently the most outspoken opponents. There are inherent hazards in any solution that genetic engineering purports to provide. Critics of genetic engineering argue that the technique lowers animals' status to the point that they become little more than "Test subjects with tails" useful solely for industrial farming, drug and organ manufacture, and other exploitative activities[1]. Transgenic animals represent a significant danger to born and bred animal populations and the general equilibrium of the ecosystem if unleashed or escaped into wild, untamed areas. The complexities of biochemical activities, as to which little is understood about the specific role that every species plays within the wider system. The theory claims that genetically generated organisms that have developed over centuries are untenable[1].
Ecological Implications of Bioengineering an animal species[edit]
.jpg)
A variety of risks are posed by transgenic farm animals[1]. Some worry that developing more efficient agricultural animals would result in a stop of natural selection, reducing genetic diversity in these kind of species[1]. This might expose entire herds to new strains of infectious illnesses[1]. Some say that transgenic farm animals are significantly more likely to struggle more than animals on industrial farms do now. As an example, when the USDA injected a human growth hormone into something like a pig, the pigs became "cross-eyed, crippled, and had malfunctioning immune systems that left them prone to infections[1]." Transgenic animals represent a significant danger to born and bred animal populations and the general equilibrium of the ecosystem if unleashed or escaped into wild, untamed areas[1]. The complexities of biochemical activities, as to which little is understood about the specific role that every species plays within the wider system the theory claims that genetically generated organisms that have developed over centuries are untenable[1]. According to a Purdue University research, if 60 genetically altered fish escaped into a native, natural population of 60,000, it will only take decades for the wild salmon to be killed[1]. Since studies show that artificial genetic modification poses a serious threat to wild settings, critics of genetic engineering feel that optimism must be restrained and that genetically engineered answers are not the solution to the worlds largest modern agriculture concerns[1]. Even if no harmful effects on the ecological functioning of natural habitats happen, simply sheer existence of imported genes and genetically altered species damages such ecosystems by reducing their sensuality or wilderness[1].
Moral Implications of Bioengineering an animal species
Making transgenic farm animals is seen as not just a danger to natural habitats, and also as a sort of cruelty. The notion is based on the idea of biological integrity, which states that every species, if owned or not, has an inherent right to have its genetic makeup preserved in its original state. Despite advocating for a full ban on transgenic animals, this concept of integrity focuses mostly on using biotechnology on animal production due to the extensive damage these species bring to natural ecosystems[1].
Here is a citation to a news articleCite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).. Besides a comprehensive prohibition on transgenic animals, the species integrity argument is significant when it comes to agricultural animals that were modified to be insentient. Since this application of biotechnology is so recent, there have been few intellectual responses to it[1]. At the very least, such technology contributes to the concept that animals are aware, that they are sentient creatures that deserve not just to protect but also profound regard and careful treatment[1]. Similarly, even if such technology is finally developed and implemented, the criminal act of murdering, mistreating, and cruelty to animals would remain that way hardly has been done to alleviate the situation[1]. Conciousness isn't the sole feature that distinguishes animals from plants or minerals. Insentient creatures, therefore, still would encounter the environment in a variety of ways other than through suffering or delight judgements, such as by thinking, speaking, moving, seeing, touching, tasting, and caring their young. Even yet, these animals would require more attention than plants or minerals. Genetically designing animals to make them immune to mistreatment could possibly intensify what is at the heart of the animal rights movement: the belief that physically abusing animals is violent, abusive, and wrong, because no amount of science or proximity from slaughterhouses can remove complicity[1]. Biotechnology's capacity to generate meat without the animal, on the other side, appears to be a lot less horrific notion. Despite the lack of research on the subject, it appears that such technology might overcome many of the issues that animal rights groups and environmentalists have with the usage of sentient animals for consumption, medicine, and apparel. In fact, there may be disagreement about what actually constitutes an animal or to what degree the existence of animal DNA or cellular structure warrants safety under the animal rights movement[1].
Laws that govern the Europe and the United States 0n Bioengineering an Animal Species[edit]
Animal replication and genetic manipulation research are generally outside the scope of even the most recent regulations intended to control this technology from both the United States and the European Union[1]. The key distinction between US and EU regulations is the US's relative lack of consideration for ethical research and farming operations[1]. Whereas the United States has regulations in place to ensure that animals are treated humanely, numerous animals used during research and agriculture are not covered by these rules[1]. As a result, the great majority of animals are subjected to genetic alteration with no government oversight or protection[1]. Shortly after giving birth to Dolly the sheep, the very first multicellular entity cloned from adult cells, most contemporary regulation regulating genetic engineering and cloning technologies was enacted[1]. The fundamental goals of US and EU law were to prevent human or transgenic hominid cloning and assure that genetically engineered studies will not be impeded[1]. After Dolly's delivery, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, and Spain enacted legislation prohibiting all studies of human embryos, with Germany and Spain expressly prohibiting human cloning[1]. In a similar vein, the United Nations replied by enacting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which contains a comprehensive ban on human cloning[1]. Animal cloning, on either side, it has been noticeably missing from current biotechnology laws[1].
Legislation in the United States The Animal Welfare Act and the Patent Act are two laws that apply to animals.[edit]
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the principal federal law in the United States that governs animal ownership[1]. The AWA is widely seen as having failed to achieve its objectives of forming and sustaining government regulations and standards for the humane treatment of nonhuman animals[1]. The AWA aims to safeguard any dead or alive canine, feline, nonhuman monkey, guinea pig, hamsters, rabbit, or even other warm-blooded species used or planned for research, education, testing, experimenting, or display purposes, or as a companion[1]. As an outcome, independent studies in the United States experiences little, if any, restrictions on genetic modification research and development[1]. Patent rights provides bioengineers with enormous motivation and assistance in their production of transgenic animals since there is no judicial scrutiny or legislative examination of the ethical and environmental aspects of genetic engineering[1]. The only applications of biotechnology that are prohibited are human cloning and human genetic engineering[1]. While patent protection doesn't really apply to cloned or transgenic individuals, it does apply to non-human, transgenic species with human gene sequences implanted in them[1].
Summary of the social, ethical, and legal ramifications of animal biotechnology[edit]
The animal rights activism is being confronted with one of its greatest problems and situations, as a result of the rapid development of modern biotechnology[1]. Advocates of the technique claim that transgenic animals, which have been biologically transformed by introducing the DNA of another plant or animal, could one day help alleviate many of today's issues, such as hunger and disease, as well as ecological pollution and the present extinction catastrophe[1]. Bioengineering, according to critics, provides more hazards than advantages[1]. Researchers say that genetic modification risks to worsen suffering to animals and cultural integrity while also having a potentially fatal influence on the Earth's environment's balance and stability[1]. Nevertheless, the moral judgements we make about the path and breadth of this technology will undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences[1].
Technological assessment[edit]
Transgenic animals are those that have been genetically modified to contain genes of different plants and animals[1]. Whereas genetic selection, which is limited to the genetic material of a particular species, current genetic engineering allows for practically unlimited alteration and introduction with otherwise unfamiliar genetic material[1]. It allows for the successful introduction of selected characteristics, rather than the plethora of other qualities prevalent in interbreeding, into new, transgenic animal species. Genetic engineering has the ability to build complete creatures that are not naturally occurring on the earth, and whose genetic make-up is just as much a consequence of human intervention as it is part of evolution[1].
Advantages of genetic engineering[edit]
In the farming business, transgenic domesticated animals that are more disease resistant, develop quicker, and breed more effectively than present kinds of animals can be generated[1]. Genetically engineered sheep may be developed to generate better wool, while cows can be genetically modified to transform grain more effectively into better quality meat and dairy[1]. Transgenic seafood, which grow bigger and quicker than native types, have already been developed and farmed[1].
Genetic engineering technology has also had an impact on the biomedical research business[1]. Rather than using a large set of test animals to study current illnesses and pharmacological cures, the biomedical industry may now use specially created animal testing models[1]. These animals are developed to be more susceptible to modern illnesses, such as genetic breast cancer[1]. Transgenic animals has made such disease research more precise, less costly, and faster, while also allowing consistent results with very few animals in any particular study[1]. Transgenic animals, such as goats, lambs, and cows, were also created to generate enormous amounts of complicated human proteins in their lactation, which can be used to develop therapeutic medications[1]. By genetically altering these animals to produce this and many other proteins in their milk, mass manufacturing of significant therapeutic pharmaceuticals is rendered less expensive, simpler, and at the sacrifice of less sentient animals than was previously the case[1]. Many people have suggested that biotechnology developments with whole reproductive cloning may be utilised to clone endangered animals[1]. Cloning is a powerful tool for combating the current extinction issue, and this can help make sure that vital populations of endangered species survive for years to come[1].
Disadvantages of genetic engineering[edit]
Furthermore, if transgenic animals migrate into wildlife populations, these can have a huge impact on nature, such as the entire eradication of native populations and natural selection processes[1]. Cloning endangered animals, while important as a last option, may inadvertently divert our attention away from of the vital environment required to maintain sustainable endangered species populations[1]. The preservation of habitat is just as vital as the particular regeneration and preservation of sustainable proportions within a population when it comes to protecting endangered species[1]. Because funds are scarce, habitat conservation should take precedence over pricey cloning technologies in our attempts to conserve endangered species[1].
Conclusion[edit]
The use of bioengineering technology to clone complete animals and develop new breeds of transgenic animal species offers as many accomplishments as it does unpredictability and opposition[1]. Transgenic animals (and crops), according to supporters of the technique, could one day help alleviate many of today's problems, ranging from hunger and illness to environmental damage and the present extinction catastrophe[1]. Biotechnology, according to critics, poses bigger hazards than it solves present problems[1]. They contend that genetic engineering poses a harm to animal welfare and ecological integrity.There really is no question that animal genetic engineering will persist for a long time[1]. The legal systems of the United States and the European Union have been sluggish to react with legislation particularly regulating bioengineering, and each has allowed their patent laws to offer a conducive environment for genetic engineering research and innovation[1]. This point is certain: we cannot remain passive while this technology transforms the structure of our lives from within[1].
Reference section[edit]
Perzigian, A. B. (2003). Detailed discussion of genetic engineering and animal rights: The legal terrain and ethical underpinnings. Animal Law Legal Center. Retrieved November 11, 2021, from https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-genetic-engineering-and-animal-rights-legal-terrain-and-ethical. [1]
Ormandy, E. H., Dale, J., & Griffin, G. (2011, May). Genetic Engineering of Animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns. The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne. Retrieved November 12, 2021, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078015/.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv "Detailed Discussion of Genetic Engineering and Animal Rights: The Legal Terrain and Ethical Underpinnings | Animal Legal & Historical Center". www.animallaw.info. Retrieved 2021-11-11.