Drawing the line on genetically engineered pets
Catching up on the last little bit of year end list-making, here's Wired's "Top 10 New Organisms of 2007." The collection includes quite a few organisms that you might call useful or productive -- vaccine-producing button mushrooms and mice that model schizophrenia, for example. But a few of the organisms on the list are what might be considered "entertainment" organisms: the now infamous glow-in-the-dark cats, the hypoallergenic cat, and tadpoles engineered to be fluorescent for the purposes of art (that's an image created from one of them above).
Reading about these organisms got me thinking about a comment posted by SabrinaW about the glow-in-the-dark cats. Here's what she wrote in December:
It is the commercialization of such "designer pets" that bothers me about this. Coming from a negative utilitarian standard (avoid doing harm), this development appears frivolous, potentially harmful, and disrespectful to the dignity of animals. We are treating them like robots or a product rather than as a living being with needs and an interest in being treated humanely. I worry about the shifts in how we will view animals in the wake of this "new exciting feature!" and what that will inspire in us as we find ourselves unable to understand more while still maintaining respect for the dignity of life.
I am allergic to pet dander (dogs and cats), and love cats dearly. But I cannot bring myself to consider a "made to order" hypoallergenic cat - such a "feature" brings no benefit to the cat itself and could hold potential dangers for it.
I wonder about where we should draw the lines here. Sabrina draws it at the genetically engineered "designer" pet. But humans have been breeding certain characteristics into and out of our pets for a long time. What makes a hypoallergenic cat different? At $27,000 a cat, it will almost surely be prized and well cared for. Isn't that all a cat can ask for? Or is there something about the act of genetic engineering that pushes these kinds of organisms over the line?
Update: Check out Sabrina's further thoughts on this in the comments.
-Greg Dahlmann
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ South Koreans clone cats that glow in the dark
+ About those glow in the dark cats
+ Looking for cats that glow in the dark
photo: Dmitry Bulatov, Kaliningrad Branch of the National Centre for Contemporary Art in Russia
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
I would say that it is a difference of degree. breeding cats to have pretty stripes is failry innocuous selection between common genotypes, breading freaks like munchins and nake cats is pushing it too far, directly manipulating the genotype even further. the more we deviate from wild type the worse the animal welfare will be.
- by emily on Jan 8, 2008 at 1:58 PM | link
the more we deviate from wild type the worse the animal welfare will be.
Do we know that? I mean, you may be right. And I think I share your reluctance to create these sorts of pets. But I wonder if that reluctance is based on rational concerns -- or it's just a gut reaction to something that seems a little too weird.
- by Greg on Jan 9, 2008 at 1:24 PM | link
We do know that from theory and extensive experience. The wild type is the result of natural selection creating complex and functional gene intereactions. Changing these by choosing between existing genotypes is trivial, but perpetuating or creating 'freaks' with an arbitrary mutation is inevitably creating a less fit, more vulnerable and less 'well-faring' animal. We are randomly taking componants out of the machine--sometimes tirvial and sometimes crucial components--but never without some deteriment to the overall mechanism.
- by emily on Jan 9, 2008 at 2:23 PM | link
I would note that it is typically of WIRED's optimistic futurism to suggest we invented these 'new' organisms, rather than just hacked their code.
- by emily on Jan 9, 2008 at 2:25 PM | link
Because my concerns are about deontological concepts such as "dignity" and "respect", I don't think that a tangible line can be practically drawn at specific acts or categories of actions, but rather at intentions and attitudes. What bothers me is the "wow, that's cool!" attitude that, while amusing when looking at inanimate technologies (I'm guilty of drooling over the new mp3 player myself), presents moral and ethical discomfort when directed at living beings. While we already commodify animals, this whole new level of objectification, where a glow-in-the-dark cat could be the new Tickle-Me-Elmo, is degrading and disappointing, and while bringing marginal harm to the animals themselves, certainly can threaten our sense of dignity and respect on a spiritual and conscientious level.
Also, there are different ways to "draw lines". I made it clear that I personally would not buy a genetically modified hypoallergenic cat. But would I support legislation to outlaw research on or production of them? Probably not, because frankly, that is relatively minor compared to other forms of genetic manipulation that loom on the horizon, and because I see a clear distinction between pursuing research and promoting comodities for consumption in a free market. There certainly is potential for the techniques explored in producing glow-in-the-dark cats to open up new levels of research that will help improve the world (just as cloning research has developed somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques), and I strongly support research. But converting such research into non-beneficial goods for people to buy crosses a line in my ethos. On a side note, I have similar reservations about the corporatization of genetically modified foods; research in controlled environments is great, but free market distribution when we aren't sure of the larger ramifications is irresponsible and unethical.
(I am glad that I inspired further discussion on this.)
- by SabrinaW on Jan 10, 2008 at 1:58 PM | link