Review of THE FRANKENSTEIN SYNDROME - Richard T. Hull

rapidparentBiotechnology

Dec 12, 2012 (5 years and 24 days ago)

243 views

Review of

THE FRANKENSTEIN
SYNDROME

Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic
Engineering of Animals

by Bernard E. Rollin

New York: Cambridge U. Press, 1995

Review
(c)
by Richard T. Hull, Ph.D.

Austin, TX

Frankenstein as Archetype of the
Scientist


There are over 145 editions of Mary Shelley’s novel.


There are over 2,500 novels, translations,
adaptations, stories, critical works, popular articles,
series, fumetti, verse, stage plays, films, cartoons,
satire and humor, spoken and musical recordings,
tapes and sheet music featuring Frankenstein’s
monster and/or descended from Shelley’s novel.


Science is blamed for pollution, for failing to conquer
disease, for cavalier treatment of human and animal
research subjects, and public confidence in science is
on the wane.

Differing Popular Conceptions of the
Genetic Engineering of Animals


Dr. Frankenstein created new life with (potentially)
hellish consequences.


Therefore, genetic engineering is well represented by
the Frankenstein story, and should be banned.



Without genetic engineering, we won’t be able to keep
our competitive edge against the Japanese.


Therefore, genetic engineering should be unrestricted.

What is the case


The genetic engineering of animals cannot be stopped
-

it is too simple and relatively inexpensive. Were it
banned here, it would be moved to a less regulatory
environment.


The technology needs to be controlled, for a variety of
reasons and in a variety of dimensions to be presented
below.


As late as 1986, only one person had written any papers
on the moral issues occasioned by the technology.
There is a gap between those who uncritically embrace
all technology and those who are naive and unable to
articulate the issues.

The Aim of Rollin’s Book


To dissect out the moral issues in the case
of genetic engineering of animals.


To disambiguate the genuine moral issues
from the spurious ones.


To consider the best means of dealing with
these issues in our society.


Gresham’s law for ethics: bad moral thinking tends to
drive good moral thinking out of circulation.


Scientists do little to educate the public about moral
issues in science, because most are trained to ignore
them.


In practice, what emerges as ethical or moral issues is
shaped by the media:


Baby Fae Case: “The Monkey or the baby” ignored the use of
pig valves for years.


Nazi experimentation on concentration camps portrayed as
worthless: the rapid development of high altitude aerospace
medicine would have been much slower without Nazi data.


Public Assumes media coverage is adequate.

Chapter 1: “There are certain things
humans were not meant to do”

The Public’s View of Moral Issues


Press presents moral issues as dilemmas for dramatic
effect.


Public thus assumes all moral issues are dilemmas.


Intermediate solutions get ignored by virtue of the
drama of the extremes.


Use of animals experimentally was presented as a
dilemma: either abolish medical research on animals or
permit researchers total autonomy in animal use. But
the middle course of regulation prevailed.


Rollin’s view is that a similar middle way should
prevail for genetic engineering.

Why Scientists aren’t talking ethics


Practitioners of a field are least likely to think about
the conceptual presuppositions and ethical concerns in
it.


Scientific ideology rests on a set of assumptions.


Moral judgments cannot be verified or falsified by experiment
or observation.


Therefore, moral judgments are expressions of emotions and
enjoy no claim to truth.


Therefore, science is value free:

»
“Science cannot make value judgments . . .and cannot
make moral judgments.” Keeton and Gould,
Biological
Science
, p. 6.

»
“Science does not make ethical or moral decisions.” Mader,
Biology
, p. 15.

The invalid inference


Claim 1: The truth of moral statements is unrelated to
the truth of scientific statements.


Claim 2: The truth of moral statements is unrelated to
the truth of statements about how the enterprise of
testing the truth of scientific judgments should develop.


Claim 2 does not follow from Claim 1: even if science
doesn’t make moral judgments in validating truth
claims, it does not follow that how that validation is
conducted “ought not to be hampered by moral
judgments.” (James Wyngaarden, former director of
NIH)

»
e.g., using prisoners to test drugs w/o freely given consent.

Is genetic engineering inherently wrong?


Condemnations often take the line that e.g. “blurs species,’
is “messing with nature,” “violates the sanctity of life,” is
“playing God,” etc.


Condemnations get stronger in direct proportion to the
dramatic nature of the genetic intervention.


46% of public believes “we have no business meddling with
nature.” (OTA)


67% of the public believe that creation of new life forms
should not be pursued.” (NSF)


“Genetic engineering of animals does not display the proper
respect for the gift of life.” (National Council of Churches)

Intrinsic Objections to Genetic
Engineering


G. E. is reductionistic.


Species should remain inviolable.


G. E. confuses the distinction between nature and
culture.


Nature is perfect as it is; G.E. alters what is perfect.


Learning to genetically engineer animals will lead to
genetically engineering humans.

Chapter 2: Rampaging monsters


Addresses extrinsic objections to Genetic
Engineering:


It will inevitably lead to unanticipated dangers.


Scientific arrogance that all unanticipated
dangers can be neutralized by science is
unwarranted.


The lessons of
Jurassic Park

are that Genetic
Engineering will fall into the hands of fools and
those motivated by pecuniary interests.


These are dismissed as indicating only that
we need regulation.

More Serious Concerns


Reasonable skepticism about “Experts
judging risks”


Sense One: Significant numbers of people in
society may not trust experts (a) to fully
identify risks associated with their area of
expertise, or if they do (b) to take them
seriously enough to suit common sense.



Sense Two: Many people in society may not
trust experts to decide for society in general
what risks its members should take in pursuit of
a particular technology or innovation.

Dealing with Sense One


Brainstorming about risks is an essential first step
toward managing this technology.


Scrutiny of possible risks and their management should
involve those not engaged in their creation, as a control
against


the blinding fervor of the joy of scientific inquiry and the
excitement of the chase;


the potential financial rewards of commercially viable
products
.


80 percent of the public wants to be consulted in a far
more significant way on setting biotechnology policy
(survey in Colorado and North Carolina, by Hoban and
Kendall, 1992).

Dealing with Sense Two


Given that we have identified the risks in G. E. and
their likelihood, to let the experts in the relevant facts
make the value decisions on what risks we should take
and how we should regulate it is fallacious: it conflates
knowing what is the case with how we ought to regulate
its pursuit.


The values of experts may not be the values of other
members of the society in which they reside.


Final decisions about what is to be pursued and at what
risk should be as democratic as possible. This entails


not letting physicians decide the right and wrong of social
medical policy.


funding priorities should not be dictated by panels of experts
in the fields in question.

A Model for Regulation of
Genetic Engineering


Extensive public hearings, country
-
wide, on genetic
engineering of animals, to construct a list of concerns
about risks, to be responded to intelligently and in lay
terms in discussions of their management or
minimization, together with the expected benefits, the
resultant document to be widely circulated.


Federal mandate of broadly representative local
committees to judge and pass on proposals for genetic
engineering of animals, through public hearings, and
weighing their results, ultimately deciding to accept or
reject each proposed project.


A federal agency to monitor the system of local
committees.

Predictable Concerns with
Genetic Engineering


I. Evolution in the fast lane.


Traditional breeding imposed a waiting period
associated with attempting to incorporate traits
into organisms, through many generations.
Insertion of genes skips generations, and confronts
the realities of pleiotropy: one gene and its
products code for more than a single trait, in
concert with other genes.


Isolated characteristics engineered into an
organism may have unsuspected harmful
consequences to humans who consume the
resultant animal.


Control through lots of small
-
scale testing before
releasing or depending on the new organism.

II. Narrowing of the Gene Pool


A “superior” animal, created transgenetically with
rapidity, gives a competitive edge to those who
use it. Other stock is replaced with this animal, as
old strains become viewed as obsolete. The entire
branch of agriculture becomes monocultured.
Over time, problems develop and the potential for
responding to them is lost with the shrinkage in
the gene pool.


Control through establishing a “gene library” of
animals
--
a collection of germ plasm, and use g.e.
to widen the gene pool.

III. Unwittingly Selecting for
Pathogens


Engineering strains that are resistant to a
given pathogen may well result in selecting
for new variations among the natural
mutations of that pathogen to which the
modified animal would not be resistant.


Engineering other characteristics into
animals changes internal
microenvironments in ways that can provide
selection pressures to change the nature of
the microbes they host.

IV. Genetically Engineered
Disease Models


Animals engineered to host human diseases,
such as AIDS mice, could escape.


Viruses inserted into AIDS mice can interact
with a common mouse virus to produce a new
pathogen synergistically. Such viral variants
may have the capacity to spread by new routes,
such as transmission through the air.


Control through extraordinary containment
policies, aiming at seemingly far
-
fetched risks
and preparing for the worst case.

V. Environmental/Ecological
Consequences


Escape of genetically altered animals followed by their
interacting with native populations. Example: Killer
bees accidentally released in California from a research
colony.


Introduction of genetically engineered animals into the
broader environment, such as predator insects, could
select for super
-
prey.


Control through systematic examination of each
project through application of a table of
commonsensical, reasonable general principles.

VI. Military Applications


Possibility of bioengineering of animals to be
used as vectors for infecting enemy
populations with human pathogens (e.g.,
genetically engineered mosquitoes to spread
the AIDS virus)


Can’t be avoided by prohibiting biotechnology
in the United States: techniques are relatively
cheap and can be done by any terrorist group
or government that hires the relevant expertise.

VII. Socioeconomic Concerns


Genetic engineering of animals may
accelerate the tendency for small farmers to
go out of business because they cannot
compete with large corporations.


Efficiency and maintaining low prices carry
the risk of decreasing animals’ well
-
being.


Loss of valued forms of human life
--
small
towns, farming families
--
that embody
values worth preserving.

Chapter Three: The Animal’s
Plight


Reviews traditional anti
-
cruelty ethic.


Covers the newly emergent social ethic for
animals.


Addresses how Genetic Engineering can help
animals by changing their
telos.


Asserts Conservation of Welfare as the central
guiding principle in the creation of transgenic
animals.


Addresses special problems associated with
transgenic animal models of human diseases.

The Traditional Anti
-
cruelty
Ethic


Biblical prohibition against deliberate
cruelty toward animals:


Don’t muzzle an ox when it is threshing grain, for it
would involve unnecessary suffering for the animal
with no gain for humans


Don’t yoke an ox and an ass together; it would
involve unnecessary suffering for the weaker animal
to be forced to keep up with the stronger, and
nothing is gained.


19th century laws against cruelty to animals
and neglect of animals


Aimed at protecting animals from senseless
abuse


Aimed at protecting humans from individuals
who would do that sort of thing: people who
begin with abusing animals will often graduate
to abusing people. Most of the most notorious
mass murderers in the last decade have histories
of animal abuse.


Enforcement, however, was not vigorous, and
judges would refuse to enter judgments of
cruelty which had not been endorsed by
changes in the social ethic.

Problems in the anti
-
cruelty ethic


The ethic equates abuse of animals with cruelty, and
sees kindness to animals as equivalent to good
treatment.


Most animal abuse is not done out of cruelty, but out of
ignorance of the animal’s needs and nature.


Much animal suffering caused by people motivated by
good reasons and goals: curing disease advancing
knowledge, producing cheap food, testing the safety of
products.


Kindness is an inadequate basis for moral obligation.
The civil rights and suffrage movements didn’t have as
their battle cries, “Be kind to blacks! Be kind to
women!”

Causes of the New Social Ethic
for Animals


Climate of ethical soul
-
searching about forms of
exploitation heightens sensitivity to injustice.


Animal issues have been kept prominently in view
because “animals sell papers.”


98.3% of our society is urban and suburban, with no
direct contact with how animals are raised, killed, and
processed.


A rational framework for articulating and defending
what was traditionally seen as merely a matter of
emotion and sentiment has been produced.


There has been a change in how animals are used.
Animal agriculture was chiefly animal husbandry.
Agriculture was a fair contract, with humans helping
animals to live their natural lives, and animals
providing their products or their lives.


In last 50 years, traditional husbandry replaced by
factory farming, with animals kept under conditions
for which they are not biologically or psychologically
suited. We can now fail to respect animal’s natures and
still be productive and efficient.


Research and testing has emerged as a major and
highly controversial area of animal use. Researchers
are not sadistic or cruel people, but they cause
suffering.


All this has led to the notion that animals have, or
should be regarded as having, rights.

The “New” Rights of Animals


Proper treatment of animals is a duty, not a
matter of kindness.


As a duty, proper treatment of animals
should be legally encoded (i.e., mandatory).


Mandated regulation must replace the
traditional husbandry ethic to assure respect
for animal interests flowing from their
natures.


The effect on animals, and not just the benefit to
humans, should guide the regulation of future and new
uses of animals.


The well
-
being that should be protected involves both
control of pain and suffering and allowing the animals
to live their lives in a way that suits their biological
natures.


Research laws allow as “necessary suffering” only that
suffering that is impossible to alleviate, in the context of
human use. Expense, inconvenience, or inefficiency is
no longer an excuse for not controlling pain and
suffering.


Regulatory change has brought about conceptual
change. Before 1957, there was no such thing as
“psychological well
-
being of primates.” After, there
was, and science had to allow for it.

Genetic Engineering of Animals’
Telos


Improvement through genetic engineering
possible:


Disease resistance engineered in chickens to certain
tumors.


The poll gene, from a strain of horn
-
less cattle, can
be engineered into all cattle, who are now de
-
horned
surgically and without anesthesia.


Genetic engineering can be use to deal with genetic
disease in animals, either through gene therapy or
by altering the defective genome.


Could engineer food animals to fit confinement
conditions.


The rights of animals are to be understood
in terms of not violating the animal’s nature.
This does not preclude changing the
animal’s nature. If animals could be made
happier by changing their natures, there is
no inherent harm in doing so
--
unless the
changes harm or endanger other animals,
humans, or the environment.

Principle of Conservation of
Welfare


Any animals that are generically engineered
for human use or even for environmental
benefit should be no worse off, in terms of
suffering after the new traits are introduced
into the genome than the parent stock was
prior to the insertion of the new genetic
material.

Likely Components to Regulate
Genetic Engineering in Animals


Suffering of animals produced in genetic
engineering research, either basic or
commercially oriented, must be controlled.


No animal whose life violates the principle
of conservation of welfare would be
produced on a commercial level.

Transgenic Animal Models of
Human Diseases


Social ethic of medicine will permit creating transgenic animal
models of human genetic (and other) diseases, insofar as they
remain the only way of understanding such diseases and of
developing strategies to avoid or cure them.



Yet, this seems to violate the principle of conservation of welfare,
where offspring are created that are significantly worse off then
their parent stock, and created in large numbers.



Rollins sees the only way out of this dilemma to be the production
of animal models in which the obliteration of all subjective
experience of the animal models, the total elimination of
consciousness, is achieved. He is involved in a protocol seeking
production of decerebrate lines, induction of permanent coma,
involve a kind of euthanization of the feeling animal but keeping
the animal vegetatively alive.

Conclusion


The Frankenstein Syndrome

is recommended as a
provocative way to think about the emerging new
animal ethic, and should be widely read and
discussed in animal research laboratories. It
provides a wealth of non
-
defensive ways of
responding to the public’s suspicions about
science, and of quieting the tendency of the public
to convict science of unfeeling disregard for what
the public is coming to perceive as the rights of
animals.

Other Reading


Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New
Ethic for our Treatment of Animals

(New
York: Random House, 1975)


Office of Technology Assessment,
Alternatives to Animal Use in Research,
Testing, and Education. (Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS,
February 1986)


Andrew N. Rowan,
Of Mice, Models, &
Men: A Critical Evaluation of animal
Research

(Albany: State University of New
York press, 1994)



Tom Regan,
The Case for Animal Rights

(Berkeley: The University of California
Press, 1983)


John A. Krasney, “Some Thoughts on the
Value of Life: Physicians need to be
concerned about increased attacks on
animal research by anti
-
vivisectionists,”
Buffalo Physician
, Sept 1984: 6
-
13.


Michael Allen Fox,
The Case for Animal
Experimentation: An Evolutionary and
Ethical Perspective

(Berkeley: university of
California press, 1986)


Daisie Radner and Michael Radner,
Animal
Consciousness (Buffalo: Prometheus Books,
1989).


Rosemary Rodd,
Biology, Ethics and
Animals
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990)


James Rachels,
Created from Animals: the
Moral Implications of Darwinism
(Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1990)


Charles S. Nicoll, “A Physiologist’s Views
on the Animal Rights/Liberation
Movement,”
The Physiologist

vol. 34, no. 6
(1991): 303
-
315


Donald R. Griffin,
Animal Minds

(Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1992)


Lorens Otto Luterere and Margaret
Sheffield Simon,
The Anatomy of an Animal
Rights Attack

(Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1992)


Rod and Patti Strand,
The Hijacking of the
Humane Movement

(Wilsonville, Ore.:
Doral, 1993)


Kathy Snow Guillermo,
Monkey Business:
The Disturbing Case that Launched the
Animal Rights Movement
(Bethesda, Md.:
National Press, 1993)


F. Barbara Orlans,
In the Name of Science:
Issues in Responsible Animal
Experimentation

(New york: Oxford
university Press, 1993)


Department of Justice and Department of
Agriculture, “Congressional Report: The
Animal Enterprise Act,” in
The
Physiologist
, vol. 36, no. 6 (1993): 247
-
259.


Andrew N. Rowan, “The Benefits and
Ethics of Animal Research,”
Scientific
American
(February 1997): 79


Neal D. Barnard and Stephen R. Kaufman,
“Animal Research is Wasteful and
Misleading,”
Scientific American
(February
1997): 80
-
82


Jack H. Botting and Adrian R. Morrison,
“Animal Research is Vital to Medicine,”
Scientific American
(February 1997): 83
-
85


Madhusree Mukerjee, “Trends in Animal
Research,”
Scientific American

(February
1997):89
-
93