Ethics and transgenesis: Toward a policy framework incorporating intrinsic objections and societal perceptions

Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

Volumn 32, Issue SUPPL. 1A, 2004, Pages 391-396

  Gott, Miranda ^a   Monamy, Vaughan ^b  

^a NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service   (Australia)

^b AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Ethics; Intrinsic objections; Policy; Societal perceptions; Transgenesis

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL CARE; ANIMAL RIGHTS; ANIMAL USE; ANIMAL WELLBEING; ATTITUDE; CONFERENCE PAPER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DNA MODIFICATION; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; ETHICS; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL WELFARE; MORALITY; NONHUMAN; PERCEPTION; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIETY; TRANSGENIC ANIMAL; TRANSGENICS;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 3042612194     PISSN: 02611929     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/026119290403201s64     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Mitchell, A. (2001). How to measure welfare of transgenic farm animals. Proceedings of a workshop, The Welfare of Transgenic Animals, p. 20. Adelaide, Australia: ANZCCART.
2. Richmond, J.D. (2004). Animal use in the United Kingdom in 2001. ATLA 32, Suppl. 1, 293-297.
3. Hoban, T.J. & Kendall, P.A. (1994). The consumer connection: what biotechnology needs to succeed. Consumers ask: What's in it for me? Food Processing, Sept. 1994, 79-87.
4. Sandoe, P., Forsman, B. & Hansen, A. K. (1996). Transgenic animals: the need for ethical dialogue. Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science 23 (Suppl. 1), 279-285.
5. Biotechnology and the European Public, Concerted Action Group (1997). Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature, London 387, 845-847.
6. Fleming, J.S. (2004). Ethical, cultural and spiritual objections to genetically modified organisms: a review of the New Zealand process and perspective. ATLA 32, Suppl. 1, 21-27.
7. Hamstra, I.A. (1998). Public Opinion about Biotechnology: a Survey of Surveys. European Federation of Biotechnology Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. Frankfurt, Germany: EFB. Web site http://www.kluyver.stm. tudelft.nl/efb/home.htm.
8. Banner Report (1995). Report of the Committee to Consider the Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals. London, UK: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
9. Bruce, D. & Bruce, A., eds (1998). Engineering Genesis: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering in Non-Human Species. Earthscan Publications Ltd. Web site www.srtp.org.uk/engenpre.shtml.
10. Gruen, L. (1991). Animals. In A Companion to Ethics (ed. P. Singer), pp. 343-345. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Reference.
11. Reiss, M.J. & Straughan, R. (1996). Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering, 288pp. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Schneider, A.L. (1999). Terminator! Who, Me? Some Thoughts about the Study of Policy Implementation, Policy Currents (Newsletter of the Public Policy Section, American Political Science Association) March 1999, 9 (1).
13. UK Centre for Management and Policy Studies (2001). Modernizing Policy Development - Nine Features of Modern Policy Making. London, UK: CMPS. Web site www.cmps.gov.uk/default.asp?loadframe=nine_features_of_modern_policy.asp.
14. Monamy, V. (2000). Animal-Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues, 110pp. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. National Health and Medical Research Council (1997). Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, 6th edition, 73pp. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.