Biotechnology as End Game: Ontological and Ethical Collapse in the “Biotech Century”

NanoEthics

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 39-54

  Weisberg, Zipporah ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Animal subjectivity; Biotechnology; Critical theory; Ethics; Ontology; Phenomenology; Species integrity; Technological rationality; Time space compression

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940009042     PISSN: 18714757     EISSN: 18714765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11569-014-0219-5     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. von Feuerbach L (1986) Principles of the philosophy of the future, trans. Manfred Vogel (Indianapolis; Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company), 42
2. Chan R (2012) Thinking big: synthetic biology. Fidelity Investments. http://thinkingbig.fidelity.com/bio. Accessed June 24, 2012
3. Anthes E (2013) Don’t be afraid of genetic modification. The New York Times, March 9, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/dont-be-afraid-of-genetic-modification.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&. AquaBounty Technologies. 2014. "Products." http://aquabounty.com/company/products/. Accessed March 17, 2013
4. Hai T et al (2014) One-step generation of knockout pigs by zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas system. Cell Research 24:372–375. doi:10.1038/cr.2014.11. Accessed 29 Oct. 2014
5. Best S (2011) Genetic science, animal exploitation, and the challenge for democracy. In: Carol G (ed) Leonardo’s choice: genetic technologies and animals. Springer, Dordrecht, p 7
6. Best S (2013) Genetic science, 9. “GloFish® FAQ,” GloFish®. http://www.glofish.com/about/faq/. Accessed 12 June 2013
7. Firm hails dog clone breakthrough (2009) BBC News.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7858566.stm. Accessed 11 June 2013
8. Jørgenson D (2013) Reintroduction and de-extinction. BioScience 63(9):719–720. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.9.6
9. Cohen S (2104) The ethics of de-extinction. NanoEthics 8:165–178. doi:10.1007/s11569-014-0201-2
10. Derrida J (2008) The animal that therefore I am, trans. In: David W (ed) Marie-Louise Mallet. Fordham University Press, New York, p 26, Italics added
11. Bud R (1993) The uses of life: a history of biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 1
12. CCAC guidelines: on procurement of animals used in science (2007) The Canadian Council on Animal Care. http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Procurement.pdf. Accessed 17 March 2013
13. “UN Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)” United Nations. http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/default.shtml. Accessed 22 Feb 2012
14. Margawati ET (2003) Transgenic animals: their benefits to human welfare. ActionBioscience. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/margawati.html. Accessed 17 March 2013. Italics added
15. CCAC guidelines: on transgenic animals (1997) The Canadian Council on Animal Care. http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Transgenic_Animals.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2013
16. Bacon F (1999) "New Atlantis,". In: Sargent R-M (ed) Francis Bacon: selected philosophical works. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, p 263f
17. Weisberg Z (2009) The broken promises of monsters: Haraway, animals, and the humanist legacy. Journal for Critical Animal Studies 2(2):50
18. Stix G (2006) The land of milk and money. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=atryn-the-land-of-milk-and-mone. Accessed 7 May 2013
19. Rutherford A (2012) Synthetic biology and the rise of ‘spider-goats’. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/14/synthetic-biology-spider-goat-genetics. Accessed 17 March 2013
20. Ellul J (1964) The technological society, trans. John Wilkinson. Knopf, New York, p 135
21. Sample I (2009) Genetically modified monkeys give birth to designer babies. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/27/genetically-modified-gm-monkeys-germline. Accessed 28 May 2012
22. Cyranoski D (2009) Marmoset model takes centre stage. Nature 459, 492. doi:10.1038/459492a, Accessed 28 Oct. 2014
23. Meidinger RM et al (2014) The EnviropigTM: reducing the environmental impact of animal agriculture through high health-status pigs that efficiently utilize dietary plant phosphorus. Journal of Biotechnology, IV1-O-001. doi:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2008.07.458, Accessed 28 Oct 2014
24. Forsberg CW et al (2013) Integration, stability and expression of the E. coli phytase transgene in the Cassie line of Yorkshire Enviropig™. Transgenic Res 22:379–389. doi:10.1007/s11248-012-9646-7, Accessed 28 Oct. 2014
25. Pollack A (2012) Move to market gene-altered pigs in Canada is halted. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/science/gene-altered-pig-project-in-canada-is-halted.html. Accessed 27 May 2012. Italics added
26. Chan R (2013) Thinking big: "Enviropig™". University of Guelph. http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/. Accessed 3 Oct. 2013
27. Service RF (2002) Mammalian cells spin a spidery new yarn. Science 295. doi:10.1126/science.295.5554.419b, Accessed 28 Oct. 2014
28. Robo-pigeon: the pigeon that flies wherever you fancy. Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-439025/Robo-pigeon-pigeon-flies-fancy.html#ixzz1wHd6SaR6. Accessed 29 May 2012
29. Carmena JM et al (2003) Learning to control a brain–machine interface for reaching and grasping by primates. PLoS Biology 1: 2. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0000042, Accessed 28 Oc. 2014
30. Heaven D (2013) First mind-reading implant gives rats telepathic power. NewScientist, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23221-first-mindreading-implant-gives-rats-telepathic-power.html. Accessed 8 May 2013
31. Reardon S (2013) Interspecies telepathy: human thoughts make rats move. NewScientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23343-interspecies-telepathy-human-thoughts-make-rat-move.html. Accessed 8 May 2013
32. Adorno TW (1983) Negative dialectics, trans. E. B. Ashton. Continuum, New York, p 148
33. Marcuse H (1964) One-dimensional man: studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Beacon Press, Boston, p 137
34. Horkheimer M, Adorno TW (2002) Dialectic of enlightenment: philosophical fragments. In: Gunzelin Schmid N (ed) trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford University Press, Stanford, p 4
35. Thacker E (2003) Data made flesh: biotechnology and the discourse of the posthuman. Cultural Critique 53:89
36. Eunice KY (2005) Britain pro-lifers row over cloning license to Dolly’s father, Christian Today. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/britain.prolifers.row.over.cloning.license.to.dollys.father/2109.htm. Accessed 28 May 2012
37. Sample I (2010) Craig Venter creates synthetic life form. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form, Accessed 29 May 2012
38. Rutherford A (2012) Synthetic biology and the rise of the ‘spider-goats’. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/14/synthetic-biology-spider-goat-genetics/print. Accessed 29 May 2012
39. Newell-McGloughlin M, Re E (2006) The evolution of biotechnology: from Natufians to nanotechnology. Springer, Dordrecht, p 52
40. Sell SK (2007) International institutions, intellectual property, and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. In: Ostergard RL Jr (ed) HIV/AIDS and the threat to national and international security. Palgrave MacMillan, New York, p 151
41. Murray F (September 2010) The Oncomouse that roared: resistance and accommodation to patenting in academic science. American Journal of Sociology 116:351. doi:10.1086/653599. Accessed 28 May 2012
42. Linzey A (2002) Genetic engineering. In: Richard S, Morrey JD (eds) Ethical issues in biotechnology. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, p 330, Author’s italics
43. Knight W (2003) Dolly the sheep dies young, New Scientist’. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3393-dollythe-sheep-dies-young.html. Accessed 5 June 2012
44. Shanks N, Greek R (2009) Animal models in light of evolution. BrownWalker Press, Boca Raton, p 310
45. Best S (1990) Genetic science 10; KarlMarx, Capital Volume 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (London; New York: Penguin Books) 481
46. Noske B (1997) Beyond boundaries: humans and animals. Black Rose Books, Montreal, p 18
47. Von Uexküll J (2010) A foray into the worlds of animals and humans with a theory of meaning. In: Cary W (ed) trans. Joseph D. O’Neil, Posthumanities, vol. 12. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, p 43
48. Merleau-Ponty M (2002) Phenomenology of perception, trans. Colin Smith. Routledge Classics, London; New York, Italics added
49. Harvey D (1990) The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, Cambridge, p 240
50. Marinetti FT (1973) The founding and manifesto of futurism 1909. In: Umbro A, Robert B, Flint RW, Higgitt JC, Caroline T (eds) Futurist Manifestos. Thames and Hudson, London, p 22
51. Virilio P (2007) Speed and politics: an essay on dromology, trans. Mark Polizzotti. Semiotext(e), Los Angeles, p 167
52. Gigliotti C (2013) “Introduction,” xiv. Italics added. Best, “Genetic Science," 3. Italics added. See also Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan, "Engineering Freedom? A Critique of Biotechnological Routes to Animal Liberation,". Configurations 21:219
53. Rifkin J (1998) The biotech century: harnessing the gene and remaking the world. Tarcher/Putnam, New York, p 101
54. Davis K (2011) Procrustean solutions to animal identity and welfare problems. In: Sanbonmatsu J, Gottlieb R (eds) Critical theory and animal liberation, Nature’s Meaning. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, p 35
55. “Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999)” Environment Canada. http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=24374285-1&offset=1&toc=show. Accessed 5 June 2012
56. Anthes E (2013) Don’t be afraid of genetic modification. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/dont-be-afraid-of-genetic-modification.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&. Accessed 10 May 2013
57. Prather RS, Stumpf TT, Rickords LF (1992) Nuclear transplantation as a method of producing genetically identical livestock. Animal Biotechnology 3:1–67. doi:10.1080/10495399209525763. Accessed 22 Feb 2012
58. Ferrari A (2006) Genetically modified laboratory animals in the name of the 3Rs? Altex 23:299
59. Twine R, Stephens N (2013) Introduction to special issue on animal biotechnology: do animal biotechnologies have a latent liberatory imaginary? Configurations 21:130
60. Rollin BE, Morrey JD (2002) The ‘Frankenstein thing'. In: Richard S (ed) Ethical issues in biotechnology. Rowman and Littlefield, Landham, p 275
61. Rollin BE (1995) The Frankenstein syndrome: ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 171
62. Robert JS and Baylis F (2003) Crossing species boundaries. The American Journal of Bioethics 3, no. 3 (Summer 2003), 4
63. Twine R (2010) Genomic natures read through posthumanisms. The Sociological Review 58(1):188
64. Ferrari A (2012) Animal disenhancement for animal welfare: the apparent philosophical conundrums and the real exploitation of animals. A response to Thompson and Palmer. Nanoethics 6:70
65. Thompson PB (2008) The opposite of human enhancement: nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. Nanoethics 2:308
66. Palmer C (2011) Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: a response to Thompson. Nanoethics 5:43–48
67. Hadley J (2012) Confining ‘disenhanced’ animals. Nanoethics 6:42
68. Twine R (2013) Is biotechnology deconstructing animal domestication? Movements toward liberation. Configurations 21(2):146
69. Twine R (2013) Is biotechnology deconstructing animal domestication. 138; 140
70. Cole M, Morgan K (2011) Engineering freedom? Nanoethics 5:207
71. Stephens N (2013) Growing meat in laboratories: the promise, ontology, and ethical boundary-work of using muscle cells to make food. Configurations 21(2):167
72. Joy M (2011) Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: an introduction to carnism. Conari Press, San Francisco, pp 96–98