Bioethics@

Volume 4, Issue 4

In The November 2002 Issue:

• This Little Piggy, by Kristen Hessler, bioethics outreach coordinator
• Extension Biotechnology Workshop in November
• Public Forum on Pharmaceutical Crops Nov. 21
• Bioethics-Related Events: October 28 through Dec. 9
• Publication Information

by Kristen Hessler, bioethics outreach coordinator, ISU Office of Biotechnology and Cooperative Extension

As children, we learn that pigs say "oink" and roll in the mud, and in nursery rhymes some pigs might even go to market or eat roast beef. But even by nursery rhyme standards, some of today's pigs are decidedly unconventional:

• Researchers at Guelph University in Canada hope their transgenic Enviropig™ will help the environment through reduced fecal phosphorus production. Because phosphorus is an environmental pollutant in high quantities, manure from an Enviropig™ is less harmful than manure from non-transgenic pigs, reducing the amount of phosphorus in the fields where it is applied as fertilizer and in runoff into waterways. (www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/)
• American Red Cross researchers are working on a transgenic pig that produces milk containing a human protein that promotes blood clotting. The protein, currently available in limited supply, could facilitate regular preventive treatment for people with hemophilia, enabling them to engage in a broader range of activities. (www.redcross.org/services/biomed/research/transgenics.html)
• Researchers at Nextran, Inc., are designing transgenic pigs to serve as organ donors for humans. While any organ transplantation involves a risk of rejection, the risk of rejection when the donated organ is from a different species (xenotransplantation) is still higher. Nextran researchers are developing pigs with organs that will seem "human" to the recipient's immune system. (http://www.baxter.ca/htdocs/en/doctors/renal_therapies/nextran.html)

While many people find these and other transgenic animals fascinating and exciting, many wonder whether producing such animals is ethical. This is an extremely complex question, but we can break it down into more manageable parts to see some of the ethical issues associated with transgenic animals.

Is it natural?
A common response to tales of transgenic animals is that they are not natural, and that producing them is therefore ethically suspect. The term "natural" is difficult to define, however. If natural things are only those that could be produced by processes in nature with no human input, then there are many unnatural things in the world, from processed foods to the space shuttle. Once we notice how many "unnatural" things we take for granted, we see that not all of these unnatural things are inherently bad. Similarly, "natural" things may be good (like a clear mountain stream) or bad (like West Nile Virus). 

Is it safe?
The claim that genetic engineering of animals is unnatural is sometimes shorthand for the idea that, because the science involved is so new, we cannot know all the results of creating transgenic animals. For example, xenotransplantation is thought to run a small risk of creating human versions of swine viruses. If this were to happen, it would be a threat not only to the organ recipient, but also to others who come into contact with the recipient. Questions of risk/cost/benefit analysis are in desperate need of informed public debate. It may not be inherently unethical to engage in potentially risky scientific research, but the people placed at risk must be given the opportunity to learn about the risks and to say no to them if that is what they choose.

What about the animals?
Most people are comfortable using animals for lots of human purposes: for food or clothing, as helpers or as transportation, or for medical and scientific research. Most people believe that inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals is unethical. One ethical question about transgenic animals is whether the purpose of the project justifies whatever suffering an animal used for that project may experience. In some cases, transgenic animals may be treated more humanely than most animals in agriculture. For example, the American Red Cross makes this claim about the pigs that produce human clotting factor. Presumably, this question will have to be answered on a case-by-case basis, as the treatment of the animals and the goals of the project are different for every transgenic animal. 

Other important questions arise under the heading of animal welfare concerns, including:

• Are the animal welfare standards set by current animal agriculture and other practices ethically acceptable?
• Is there something intrinsically unethical about manipulating an animal's genome? In other words, do animals have a right to genetic integrity?

Are there alternatives?
Given the risks, uncertainty, and public skepticism about biotechnology in general and about transgenic animals in particular, many people ask whether the same or similar goals can be served by other means. While this is not a criticism of transgenic animals or biotechnology per se, one of the most commonly heard grounds for skepticism about biotechnology's products is that they are simply unnecessary. A thorough consideration of non-transgenic alternatives from both sides could contribute to a more balanced and productive public debate on transgenic animals.

Bioethics-Related Events

Monday, October 28, 2002
4:10 p.m., Entomology, "Insect Resistance Management: Developing Tools That Maximize Voluntary Stewardship and Minimize Governmental Regulation," Clinton Pilcher, Corn States Hybrid Service LLC (Monsanto Company), Johnston. E-164 Lagomarcino, 515-294-7400.

Wednesday, October 30, 2002
7:00 p.m., Plant Physiology, "Edible Vaccines," Hugh Mason, Arizona State University. 1414 Molecular Biology Building.

Monday, November 4, 2002
4:10 p.m., Entomology, Ph.D. dissertation seminar, "Transgenic Corn: Farmer Perceptions and Effects on Dispersal and Fecundity of the Western Corn Rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera," Ted Wilson, Entomology. E-164 Lagomarcino, 515-294-7400.

Wednesday, November 13, 2002
4:10 p.m., Plant Physiology, "Health and Safety Issues of Bioengineered Foods," Catherine Woteki, Dean, College of Agriculture. 2432 Food Sciences Building, 515-294-9940.

Monday, December 2, 2002
4:10 p.m., Entomology, PhD dissertation seminar, "Cyanogenic Glycosides: Alternative Insecticides?" Combined seminar with the Interdepartmental Toxicology Program, Dong-Sik Park, Entomology. E-164 Lagomarcino, 515-294-7400.

Monday, December 9, 2002
4:10 p.m., Entomology, "Current Status of Research on Evaluation of the Environmental Fate and Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin," Todd Phillips, Entomology. E-164 Lagomarcino, 515-294-7400.

Published four times per year
by the ISU Office of Biotechnology
and the Bioethics Program.

To subscribe, call 515-294-7356.

Editor: Dena Huisman

Iowa State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, marital status, disability, or status as a U.S. Vietnam Era Veteran. Any persons having inquiries concerning this may contact the Director of Affirmative Action, 318 Beardshear Hall, 515-294-7612.