Devolder Katrien
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
J Agric Environ Ethics. 2021;34(3):16. doi: 10.1007/s10806-021-09858-z. Epub 2021 May 11.
Genome editing in livestock could potentially be used in ways that help resolve some of the most urgent and serious global problems pertaining to livestock, including animal suffering, pollution, antimicrobial resistance, and the spread of infectious disease. But despite this potential, some may object to pursuing it, not because genome editing is wrong in and of itself, but because it is the wrong kind of solution to the problems it addresses: it is merely a 'technological fix' to a complex societal problem. Yet though this objection might have wide intuitive appeal, it is often not clear what, exactly, the moral problem is supposed to be. The aim of this paper is to formulate and shed some light on the 'technological fix objection' to genome editing in livestock. I suggest that three concerns may underlie it, make implicit assumptions underlying the concerns explicit, and cast some doubt on several of these assumptions, at least as they apply to the use of genome editing to produce pigs resistant to the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome and hornless dairy cattle. I then suggest that the third, and most important, concern could be framed as a concern about complicity in factory farming. I suggest ways to evaluate this concern, and to reduce or offset any complicity in factory farming. Thinking of genome editing's contribution to factory farming in terms of complicity, may, I suggest, tie it more explicitly and strongly to the wider obligations that come with pursuing it, including the cessation of factory farming, thereby addressing the concern that technological fixes focus only on a narrow problem.
家畜基因组编辑有可能以多种方式帮助解决一些与家畜相关的最紧迫、最严重的全球性问题,包括动物痛苦、污染、抗菌药物耐药性以及传染病传播等问题。尽管有这种潜力,但有些人可能会反对进行家畜基因组编辑,不是因为基因组编辑本身是错误的,而是因为它是解决其所针对问题的错误类型的解决方案:它仅仅是对一个复杂社会问题的“技术修补”。然而,尽管这种反对意见可能具有广泛的直观吸引力,但通常并不清楚到底道德问题是什么。本文的目的是阐述并阐明对家畜基因组编辑的“技术修补反对意见”。我认为可能有三个担忧构成了这一反对意见,明确这些担忧背后隐含的假设,并对其中一些假设提出质疑,至少就它们适用于利用基因组编辑培育抗猪繁殖与呼吸综合征的猪和无角奶牛的情况而言。然后我认为,第三个也是最重要的担忧可以被表述为对参与工厂化养殖的担忧。我提出了评估这一担忧以及减少或抵消在工厂化养殖中任何参与行为的方法。我认为,从同谋的角度看待基因组编辑对工厂化养殖的贡献,可能会更明确、更有力地将其与追求基因组编辑所带来的更广泛义务联系起来,包括停止工厂化养殖,从而解决技术修补只关注狭隘问题的担忧。