PDF Hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

PDF Hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen The following full text is a publisher's version. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/35082 Please be advised that this information was generated on 2021-09-26 and may be subject to change. Biotech Pioneers A philosophical inquiry concerning the genetically engineered mouse Ellen ter Gast Biotech Pioneers A philosophical inquiry concerning the genetically engineered mouse Een wetenschappelijke proeve op het gebied van de Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Informatica Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit van Nijmegen op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. mr. S.C.J.J Kortmann volgens besluit van het College van Decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 10 december 2007 om 13:30 uur precies door ISBN: 978-90-9022260-8 Ellen ter Gast geboren op 8 februari 1971 RTODTO Amsterdam te ’s Gravenhage Cover: the author in front of Katharina Fritsch’s Mann und Maus at K21 in Düsseldorf. Cover design: Ellen ter Gast, photograph Ingmar H.J. Ploemen, edited by Henk de Boer. Print and layout: Optima Grafische Communicatie, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Typeset in ITC Garamond and Myriad Pro. Copyright © 2007 Ellen ter Gast The printing of this thesis was financially supported by the J.E. Jurriaanse Stichting in RTODTO Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Promotor: Prof. dr H.A.E. Zwart Manuscriptcommissie: Prof. dr R. ten Bos Prof. dr Tj. de Cock Buning Dr C.N. van der Weele To Anne and Else, the greatest joy in my life. Acknowledgements As long as I can remember, I have been fascinated by the nature of living organisms, the mysteries of life, and the way we humans make sense of it. This is why I decided to study both Biology and Philosophy. Entering University in the late 1980s as a student of Biology I soon learned about the revolutionary possibilities of biotechnology. I was absolutely stunned when I found out that human genes could be transferred successfully to a mouse (see below for the drawing I made during class expressing how I imagined such a mouse would look). The question: ‘What impact will biotechnology have on life and nature itself and on our understanding of life and nature?’ has captured me ever since. Therefore, I am very grateful for having had the opportunity to do this philosophical inquiry into the remarkable ‘biotech mouse’, who, as I will argue throughout this book, is the protagonist in the biotech revolu- tion that is taking place right now. My gratitude first and above all is addressed to my professor and super- visor Hub Zwart who 5 years ago offered me a research position at the vii Biotech Pioneers Acknowledgements Department of Philosophy at the Faculty of Science of the Radboud Uni- Images of mice are of crucial importance to my argumentation. I wish to versity in Nijmegen. When I accepted this offer I basically followed my thank the artists Bryan Crockett, Catherine Chalmers and Adam Brandejs intuition. My intuition proved to be right. Hub has always been supportive for their enthusiastic responses to my requests and for the beautiful and enthusiastic about my ideas and plans and gave me the freedom to photographs of their artworks. Likewise, I wish to thank Joe Tsien, Phil follow my own philosophical path. But perhaps, even more important, Leder, Richard Palmiter, Ralph Brinster, Frans van den Bosch and Charlene he always showed confidence in my work and future results. I am also Cooper for the permission to use images of ‘their’ mice. grateful for his close reading of the manuscript; it always led to improve- For helping me out with the ‘finishing touches’ I wish to acknowledge ment. To put it simply: I cannot imagine having had a better academic Henk de Boer for photoshopping the picture for the cover image and supervisor. Patricia Ellman for the correction of the manuscript. Of course, I am also indebted to my other colleagues at the department Thanks also to my two paranimfen Marjolijn Voogel en Susanne van of philosophy, the Centre for Society of Genomics, and ISIS for the friendly de Wateringen who have already shown to understand the importance of atmosphere and lively discussions at department meetings, lunches and their role by asking me that vital question: ‘What do we wear at the public coffee breaks. I would like to thank in particular Pieter Lemmens, Frans defense?’ van Dam, Peter Stegmeier and Martijntje Smits for their supportive and helpful comments on parts of the manuscript. I would also like to thank Last but not least, I wish to thank my parents for being so proud and the members of the task force Science and Society for their financial and Ingmar for his support throughout the whole process and for being so academic support, the supervisory committee, in particular Tjard de Cock patient, very patient. Buning, for input during the start up phase, and Saskia Segers and Marieke van Oostveen for their ‘non-academic’ support and assistance with admin- istrative paperwork. Although my office was at Nijmegen, my base has always been at home in Amsterdam. This is one of the many reasons I enjoy being a member of the workgroup New Representational Forms of The Arts and Genomics Centre (TAGC). The final manuscript has greatly benefited from the monthly discussions in Amsterdam about Art and the Life Sciences with Rob Zwijnenberg, Miriam van Rijsingen, Daniëlle Hofmans, Jenny Boulboullé, Helen Chandler, Cor van der Weele and Anne Kienhuis. In particular, I am much indebted to them for their input to the final versions of the Chapters 3 and 5. A crucial stage in the explorative phase of my research has been the fieldwork I did at the Dutch Cancer Institute. Being able to meet the mice in real flesh and blood (in the literal sense) inspired me to write the book as it now. I wish to thank Marco Breurer and Evert van Garderen for their openness to this ‘ethical experiment’, and Richard van de Berg, Ton Schrauwers, Yvonne van der Peijl-Kempen, Johan Jongsma, Arnoud Lagro, Esmeralda de Jong and Paul Krimpenfort for the ‘guided tours’ in their laboratories and conversations about their work and animals. It is here that my ‘research object’ became real and alive. viii ix Contents Acknowledgements vii Introduction 1 1 The birth of the transgenic laboratory mouse 11 2 Mouse ethics, the taming of a monster 53 3 Playing God or the promise of mouse biotechnology 81 4 The ‘Frankenstein thing’ or the monsters we fear 105 5 ‘Yuk!’ and the aesthetics of mouse biotechnology 135 6 Conclusions: of FutureMice and FutureMen 163 Bibliography 173 Dutch summary – Nederlandse samenvatting 187 xi Introduction “Well it is scary, isn’t it, all this genetic engineering?” “Is it?” “Yeah, you know, messing about with the body. They reckon there’s a gene for intelligence, sexuality-practically everything, you know? Recombinant DNA technology” said the girl using the term cautiously as if testing the water to see how much Marcus really knew. Seeing no recognition in his face she continued with more confidence. “Once you know the restriction enzyme for a particular, like,bit of DNA, you can switch anything on or off, like a bloody stereo. That’s what they are doing to those poor mice. It is pretty fucking scary”.1 Zadie Smith Why a book about mice? What made me, a philosopher and a biologist, decide to write a book on mice? The answer to this question can be found in the quotation cited above, taken from Zadie Smith’s novel White Teeth. In this book one of the characters, Marcus, a scientist, has created FutureMouse©. In this animal he implanted custom-designed genes that can be ‘turned on’ and ‘off’. This gives Marcus the absolute control over its life and death. In collaboration with a novelist, he has written a pop science book called Time Bombs and Body Clocks: Adventures in Our Genetic Future that also includes a chapter on this mouse. The girl who is quoted above is reading this book, unaware that the person she is addressing is one of the authors. While the girl is ‘lecturing’ him about the scary aspects of recombinant DNA technol- ogy, Marcus is wondering why it is that people fail to see his mouse as a laboratory entity that is determining the future of cancer, of reproductive life cycles, of the human life-span and ageing, but rather continue to see it merely as a mouse, an animal. They focus on the mouse ‘as mouse’, in a manner that never failed to surprise him: ‘They seemed unable to think of the animal as a site for experimentation into heredity, into disease, into mortality. The mouseness of the mouse seemed inescapable’ (Smith 2000: 1. Zadie Smith (2000) White Teeth, New York, Vintage Books, p. 345. 1 Biotech Pioneers Introduction 346). This fictitious scene taken from a popular novel illustrates a number of profound philosophical questions. By way of the mouse, biotechnology of interesting aspects of the laboratory mouse. affects what lies at the core of humanity, of what it is to be human. For First of all, it illustrates the different perspectives from which different biologists these mouse technologies offer great possibilities to study the individuals can perceive the genetically engineered mouse. On the one mysteries of life. For philosophers, they are a source of confusion. How hand, we see a girl who is definitely not as hysterical as Marcus takes her does mouse biotechnology affect the way we make sense of life? Are we to be.
Recommended publications
  • The Patentability of Synthetic Organisms
    Creating Life from Scratch: The Patentability of Synthetic Organisms Michael Saunders* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 75 II. PATENTING MICROBIAL LIFE—CHAKRABARTY ................................ 77 III. PATENTING MULTICELLULAR LIFE—HARVARD ONCOMOUSE .......... 80 IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY .......................................... 83 A. Single-Celled Synthetic Organisms ......................................... 83 B. Multicellular Synthetic Organisms .......................................... 86 V. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 88 I. INTRODUCTION Published in May 2007, U.S. application no. 20070122826 (Venter patent) describes a minimally operative genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium consisting of 381 genes, which the inventors believe to be essential for the survival of the bacterium in an environment containing all the necessary nutrients and free from stress.1 However, the team of inventors from the J. Craig Venter Institute is trying to accomplish something more than just the usual patenting of genes; they intend to create and patent the world’s first artificial organism. The team has already cleared two of the three major hurdles on its way to constructing this first synthetic organism. In January 2008, they announced completion of the second step, the laboratory synthesis of the entire 582,970 base pairs of the genome described in the patent above.2 What remains is the third and final step of inserting this human-made genome into a bacterial cell chassis and “booting up” the organism.3 Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith, lead researchers on the team have been discussing the creation of synthetic life since 1995, when their team published the first complete genome sequence of a living * © 2008 Michael Saunders. J.D. candidate 2009, Tulane University School of Law; B.S. 2003, Bucknell University. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Harvard Mouse
    The Harvard Mouse or the transgenetic technique Term Paper Biology Georgina Cibula, 4e LIST of Contents Preface What is my motivation to work on the chosen topic? What is especially interesting? What are our questions with respects to the chosen topic? Introduction What is the context of the chosen topic? What is the recent scientific history? Where and why is the technique used? Are there alternatice treatments? Description of engineering technique No institution visited Discussion What progress was made with the application of the chosen technique? What future research steps? Ethical aspects Summary References PREFACE What is my motivation to work on the chosen topic? There are many reasons. One of them is that it’s a very interesting topic. It is fascinating, how you can increase or decrease the functionality of organisms. What is especially interesting? The intricacy. And that you can use the method not only for mice but for every organism. For example in the Green genetic engineering (to make plants more resistant) or for pharmaceuticals like human insulin. Some genes are responsible for the aging process. So if we can find those genes and deactivate them we would life longer. First successful experiments with animals where already made. What I also like about this topic is the big ethic question behind it. I mean in the end we use animals, often mice because of their similarity to our genes, to benefit of them. We intentional make them ill and lock them into small cages. But on the other hands medicaments can be tested or invented which can save many human lifes.
    [Show full text]
  • University-Industry Partnerships and the Licensing of the Harvard Mouse
    PATENTS Managing innovation: university-industry partnerships and the licensing of the Harvard mouse Sasha Blaug1,Colleen Chien1 & Michael J Shuster DuPont’s Oncomouse patent licensing program continues to cause a stir in academia and industry. ver the last several decades, technology restructuring in the 1980s resulting in optimized for mutual near- and long-term Oand technological innovation have reduced industry R&D spending and scarcer benefits to the parties? Recently this dialog gradually replaced manufacturing and agri- federal R&D funding. Increased technology has been focused on DuPont’s licensing of culture as the main drivers of the US econ- transfer has sparked a debate on univ- the transgenic ‘Harvard mouse,’ subse- omy. The unparalleled system of American ersities’ roles in the national economy: on quently trademarked as the Oncomouse6. research universities1 and their association the extent to which these relationships affect http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology with industry are important drivers of the the mission of universities to carry out The Oncomouse patents new economy. The relationship between and disseminate the results of basic DuPont’s patent licensing program for universities and industry is multifaceted, research, and on how universities can man- ‘Oncomouse technology’ has caused a stir in encompassing exchanges of knowledge, age their partnerships, collaborations and academia and industry for over a decade7. expertise, working culture and money. technology transfer without compromising These patents broadly claim transgenic Whereas the transfer of technology from their mission. nonhuman mammals expressing cancer- universities to industry has been going on In the basic research paradigm, inves- promoting oncogenes, a basic research tool for more than a century, ties between uni- tigators’ inquiries are directed toward dev- widely used in the fight against cancer.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Biotechnology 2008
    guide to biotechnology 2008 research & development health bioethics innovate industrial & environmental food & agriculture biodefense Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Avenue, SW imagine Suite 900 Washington, DC 20024 intellectual property 202.962.9200 (phone) 202.488.6301 (fax) bio.org inform bio.org The Guide to Biotechnology is compiled by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) Editors Roxanna Guilford-Blake Debbie Strickland Contributors BIO Staff table of Contents Biotechnology: A Collection of Technologies 1 Regenerative Medicine ................................................. 36 What Is Biotechnology? .................................................. 1 Vaccines ....................................................................... 37 Cells and Biological Molecules ........................................ 1 Plant-Made Pharmaceuticals ........................................ 37 Therapeutic Development Overview .............................. 38 Biotechnology Industry Facts 2 Market Capitalization, 1994–2006 .................................. 3 Agricultural Production Applications 41 U.S. Biotech Industry Statistics: 1995–2006 ................... 3 Crop Biotechnology ...................................................... 41 U.S. Public Companies by Region, 2006 ........................ 4 Forest Biotechnology .................................................... 44 Total Financing, 1998–2007 (in billions of U.S. dollars) .... 4 Animal Biotechnology ................................................... 45 Biotech
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Canada First Wrestled with the Patentability Of
    SCHMEISERV. MONSANTO 553 SCHMEISER V. MONSANTO: A CASE COMMENT EDWARD (TED) Y00 AND ROBERT BOTHWELL• I. INTRODUCTION The SupremeCourt of Canada first wrestledwith the patentabilityof higher life forms in the Harvard mouse case.1 Their decision to refuse patents claiming genetically modified animals, and by extensionplants, was a major disappointmentto many in the biotechnology industryin Canada. Canadastood alone amongstits GS partnersas the onejurisdiction where such patents could not be obtained. Dire predictions about the future of biotechnology research and developmentin Canada were made. Whenthe SupremeCourt granted leave to appeal2to Mr. Schmeiserin his legal battle with industry giant Monsanto, it was thought by many that the rights of patentees could take another blow, and further set back Canada's growing biotech industry. Others more optimisticallybelieved that the SupremeCourt had an opportunityto expand patent rights in the biotech field. 2004 CanLIIDocs 149 II. FACTS The respondents, Monsanto Company and Monsanto Canada Inc., are the owner and Iicensee respectively of a patent titled"G lyphosate-ResistantPlants." The patent was granted in 1993 and is directed to a chimeric3 gene that confers upon canola plants resistance to glyphosate-basedherbicides. The resulting plant is named "Roundup Ready Canola" by Monsanto, referring to the resistance demonstrated by the modified canola plant towards Monsanto'sown glyphosate-basedherbicide "Roundup." Monsanto licenses its Roundup Ready Canola to farmers for a fee, provided they sign a Technology Use Agreement(TUA), which entitles the farmer to purchase Roundup Ready Canola from an authorized Monsanto agent. The TUA restricts the farmer from using the seed to plant more than one crop and requires the crop to be sold only for consumptionto a commercialpurchaser authorized by Monsanto.The farmer is also prohibited from selling or givingthe seed to a third party.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 68, No. 2: Full Issue
    Denver Law Review Volume 68 Issue 2 Symposium - Intellectual Property Law Article 13 February 2021 Vol. 68, no. 2: Full Issue Denver University Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Denver University Law Review, Vol. 68, no. 2: Full Issue, 68 Denv. U. L. Rev. (1991). This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. DENVER UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 68 1991 Published by the University of Denver DENVER College of Law UNIVERSITY LAW 1991 Volume 68 Issue 2 REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword Dedication In Honor of Christopher H. Munch ARTICLES Introduction Donald S. Chisum 119 Biotechnology Patent Law: Perspective of the First Seventeen Years, Prospective on the Next Seventeen Years Lorance L. Greenlee 127 Property Rights in Living Matter: Is New Law Required? Robert L. Baechtold 141 Lawrence S. Perry, Jennifer A. Tegfeldt Patricia Carson and Peter Knudsen The Biotechnology Patent Protection Act David Beier 173 and Robert H. Benson A Proposed Legal Advisor's Roadmap for Software Developers John T. Soma, Robert D. Sprague 191 M. Susan Lombardi and Carolyn M. Lindh Requirements for Deposits of Biological Materials for Patents Worldwide Thomas D. Denberg 229 and Ellen P. Winner The En Banc Rehearing of In re Dillon: Policy Considerations and Implications for Patent Prosecution Margaret]W4.Wall 261 and Justi,n Dituri The Effect of "Incontestability" in Trademark Litigation Joan L Dillon 277 File Wrapper Estoppel and the Federal Circuit Glenn K Beaton 283 COMMENT Steward v.
    [Show full text]
  • International Conference of the Council of Europe on Ethical Issues Arising from the Application of Biotechnology
    International Conference of the Council of Europe on Ethical Issues Arising from the Application of Biotechnology Oviedo (Spain), 16-19 May 1999 PROCEEDINGS Part 1: General introduction Reports of sessions General report TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ......................................................................................................................... page 5 Programme of the Conference.......................................................................................... page 7 General Introduction Prof. Jean-François MATTEI (France / Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe)................................................................................................ page 11 Report on the Environment session Dr Piet VAN DER MEER (The Netherlands).................................................................. page 19 Report on the Food session Dr George ZERVAKIS (Greece) ..................................................................................... page 27 Report on the Human Health session M. Joze V. TRONTELJ (Slovenia) and Sir Dai REES (European Science Foundation)........................................................ page 33 Report on the Animal Welfare session Dr Paul DE GREEVE (The Netherlands) ....................................................................... page 39 Report on the Research session Dr Hans-Jörg BUHK (Germany).................................................................................... page 43 Report on the Industry session Dr Monika MÖRTBERG-BACKLUND (Sweden) ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TEST BIOTECH Testbiotech E
    1 | Stop investment in animal suffering | TEST BIOTECH Testbiotech e. V. Institut für unabhängige Folgenabschätzung in der Biotechnologie Picture: Testbiotech / Falk Heller/ Argum “Stop investment in animal suffering“ Patents on animals and new methods in genetic engineering: Economic interests leading to an increasing number of animal experiments Christoph Then for Testbiotech, June 2015 Supported by: “Stop investment in animal suffering” Patents on animals and new methods in genetic engineering: Economic interests leading to an increasing number of animal experiments Christoph Then for Testbiotech, June 2015 Testbiotech Institute for Independent Impact Assessment of Biotechnology Frohschammerstr. 14 D-80807 Munich Tel.: +49 (0) 89 358 992 76 Fax: +49 (0) 89 359 66 22 [email protected] www.testbiotech.org Executive Director: Dr Christoph Then Contents Summary 4 1. Introduction 5 2. Patents on animals 6 Who is filing patents on animals? 7 Grounds for granting European patents 8 Patents are driving the increasing number of animal experiments 8 3. New methods in genetic engineering 11 Synthetic gene technologies 11 Profitable markets for genetically engineered animals 13 4. Patents on genetically engineered chimpanzees 15 Case study 1: Patent held by Altor Bioscience 15 Case study 2: The patent held by Bionomics 17 Case study 3: Patents held by Intrexon 18 5. Politics, industry and investors have to take responsibility 20 6. Conclusions 21 References 22 4 | Stop investment in animal suffering | Summary Summary This report shows how the rising number of experiments carried out on genetically engineered animals is linked to economic interests. It reveals an increasing number of genetically engineered animals coming onto the market as “animal models”, and how patents on animals create additional incentives for invest- ment into animal suffering for monetary gain.
    [Show full text]
  • A Feasibility Study of Oncogene Transgenic Mice As Therapeutic Models in Cytokine Research
    A feasibility study of oncogene transgenic mice as therapeutic models in cytokine research Hilary Thomas A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of London September 1996 Imperial Cancer Research Fund 44 Lincoln's Inn Fields London WC2A3PX ProQuest Number: 10055883 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10055883 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract Transgenic mice carrying the activated rat c-neu oncogene under transcriptional control of the MMTV promoter were backcrossed to BALB/c mice, with the aim of developing a model for cancer therapy. A total of 86 of 268 transgene positive mice in the first five generations developed 93 histologically diverse tumours (median age of onset 18 months). The cumulative incidence of breast tumours at 24 months was 18%, and overall tumour incidence 31%. As well as expected c-neii expressing breast cancers, lymphomas and Harderian gland carcinomas developed. All of the mammary carcinomas, Harderian gland carcinomas and lymphomas expressed c-erb B2. Virgin mice had fewer mammary tumours than those with two litters (p= 0.006), further litters did not affect tumour incidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Transgenic Animals Matthew Ohnj Doherty Worcester Polytechnic Institute
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@WPI Worcester Polytechnic Institute Digital WPI Interactive Qualifying Projects (All Years) Interactive Qualifying Projects August 2007 Transgenic Animals Matthew ohnJ Doherty Worcester Polytechnic Institute Ntohmchukwu Nnachebe Izuchi Worcester Polytechnic Institute Tyson M. Nason Worcester Polytechnic Institute Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/iqp-all Repository Citation Doherty, M. J., Izuchi, N. N., & Nason, T. M. (2007). Transgenic Animals. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/iqp-all/ 2325 This Unrestricted is brought to you for free and open access by the Interactive Qualifying Projects at Digital WPI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Interactive Qualifying Projects (All Years) by an authorized administrator of Digital WPI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IQP-43-DSA-5263 IQP-43-DSA-2430 IQP-43-DSA-0687 TRANSGENIC ANIMALS An Interactive Qualifying Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of W ORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science By: ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Matthew Doherty Ntohmchukwu Izuchi Tyson Nason CDR Deadline: August 22, 2007 APPROVED: _________________________ Prof. David S. Adams, Ph.D. W PI Project Advisor ABSTRACT This IQP examines the methods for creating transgenic animals, their medical benefits, and the result of this technology on society. Different categories of transgenic animals are described, along with the bioethics that surround their creation. Next we discussed the legal guidelines and patent laws for transgenesis, including examples of groundbreaking Supreme Court cases. W e conclude that with the exception of mammalian growth factor experiments, most other transgenic experiments should be continued, with strong oversight.
    [Show full text]
  • Options for Future Discussions
    Options for Future Discussions on Genetically Modified and Cloned Animals Proceedings from a workshop sponsored by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology and Michigan State University and including the paper... Engineering Animals: Ethical Issues and Deliberative Institutions Prepared for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology by Sheila Jasanoff and Stefan Sperling (with Sang-Hyun Kim) Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology © Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper may be reproduced by any means, electronic or mechanical, without per- mission in writing from the publisher. This report was supported by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to the University of Richmond. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts or the University of Richmond. THE PEW INitiatiVE ON FOOD AND BIOTECHNOLOGY Contents OPTIONS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ON GENETICALLY ModIFIED AND CLONED ANIMALS ................. 5 Proceedings from a workshop sponsored by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology and Michigan State University Preface .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Section 1: Discussion
    [Show full text]
  • Transgenic Animals
    IQP-43-DSA-1172 IQP-43-DSA-2345 TRANSGENIC ANIMALS An Interactive Qualifying Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of W ORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science By: ____________________ ____________________ Robert Brooks Nathan Levesque October 22, 2007 APPROVED: _________________________ Prof. David S. Adams, Ph.D. W PI Project Advisor 1 ABSTRACT Transgenic animals are genetically altered to express traits or behaviors not normally present in that species by inserting a foreign gene into their genome. The purpose of this IQP was to study the potential of this technology and its effects on society. The scope of our research incorporates a description of transgenic animal creation, a distribution of animal types, and a discussion of current ethical and legal debates. The conclusion formed from this research indicates that regulation and cautious deliberation of animal treatment can offer minimal animal suffering, while providing maximum benefit for society and humanity. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...1 Abstract … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ; ; ; 882 Table of Contents … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...3 Project Objective … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...… … … … … … … … … … … … .4 Chapter-1: Description and Construction of Transgenic Animals… … … … … … … … 5 Chapter-2: Transgenic Applications ..… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 13 Chapter-3: Transgenic Ethics
    [Show full text]