Public attitudes toward the use of technology to create new types of animals and animal products

Abstract

Philosophers have used thought experiments to examine contentious examples of genetic modification. We hypothesised that these examples would prove useful in provoking responses from lay participants concerning technological interventions used to address welfare concerns. We asked 747 US and Canadian citizens to respond to two scenarios based on these thought experiments: genetically modifying chickens to produce blind progeny that are less likely to engage in feather-pecking (BC); and genetically modifying animals to create progeny that do not experience any subjective state (i.e. incapable of experiencing pain or fear; IA). For contrast, we assessed a third scenario that also resulted in the production of animal protein with no risk of suffering but did not involve genetically modifying animals: the development of cultured meat (CM). Participants indicated on a seven-point scale how acceptable they considered the technology (1 = very wrong to do; 7 = very right to do), and provided a text-based, open-ended explanation of their response. The creation of cultured meat was judged more acceptable than the creation of blind chickens and insentient animals. Qualitative responses indicated that some participants accepted the constraints imposed by the thought experiment, for example, by accepting perceived harms of the technology to achieve perceived benefits in reducing animal suffering. Others expressed discomfort with such trade-offs, advocating for other approaches to reducing harm. We conclude that people vary in their acceptance of interventions within existing systems, with some calling for transformational change.

One Health, Ecological Bioethics, and the Ethics of Zoonoses: A call for Global Action

“…In situations where there is no danger that humans become infected, culling is less accepted" (van Herten et al, 2019, p. 30). The effectiveness and impact of measures to address emerging and re-emerging zoonotic disease risks depend on the belief systems, values, and assumptions of individuals and communities (Ryan & Weary, 2023). Many times, unproven beliefs concerning wildlife and anthropo-centric value schemes can become strong agencies that hinder the adoption of holistic health measures from a comprehensive One Health perspective.…”