Should we enhance animals?

Chan, Sarah

doi:10.1136/jme.2009.029512

Cited by 31 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Its advocates have been championing a multidisciplinary approach to understanding determinants of health and encouraging cross-discipline capacity building 8. OH also challenges assumptions about animal interests being synonymous with those of human beings, and, in so doing, exposes thinly veiled animal welfare arguments as too often grounded in their instrumental benefit 9. Arguably, a radical OH approach might entail a non-anthropocentric account of interest, according to which, for example, animal research should be conducted only insofar as it benefits the non-human subjects, and other non-human animals, as an equal loci of moral concern.…”

Section: One Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

One Health and paradigms of public biobanking

Capps

Lederman

2014

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, the authors consider the idea of the public biobank governance framework with respect to the innovative paradigm of One Health. The One Health initiative has been defined as an integrative and interdisciplinary effort to improve the lives and well-being of human beings and non-human animals, as well as to preserve the environment. Here, we use this approach as a starting presumption with respect to institutional design. We examine the theoretical and legal framework underlying the concept of biobanking that, being public orientated, is for the public good. We suggest that this account of research practice does not ethically correlate with One Health principles. Instead, we argue that One Health requires a model of biobanking that is based on universal goods, that is, goods that serve human beings as well as non-human animals and the environment, and which we define in detail. Our purpose is to begin a discussion on how One Health principles might be implemented in health initiatives.

show abstract

Section: One Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

One Health and paradigms of public biobanking

Capps

Lederman

2014

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crustaceans, mice and rats, primates, fish, dogs, whales, cats, birds, and other species has become the "animal models" used for the purpose of studying ageing as a biological process which could potentially be slowed down or eliminated [Mitchell et al 2015]. The anti-ageing research based on the experiments on the so-called "longevity mutants" has been extensively discussed by biogerontologists and bioethicists, being criticized for its invalid results and ambiguous ethical ground [Ferrari 2015, Holliday and Rattan 2010, Chan 2009. However, in this article I am not trying to make an argument against the unethicality of the technoscientific research on animals for the purpose of human enhancement [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Queering Longevity: (Non)ageing Nonhumans and the Repro-hetero-youthful Future

Nizamova¹

2019

SoP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the analysis of contemporary longevity research as a quest for "the key" to the extension of the human lifespan in nature. It questions the ways in which the cultural images and the material bodies of the (non)ageing animals have so far been used to shape the imaginary future of a humankind that has "defeated" ageing. Two cases of such a treatment are examined: the negligibly senescent lobster, and the genetically altered mouse. This paper seeks to engage critical gerontology and queer ecological thinking in order to analyze the discourse on longevity research as a site of human-nonhuman entanglement in which heterosexism, ageism, and speciesism intersect. The theoretical discussions of heteronormative temporality, chrononormativity, and reproductive futurism further inform the critical understanding of the normative representation of the life course supported through the current futurist imagining of longevity. In conclusion, the article calls for a discussion of the ways in which the experimental thinking with the nonhuman creatures could encourage a more inclusive understanding of ageing in a future which challenges ageism, anthropocentrism, and (hetero)normativity.

show abstract

“…This is also how we should understand Rutgers' view that integrity means the capacity to sustain itself in an environment suitable to the 11 Animal enhancement can constitute different practices. It can be defined as an intervention that either 'produces an increase in a natural function or confers a new function' to the animal (such as better muscle development), or 'improves an aspect of the animal functioning for human purposes' (such as classic cases of domestication), or 'better fulfils the animal's interest' (for example because it enhances the animal's welfare) (Chan 2009). It seems clear that we are dealing with the second form of enhancement in the case of pedigree dog breeding.…”

Section: Dignity Integrity and The Non-identity Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pedigree Dog Breeding Debate in Ethics and Practice: Beyond Welfare Arguments

Bovenkerk

Nijland

2017

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pedigree dog breeding has been the subject of public debate due to health problems caused by breeding for extreme looks and the narrow genepool of many breeds. Our research aims to provide insights in order to further the animal-ethical, political and society-wide discussion regarding the future of pedigree dog breeding in the Netherlands. Guided by the question 'How far are we allowed to interfere in the genetic make-up of dogs, through breeding and genetic modification?', we carried out a multi-method case-driven research, reviewing literature as well as identifying the perceptions of pedigree dog breeding of a variety of parties in the Netherlands. We examined what moral arguments and concepts different stakeholders, including breeders, veterinarians and animal protection societies, put forward when considering this question. While welfare arguments were often used as a final justification, we also frequently encountered arguments beyond welfare in practice, in particular the arguments that certain adaptations were unnatural, that they instrumentalised animals, or that they amounted to playing God. We argue that the way these arguments are employed points to a virtue ethical approach, foregrounding the virtue of temperance, as a balance between extreme positions was sought by our respondents in a variety of ways. Moreover, we argue against a rejection of unnaturalness arguments based on the naturalistic fallacy, as philosophers tend to do. We point out that unnaturalness arguments are related to people's worldviews, including views on the proper human-animal relationship. We argue that such arguments, which we label 'life-ethical', should be the subject of more public discussion and should not be relegated to the private sphere.

show abstract

Should we enhance animals?

Cited by 31 publications

References 50 publications

One Health and paradigms of public biobanking

One Health and paradigms of public biobanking

Queering Longevity: (Non)ageing Nonhumans and the Repro-hetero-youthful Future

The Pedigree Dog Breeding Debate in Ethics and Practice: Beyond Welfare Arguments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About