The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature

Graeff, Nienke de; Jongsma, Karin; Johnston, Josephine; Hartley, Sarah; Bredenoord, Annelien L.

doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0106

Cited by 57 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 151 publications

(593 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A further contrast with previous reviews, in which authors were primarily affiliated with academic institutions [ 77 ], is that only one-third of corresponding authors in the present review had such an affiliation, while over half were affiliated with a private nonacademic institution or foundation. These facts underscore both a tendency away from scholarly discussion and the impact that private nonacademic institutions or foundations, including advocacy groups, can have both on shaping scholarly debates and on generating policy changes.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 85%

Should biomedical research with great apes be restricted? A systematic review of reasons

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The use of great apes (GA) in invasive biomedical research is one of the most debated topics in animal ethics. GA are, thus far, the only animal group that has frequently been banned from invasive research; yet some believe that these bans could inaugurate a broader trend towards greater restrictions on the use of primates and other animals in research. Despite ongoing academic and policy debate on this issue, there is no comprehensive overview of the reasons advanced for or against restricting invasive research with GA. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature on this topic. Methods Seven databases were searched for articles published in English. Two authors screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of all articles. Two journals specialized in animal ethics, and the reference lists of included articles were subsequently also reviewed. Results We included 60 articles, most of which were published between 2006 and 2016. Twenty-five articles argued for a total ban of GA research, 21 articles defended partial restrictions, and 14 articles argued against restrictions. Overall, we identified 110 reason types, 74 for, and 36 against, restricting GA research. Reasons were grouped into nine domains: moral standing, science, welfare, public and expert attitudes, retirement and conservation, respect and rights, financial costs, law and legal status, and longer-term consequences. Conclusion Our review generated five main findings. First, there is a trend in the academic debate in favor of restricting GA research that parallels worldwide policy changes in the same direction. Second, in several domains (e.g., moral standing, and respect and rights), the reasons were rather one-sided in favor of restrictions. Third, some prominent domains (e.g., science and welfare) featured considerable engagement between opposing positions. Fourth, there is low diversity and independence among authors, including frequent potential conflicts of interests in articles defending a strong position (i.e., favoring a total ban or arguing against restrictions). Fifth, scholarly discussion was not the norm, as reflected in a high proportion of non-peer-reviewed articles and authors affiliated to non-academic institutions.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 85%

Should biomedical research with great apes be restricted? A systematic review of reasons

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Concerns with the consequences of the introduction of costly biotechnologies for family farms in Brazil may be relevant, as smallholder family farmers are responsible for over 70% of the food consumed domestically, which brings food security and social wellbeing considerations [64, 65]. Concern shown here, and also in [45], for equity of access and the commercialization of genome editing technologies are largely absent from the academic debate [66]. Finally, some concerns raised by participants warn about the need to discuss with society the implications of the use of technologies like gene editing for the future of food animal production, in the wider context of sustainability of livestock production [67, 68].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is gene editing an acceptable alternative to castration in pigs?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Male piglets are commonly castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration is the commonly used procedure and is known to induce pain. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to surgical castration. The aims of this study were to explore public acceptability of this biotechnology using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data to assess acceptability of 570 participants from southern Brazil were analysed with multinomial logistic regression models and Spearman correlations; qualitative responses of the reasons provided in support of their position were coded into themes. Just over half of the participants (56%) considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. Acceptability was lower among participants who grew up in an agricultural environment (ρ = 0.02), but was not influenced by sex, age, religion, urban or rural living, or level of education. Acceptability of gene modification of male pigs as an alternative to surgical castration was positively related to the perception of benefits (r = -0.56, ρ<0.0001) and negatively related to the participant’s perception of risks (r = -0.35, ρ<0.0001). Acceptability was not related to knowledge of basic concepts of genetic biotechnologies (r = 0.06, ρ<0.14), or to awareness of issues related to pig castration or boar taint (r = 0.03, ρ<0.44), both of which were low among participants. Participants that considered gene modification of pigs acceptable justified their position using arguments that it improved animal welfare. In contrast, those that were not in favour were generally opposed to genetic modification. Unforeseen downstream consequences of using genetic modification in this manner was a major concern raised by over 80% of participants. Our findings suggest that perceived animal welfare may encourage public support of gene editing of food animals. However, potential risks of the technology need to be addressed and conveyed to the public, as many participants requested clarification of such risks as a condition for support.

show abstract

“…Professionals were considered eligible for inclusion in the study if they had contributed to academic publications and/or policy documents on GDT research and development. Eligible participants were identified through a review of the academic [ 9 ] and policy publications on GDTs and through so-called snowball sampling, i.e. based on recommendations by previous participants [ 38 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The development and possible use of GDTs has stirred considerable scholarly debate. Major concerns in this debate relate to biosafety and biosecurity issues, including the safeguarding of laboratory experiments with GDTs and potential negative effects on ecosystems due to unintended consequences or misuse of the technology [ 9 , 10 ]. Several papers have mapped the ‘ethical landscape’ and explored various ethical aspects related to GDTs [ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experts’ moral views on gene drive technologies: a qualitative interview study

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Gene drive technologies (GDTs) promote the rapid spread of a particular genetic element within a population of non-human organisms. Potential applications of GDTs include the control of insect vectors, invasive species and agricultural pests. Whether, and if so, under what conditions, GDTs should be deployed is hotly debated. Although broad stances in this debate have been described, the convictions that inform the moral views of the experts shaping these technologies and related policies have not been examined in depth in the academic literature. Methods In this qualitative study, we interviewed GDT experts (n = 33) from different disciplines to identify and better understand their moral views regarding these technologies. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results The respondents’ moral views were principally influenced by their attitudes towards (1) the uncertainty related to GDTs; (2) the alternatives to which they should be compared; and (3) the role humans should have in nature. Respondents agreed there is epistemic uncertainty related to GDTs, identified similar knowledge gaps, and stressed the importance of realistic expectations in discussions on GDTs. They disagreed about whether uncertainty provides a rationale to refrain from field trials (‘risks of intervention’ stance) or to proceed with phased testing to obtain more knowledge given the harms of the status quo (‘risks of non-intervention’ stance). With regards to alternatives to tackle vector-borne diseases, invasive species and agricultural pests, respondents disagreed about which alternatives should be considered (un)feasible and (in)sufficiently explored: conventional strategies (‘downstream solutions’ stance) or systematic changes to health care, political and agricultural systems (‘upstream solutions’ stance). Finally, respondents held different views on nature and whether the use of GDTs is compatible with humans’ role in nature (‘interference’ stance) or not (‘non-interference stance’). Conclusions This interview study helps to disentangle the debate on GDTs by providing a better understanding of the moral views of GDT experts. The obtained insights provide valuable stepping-stones for a constructive debate about underlying value conflicts and call attention to topics that deserve further (normative) reflection. Further evaluation of these issues can facilitate the debate on and responsible development of GDTs.

show abstract

The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature

Cited by 57 publications

References 151 publications

Should biomedical research with great apes be restricted? A systematic review of reasons

Should biomedical research with great apes be restricted? A systematic review of reasons

Is gene editing an acceptable alternative to castration in pigs?

Experts’ moral views on gene drive technologies: a qualitative interview study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About