PHI 312: BIOMEDICAL

ETHICS
ETHICS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY; ETHICS AND CLONING
OF ANIMALS AND HUMANS; USE OF ANIMALS AND
HUMANS IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

Japhet Bakuwa, PhD

1
Senior Lecturer in Philosophy & Former
Dean of Humanities (University of Malawi)
BIOTECHNOLOGY
 How does biotechnology affect your life?
 Like other forms of technology, Biotechnologies
help people lead better, safer, and healthier lives.
 Biotechnology is technology that utilizes
biological systems, living organisms or parts of
this to develop or create different products.
 Brewing and baking bread are examples of
processes that fall within the concept of
biotechnology (use of yeast (= living organism) to
produce the desired product).
 New biotechnologies include cloning, genetic
2
engineering, neurotechnology.
 People have been harnessing biological processes
to improve their quality of life for some
thousands of years, beginning with the first
agricultural communities.
 Approximately 6,000 years ago, humans began to
tap the biological processes of microorganisms in
order to make bread, alcoholic beverages, and
cheese and to preserve dairy products.
 The term biotechnology became widely applied to
the molecular and cellular technologies that
began to emerge in the 1960s and 1970s.
3
 Biotechnology is using the knowledge we gain by
studying living organisms to create useful new
products, organisms, and medical treatments.

 Biotechnology is any technology that uses living

systems to create a useful product. This includes
cooking, farming, medicine, and manufacturing.

4
 Biotechnology has numerous applications,
particularly in medicine and agriculture.
 Examples of modern biotechnological
developments include:
1. Bioinformatics: the use of biotechnology in
merging biological information with computer
technology
2. Nanotechnology: exploring the use of
microscopic equipment that can enter
the human body
3. Regenerative medicine: applying techniques
of stem cell research and cloning to replace dead 5
or defective cells and tissues.
4. Genetic engineering (modification): the process
of altering the DNA in an organism’s genome.
5. Assisted Reproductive Technologies e.g., gamete
intrafallopian transfer (GIFT); zygote
intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT); and in vitro
fertilisation (IVF).
6. Cloning (twinning & somatic cell nuclear
transfer).

6
 These discoveries have allowed scientists to
become genetic engineers, enabling them to move
genes from one living organism to another and
change the proteins made by the new organism,
whether it is a bacterium, plant, mouse, or even a
human.
 Biotechnologists: they are experts who have
advanced training in biology or chemistry.
 These scientists are trained in the tools of genetic
engineering.
 Genetic engineering is a product of biotechnology.
7
 Today we already use microbes to produce
ethanol that can be used to decrease our
dependence on gasoline, and to produce
methane from garbage that can be
collected as another fuel.

8
 The work of modern biotechnology and genetic
engineering is in our daily lives, from the food we
eat and clothing we wear to some of the
medicines we take.
 Scientists have genetically engineered plants to
produce inexpensive medications, while other
plants have been engineered to be more
nutritious or to grow in inhospitable climates or
nutrient-poor soils.
 An oil-based economy has been replaced by one
reliant on cleaner, renewable, sources of energy,
many of which are biologically based. 9
GENETICS & GENOMICS
 Gene: basic physical and functional unit of
heredity. DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid is a long
molecule that contains our unique genetic
code. DNA contains four basic building blocks or
‘bases?’: adenine(A), cytosine (C), guanine (G)
and thymine (T).
 Genome: a group of all genes comprising of a
haploid set of chromosomes.
 Genetics scrutinizes the functioning and
composition of the single gene.
 Genomics addresses all genes and their inter
relationships in order to identify their combined
influence on the growth and development of the 10

organism.
HOW WILL BIOTECHNOLOGY AFFECT
THE FUTURE?

 Many authorities predict that the next

great transition in our society and the
world will be based on the introduction of
biotechnology into our lives.
 In the next few decades, biotechnology is
likely to be one of the most powerful
technologies.
 The impact on our lives will rival or
surpass the impact of the introduction of
computers. 11
 Considering the potential impact biotechnology
could have on our lives and the world, it is our
responsibility as good citizens to help form public
policy concerning how this technology should and
should not be used.
 Its ability to transform life makes it a very
powerful tool. It frightens some people and
excites others.
 However, virtually everyone familiar with the
technology believes that the human race needs to
make proper use of this technology to better our
world, not harm it. 12
 CLONING
 A clone is an exact genetic copy of a cell or an
organism.

 Cloning in the context of medicine, biotechnology

and molecular biology means the production of
entities, individuals and populations that are
genetically identical or near identical with the
original organism or part of an organism from
which they are derived.

 In its spontaneously occurring form, cloning is

the way in which bacteria and several plants and
animals reproduce asexually. 13
 The original meaning of the word clone (klon in
Greek) is “twig.”
 The term word was devised in the early 20th
century by plant physiologist Herbert Webber.
 This meaning arose because it is possible to
create many types of plants by taking a cutting or
“twig” from a parent plant and rooting these
cuttings.
 A rooted cutting will then grow into a new plant.

 Cloning is a technique scientists use to make

exact genetic copies of living things. 14
 Genes, cells, tissues, and even whole animals can
all be cloned.
 Some living things like bacteria reproduce
asexually.
 In humans, identical twins are similar to clones.

 Scientists also make clones in a laboratory.

 They clone genes in order to study and better

understand them.
 The earliest recorded scientific experiments in
cloning animals are from the 19th century and
involved frogs, sea urchins and salamanders. 15

 Human cloning and animal cloning.

 Animals can be cloned in two ways:
1. Embryo twinning

2. Somatic cell nuclear transfer

Embryo twinning: Scientists first split an embryo

in half. Those two halves are then placed in a
mother’s uterus. Each part of the embryo develops
into a unique animal, and the two animals share
the same genes.
Somatic cell nuclear transfer: Somatic cells are all
the cells that make up an organism, but that are
not sperm or egg cells. 16
 Unlike sperm and egg cells which contain only
one set of chromosomes, and join during
fertilisation, somatic cells already contain two
full sets of chromosomes.
 To make a clone, scientists transfer the DNA
from an animal’s somatic cell into an egg cell that
has had its nucleus and DNA removed. The egg
develops into an embryo that contains the same
genes as the cell donor. Then the embryo is
implanted into an adult female’s uterus to grow.

17
SHOULD THE CLONING OF HUMANS
AND ANIMALS BE PERMITTED?

 The
question has attracted heated debate
among ethicists.

 While some answer in the affirmative,

there are others that reject such a
position.

18
 Ethicists started to engage in serious discussions
on cloning after Joshua Lederberg, a Nobel
Laureate for Physiology or Medicine, advocated
in a 1966 article cloning and genetic engineering
as appropriate means to improve the human
race.
❖ Lederberg J. Experimental genetics and human
evolution. Am Nat 1966;100:519–31.

 Two Protestant theologians were among the first

to react – Paul Ramsey and Joseph Fletcher
19
RAMSEY (1970)
 Ramsey condemned cloning and adjacent genetic
alterations, because he saw that they threaten
Christian views on human happiness, morality,
personhood, power and procreation.

❖ Ramsey P. Fabricated Man: The Ethics of

Genetic Control. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1970.

20
FLETCHER (1974)
 Fletcher took the diametrically opposite view to
Ramsey’s, and argued that humankind would be
better off replacing the clumsy traditional way of
making babies and the ensuing genetic roulette
by well controlled cloning and genetic
engineering.
❖ Fletcher J. The Ethics of Genetic Control: Ending
Reproductive Roulette. Garden City, NY: Anchor
Press, 1974.

21
 As reproductive medicine and molecular biology
advanced, the first child initiated by in vitro
fertilization was born in 1978 at Royal Oldham
Hospital, United Kingdom; and researchers
succeeded in blastomere separation, or
blastomere cloning, in 1993 at George
Washington University, United States.

22
 In 1982 British philosopher Ruth Chadwick
listed the main objections to cloning, addressed
and refuted them from a preference utilitarian
point of view (actions are not judged on their
simple pain-and-pleasure outcome, but on how
they affect the interests, the preferences, of
anyone involved).
1. The arguments she tackled concerned
unnaturalness
2. Functioning
3. playing God
4. rights to genetic uniqueness and privacy
5. worthwhile lives 23
 On the surface, Chadwick (1982) considered none
of these unduly alarming.
 According to Chadwick (1982):

1. unnaturalness is a philosophically dead concept;

2. cloned humans could function just fine;

3. accusations of playing God can be replaced by

risk assessment;
4. identical twins prove that genetic uniqueness is
not always essential;
5. our genetic constitution can become known in
other ways; 24
6. we may or may not prefer to be genetically
unique (especially when the alternative is that
we do not exist at all);
7. side effects to society need not be so bad; and

8. the impact on the gene pool could probably be

controlled.
❖ Chadwick R.F. Cloning. Philosophy 1982;57:201–
9.

25
 Then in 1996, Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell,
at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland,
announced the birth of Dolly the sheep.
 Researchers removed the nuclei of 277 sheep’s
ova and fused the ova with mammary gland cells
from other sheep.
 They managed to get 29 embryos growing, and
implanting these to surrogate mother sheep
resulted in 13 pregnancies.

26
 One pregnancy was carried to term, and a
healthy lamb, Dolly, was born on 5 July 1996.

 Dolly’s birth marked the first time a mammal

was cloned from an adult cell.

 It took 276 attempts to get Dolly right.

27
 After Dolly, scientists have cloned at least cows,
cats, mice, rats, chickens, mules, goats, pigs,
rabbits, cats, horses and dogs by the same
method, largely without a raised eyebrow.
 They still have not cloned a human, though.
Partly, because it is difficult to produce a viable
clone.

28
ARGUMENTS FOR ANIMAL CLONING?
1. An embryo made by cloning can be turned into a
stem cell factory. Stem cells are an early form of
cells that can grow into many types of cells and
tissues. Scientists can turn them into nerve
cells to fix damaged spinal cord or insulin-
making cells to treat diabetes. Thus, scientists
claim that knowledge gained from animal
cloning research directly helps to find cures and
treatments for human disease and suffering.

2. Animals have been cloned to have gene

mutations that help scientists study diseases 29
that develop in the animals.
3. Livestock like cows and pigs have been cloned to
produce more milk or meat.
4. Animal cloning could be used to save or bring
back endangered or extinct animals. Cloning
can be used to increase the number of animals
with desirable traits.
 Most of today’s mainstream researchers believe
that there is a great deal to be learned from
studying animal cloning that can be learned in no
other way.
 In certain situations, they even believe that the
importance of what they can learn outweighs 30

concerns for animal welfare.

 It is also likely that the knowledge gained will
contribute to improving the quality of animal life
as well.
 Cloning is a risky and expensive process with
mixed outcomes for the animals involved. Is it
appropriate to spend $50,000 to clone a single
cat?

31
 Clones are also not created as fully formed adult
organisms.
 All clones must go through the normal stages of
development to reach maturity.
 It is not feasible to clone a human or any
organism with the same memories and
personality as an already existing adult
organism.

32
 For humans, this includes time as an embryo, a
foetus, an infant, a child, and an adult.
 The clone’s memories and experiences during this
period of growth will be unique and therefore will
make the clone a unique individual, even if it
looks just like the donor organism.

33
 On the surface, that would appear to be a great
gift to the world, but if cloning brings back
extinct animals, where will they live?
Maintaining a collection of extinct animals in
captivity does not ensure their survival nor
provide them with a quality life.

34
 Cloning is a risky and expensive process with
mixed outcomes for the animals involved.

 If genes are inserted into animals used as food,

will that alter the food, creating possible health
risks?

 If a gene is used to engineer an animal’s genome

and it somehow imparts a toxic property to the
animal, then it could be harmful to the animal’s
welfare or perhaps to someone who consumes it. 35
 A clone is an exact genetic copy of a cell or an
organism.
 DNA molecules that are exact copies of an
original DNA molecule can also be clones.
 “Clone”can also be used as a verb to mean the act
of creating a cloned cell, organism, or molecule.
 Clones are also not created as fully formed adult
organisms.
 All clones must go through the normal stages of
development to reach maturity.
36
ARGUMENTS AGAINST ANIMAL
CLONING
 Animal cloning raises two types of moral
problems:
1. Negative consequences to animals, human
beings, or the environment;
2. Violation of important moral prohibitions or
principles.

37
CONSEQUENTIALIST ARGUMENTS AGAINST
ANIMAL CLONING

 The first set of problems raised by animal cloning

are “consequentialist” in nature and focus on the
possible untoward outcomes that may result from
this science (Rollin 1981; Singer 1975).
1. animals involved in cloning procedures
experience pain and suffering.
2. consequences to animals include the deleterious
effects of cloning on other populations of
animals, such as livestock, unwanted pets, or
endangered species.

38
4. Human beings may be adversely affected by
animal cloning either through the slippery slope
of perfecting reproductive cloning techniques on
animals and then applying them to human
reproductive cloning or by compromising the
safety of the livestock used in food production.
5. Cloned animals may have a serious impact on
the environment, either by breeding with non-
clones or due to some unforeseen expression of a
gene that has ramifications for the larger
ecosystem.
39
 Rollin, B. 1981. Animals rights and human
morality. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
 Singer, P. 1975. Animal liberation: A new ethic
for our treatment of animals. New York: Avon.

40
DEONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST
ANIMAL CLONING
 Animal cloning might also be criticized on
deontological grounds (Regan 1983).
1. Concerns about “playing God”: Ought we to be
creating life in this matter? Is it our place to do
this? On this view, cloning is a hubristic
attempt by human beings to be divine.
2. The objectification and commodification of
animals. Cloning negates the intrinsic value of
animals through both objectification and
commodification.

41
3. Pet cloning: There is potential for false
promises: grieving pet owners may be misled
into believing that cloning will resurrect their
beloved pet, and they may commit to storing
their pet’s DNA without understanding the true
costs of cloning when the technique becomes
commercially available.

42
❖ Regan,T. 1983. The case for animal rights.
Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

43
HUMAN CLONING
 Should Humans Be Cloned?
 As of 2005, no one has convincingly demonstrated
that human cloning has been accomplished or
even attempted, beyond creating an embryo with
only a few cells.
 Clonaid, a company created solely to develop
human cloning, claims to have cloned as many as
13 people as of 2004. These claims are
unsubstantiated, but Clonaid has sought out
independent scientists to examine and compare
the DNA from the alleged cloned babies to that of
the adult donors. 44
 Human clones, which are referred to as identical
twins, occur in nature and are actually a common
phenomenon, occurring once in 250 human
births.
 Identical twins are born with exactly the same
DNA, in fact with DNA that is likely to be more
similar than that of most clones and their donors.
 Twinning has been suggested as a means to
improve the efficiency of in vitro fertilization
(IVF).
 Twinning embryos created by IVF would make
larger numbers of implantable embryos 45
available.
 SCNT cloning as practiced in animal cloning, if it
were to be used for human cloning, would be
technically very similar.
 The nucleus of a human egg cell would be
removed by microinjection. A donor’s somatic cell
would be the source of the DNA. This DNA would
be injected into the enucleated egg cell and the
egg would be stimulated to start dividing, either
chemically or by an electrical current. Once the
fertilized human embryo reached the proper
stage, it would be inserted into a woman’s womb,
where it would develop into a foetus and then a 46
child.
 It should be emphasized that arguments for and
against cloning are speculative.

 Since the technology to clone humans has not yet

been developed and used, as far as we know,
there is no way to know with certainty how
human cloning will affect us as a species.

47
WHY CLONE HUMANS?
 There are basically two motivations for
performing human cloning:
1. To produce children (reproductive cloning) and;
2. For biomedical research (therapeutic cloning).
In therapeutic cloning, the embryos are not
permitted to develop past the first few cycles of
cell division before growth is arrested. In other
words, these embryos are never implanted into
a womb and never progress to the foetal stage.

48
 Reproductive cloning might be used for several
reasons.
1. Parents might want to replace a child they had
lost.
2. A clone might be needed as an organ donor for
another family member.
3. Infertile couples might choose cloning so that at
least one parent would be genetically related to
the child.

49
4. If one parent had a harmful genetic trait that
he or she did not want passed on to the next
generation, cloning could provide a genetically
related offspring without that trait. Parents
might want to select certain traits, such as
increased intelligence or increased athletic
ability, which could be engineered into an
embryo during the cloning process.
5. A person with traits thought to be potentially
valuable to society could be cloned.

50
6. Genetic cloning might be seen as a way to
achieve genetic immortality; a person could be
cloned, and then have the resulting clone
recloned, continuing this generation after
generation.

51
WHY THERAPEUTIC CLONING?
 Therapeutic cloning also has many possible
applications.
1. Scientists believe that invaluable knowledge
about human development could be gained from
cloned embryos.
2. Cloned embryos are predicted to be a valuable
source of embryonic stem cells, which may prove
to be powerful therapeutic tools for degenerative
diseases and organ and tissue replacement.
3. Therapeutic cloning would also permit scientists
to learn more about the critical early stages of
human development; this would greatly
advance our ability to cure many developmental 52
disorders and diseases
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THERAPEUTIC
CLONING
1. The embryo is a person, a unique individual
with its own DNA, that would, if allowed, grow
into a fully functioning human being.
2. The end does not justify the means.
3. There are alternatives to the use of embryos,
and most doctors now see more promise in
getting stem cells through other means
4. Experiments on animals have had very mixed
results, and required hundreds of attempts
5. There have always been strict legal limits to the
use of embryos in research, showing that most
governments want to limit what researchers can 53
do with embryos.
6. There are serious risks to patients - the effects
of treatments are unknown and could be very
damaging.
7. It's a slippery slope - once you allow researchers
to experiment up to 14 days, they will then
want to go further and push the boundaries. If
you allow research at 14 days, why not 15 days
or 30 days?
8. Companies have already patented human genes
- we are now treating embryos as a commodity,
something that has no intrinsic worth (value in
itself), only instrumental worth (value in its 54
usefulness).
ARGUMENTS FOR HUMAN CLONING
 There are many arguments in support of human
cloning.
 Some are fairly easy to accept, such as
elimination of genetic disease.
 Others may seem wrong to us as we read about
them now, but how are we to predict how future
societies will come to view these uses for cloning?

55
ARGUMENTS FOR HUMAN CLONING
1. We can ask who has the right to restrict people
from choosing to perform human cloning. If a
person chooses to have a child by cloning
because this is the best option for him or her,
should the government be able to restrict this
person’s wish to procreate?
2. Cloning may offer the potential of improving the
quality of many human lives by developing new
cures and therapies. Cloning may make it
possible to repair or insert genes that would
cure a genetic defect.
56
3. Cloning may be useful in enhancing the genetic
makeup of the clone.
4. Parents who have lost a child or someone who
has lost a loved one may choose to clone a
replacement to keep his or her memory alive.
5. There may be a value to society for cloning
people who demonstrate great talents or
intellects.Imagine a world where your favorite
celebrities or the best thinkers can be recycled
and kept forever to benefit humanity.
6. Nontraditional couples, such as same sex
couples, could use cloning to have biologically 57
related children.
7. Cloning could be useful for screening embryos
for genetic diseases to prevent children from
being born with these diseases.

58
ARGUMENTS AGAINST HUMAN
CLONING
 Most people seem to agree that reproductive
cloning should not be pursued now, given the
unreliability of the technology that would be used
to create clones.
1. The most universal concern about cloning for
human reproduction comes from our inability to
test the safety of cloning humans. Current
attempts to clone animals have shown that
there is tremendous uncertainty in the
outcomes.

59
 For example, the success rate in animal cloning
experiments has been very low, as discussed previously,
with 277 tries to get one healthy live birth in the case of
Dolly the sheep. Even today, the success rate for cloning
mammals typically remains low. In addition, though Dolly
at first seemed normal and robust to her handlers, she had
to be euthanized at age six when she developed an unusual
arthritic condition. This is only half the normal life span for
sheep. Did this condition occur because Dolly was cloned, or
was it just a naturally occurring health problem? Scientists
do not know the answer. For many people, this level of
uncertainty makes human cloning for reproductive
purposes unthinkable at this point. Most people are
unwilling to use technology that has the potential to
produce abnormal children. 60
2. Another concern is that if humans are cloned, family
relationship issues could arise from the confused
boundaries between generations (genetic mother
and father; birth mother or gestational mother; the
social mother and father). When cloned children are
added to this mix of parental types, some very
complex family relationships can arise. Leon Kass
(1998) argues that cloning is wrong, because it distorts
family relationships and our sense of human dignity.
 If a woman chooses to become the genetic mother to a cloned
child, and another woman is selected to be the birth mother, what
will be the relationship between the social father (the husband of
the genetic mother) and the cloned child? In this case, the genetic
mother is now a genetic twin of her child clone. They are actually
genetic siblings. In some cases, the genetic mother could even be
61
the birth mother.
3. An equally scary possibility for cloning is that a
person might be cloned without knowing it. It
only takes a single adult cell to supply the
genetic material needed to start a clone.

62
ETHICAL CONCERNS RAISED BY
REPRODUCTIVE CLONING
1. Through cloning, a child’s parents may develop
unreasonable expectations for the child, because
the child’s genetic makeup and identity have
been “specified” or “made to order” through the
process of selecting the donor DNA. If the
desired outcome is not realized, could this lead
to disappointment that harms natural family
ties?

63
2. The cloned child’s genetic life has already been
lived by the DNA donor. Might this affect the
child’s view of him or herself? Would a cloned
child who exactly resembles one parent
experience identity or individuality issues?
Would there be unjust expectations that the
cloned child go through life in the same way as
the “original”? If a deadly genetic disorder
should appear in the DNA donor, would this
create unhealthy anticipation in the clone
because of the certainty that he or she would
also die from the same genetic disorder? 64
3. Developing a technology in which parents can
control the genetics of their children may lead to
the production of designer babies.
4. How will the human race be altered if cloning
and genetic engineering technologies become
available? If the technology is very expensive,
then only the very rich will be able to have the
best quality clones as children.
❖ Jürgen Habermas, a philosopher better known
for his theory of communicative action, argues
ominously that cloning would spell the end of
humanity. 65
6. An equally scary possibility for cloning is that a
person might be cloned without knowing it. It
only takes a single adult cell to supply the
genetic material needed to start a clone.

66
ETHICS AND GENETICALLY
MODIFIED FOODS
 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) refer to
plants and animals with an altered genetic make-
up that has been ‘edited’ in the laboratory in
order to incorporate genes from another
organism.
 The dangers vs. benefits of GMOs are widely
debated.
 Studies show that 70% or more of all processed
foods sold to consumers now contain genetically
modified ingredients.
 GMOs are contrasted with organic organisms.
67
WHY GENETICALLY MODIFY A
LIVING ORGANISM?
 Farmers seek to grow plants and breed animals
with desirable characteristics.
 GMO scientists edit a plant or animal’s genetic
code and insert genes that carry those
characteristics.

 Examples of GMO Foods: soybeans, chickens,

sorghum, maize, cotton, cats etc.

 Much of the food we consume is genetically

modified 68
BENEFITS FOR USING GMOS
 Increased crop yields
 Reduced costs for food or drug production.

 Reduced need for pesticides.

 Enhanced nutrient composition and food quality

 Resistance to pests and disease.

 Greater food security

 Early maturing of crops and animals

 Drought resistance and other environmental

stressors
 Medical benefits to the world’s growing
population.
69
IS IT ETHICALLY JUSTIFIABLE TO PRODUCE
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS AND FOODS?

 Some consumer advocates object to GM

foods on ethical grounds.

 Ethical objections to GM typically centre

on the possibility of harm to persons or
other living things.

 Harm may or may not be justified by

outweighing benefits.
70
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
 To engage in agricultural biotechnology is
to play God.
 To engage in agricultural biotechnology is
to invent world-changing technology.
 To engage in agricultural biotechnology is
illegitimately to cross species boundaries
 To engage in agricultural biotechnology is
to commodify life.

71
OBJECTIONS TO GE
 Religious

 Secular

72
GENETIC ENGINEERING AS INHERENTLY
WRONG

Religious Objections

 Some religious people object to any

tinkering with the genetic codes of
humans or even of any life form.
 Genetic engineering as “playing God”.

 Criticism:GE can be viewed as an

expression of free will.
73
 Lifeis sacred and ought not to be altered
by human intention. GE changes the
fundamental nature of an organism. This
is immoral.

 Criticism:Technology entails altering

nature for the betterment of living.
Technology is part of us. What is meant
by ‘natural’ and even if GE is unnatural
there is no reason why t should be 74
unethical.
 Secular Objections

 Jeremy Rifkin (1991) argues that genetic

engineering violates the inherent “dignity”
of humans and other life-forms to alter
their DNA under any circumstances.
 Assumption: Life in its “natural” state,
unaltered by human intention is
inviolable because of its inherent dignity.
75
 Criticism: This argument does not hold
good in the face of natural ‘indignities’
that occur in nature. A person who has a
genetic disorder has an uncontrollable
desire to self-mutilate himself, so for that
person, dignity is not in his natural state
but rather in overcoming it.
 Overcoming our natural disadvantage
does not violate our inherent dignity.
 John Stuart Mill’s theory of liberty on 76
human autonomy and self-determination.
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
 Biomedical research is the broad area of
science that involves the investigation of the
biological process and the causes of disease
through careful experimentation,
observation, laboratory work, analysis, and
testing.
 Scientists expand this knowledge base to
discover ways to prevent ill-health, and to
develop beneficial products, medications, and
procedures to treat and cure diseases and
conditions that cause illness and death in
ourselves, our families and friends, our pets, 77

farm animals, and wildlife.

 Biomedical research requires the input and
participation of many individuals from both
the life and physical sciences, with many
different backgrounds and skills.
 Such a research team might include medical
doctors, veterinarians, computer scientists,
engineers, technicians, researchers, and a
variety of scientists from the different fields
of the life sciences.

78
USE OF HUMANS & NON-HUMANS
IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
 Because animals are biologically similar to
humans and are susceptible to many of the
same diseases and health problems,
researchers use animals as models during
more advanced stages of biomedical research.
 The use of humans in biomedical research is
very controversial.
 The ethical justification of biomedical
research involving human subjects is the
prospect of discovering new ways of
benefiting people’s health. 79
 Biomedical research using humans can be
ethically justifiable only if it is carried out in
ways that respect and protect, and are fair to,
the subjects of that research and are morally
acceptable within the communities in which
the research is carried out.

80
THE USE OF NON-HUMANS IN
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
 Scientists use animals to learn more about
such problems, and to assure the safety of
new medical treatments.
 Some diseases and health problems involve
processes that can only be studied in living
organisms.
 Animals are necessary to medical research
because it is impractical, illegal, and
unethical to use humans in early phases of
research.
81
 The use of animals in some types of research is
essential to the development of new and more
effective methods for diagnosing and treating
diseases that affect both humans and animals.
 Scientists use animals to learn more about
health problems, and to assure the safety of
new medical treatments.
 Some diseases and health problems involve
processes that can only be studied in living
organisms. Animals are necessary to medical
research because it is impractical, illegal, and
unethical to use humans in early phases of
research. 82
WHY USE NON-HUMAN ANIMALS?
1. Animals are biologically similar to humans.
2. They are susceptible to many of the same
health problems, and some species, like mice
and fish, generally have shorter life cycles so
they can easily be studied throughout their
whole life span or across several generations.
3. Scientists can easily control the environment
around animals (diet, temperature, lighting),
which would be difficult to do with people.
4. It is wrong to deliberately expose human
beings to health risks in order to observe the 83
course of a disease.
THE 3 RS
 Researchers avoid the use of animals in
research whenever it is possible, and continue
to search for alternative methods.
 They subscribe to The 3 Rs –

1. Reduction

2. Refinement, and

3. Replacement).

84
 Reduction refers to methods that result in fewer
animals being used to acquire the needed
information. This, in some studies, eliminates the
use of animals.
 Refinement concerns the manner in which the
animals are treated. This includes new and more
effective anaesthetics and analgesics, species
appropriate housing, and enrichment activities.
 Replacement means using methods that do not
involve whole animals. Computer models and cell
and tissues cultures are examples.
85