Animal ControversiesAnimal Controversies

Animals, Bio-technology and Animals, Bio-technology and Human SocietyHuman Society

This Week’s LecturesThis Week’s Lectures

● ● The significance of bio-technology in late modern society.The significance of bio-technology in late modern society.● ● The controversial use of animals in bio-technology.The controversial use of animals in bio-technology.●● Three social scientific analyses of animal controversies.Three social scientific analyses of animal controversies.●● Moral, ethical, social, and radical critiques of animal bio-technology. Moral, ethical, social, and radical critiques of animal bio-technology. ●● Envisaging bio-technological futures.Envisaging bio-technological futures.●● Public attitudes and official ethics.Public attitudes and official ethics.●● The reshaping of global nature-cultures.The reshaping of global nature-cultures.

Key Questions:Key Questions:

- What do the controversies surrounding the use of animals in bio-- What do the controversies surrounding the use of animals in bio-technology tell us about late modern society and culture?technology tell us about late modern society and culture?

- How does the genetic modification of animals challenge our - How does the genetic modification of animals challenge our conventional separation of nature and society?conventional separation of nature and society?

- How do the new genetics and bio-technologies impact upon our - How do the new genetics and bio-technologies impact upon our sense of human/animal species boundaries?sense of human/animal species boundaries?

Late Modernity and Late Modernity and Bio-technologyBio-technology

We live in age of bio-technology: the media regularly We live in age of bio-technology: the media regularly report scientific ‘breakthroughs’ which seem to promise report scientific ‘breakthroughs’ which seem to promise to change our lives fundamentally. to change our lives fundamentally.

The language (or ‘discourse’) of genetics is everywhere: The language (or ‘discourse’) of genetics is everywhere: DNA has come to be seen as the essence of an organism’s DNA has come to be seen as the essence of an organism’s individuality, the ‘code’ for ‘individuality, the ‘code’ for ‘life itselflife itself’ (genetic determinism).’ (genetic determinism).

With the development of human and animal ‘genomics’ With the development of human and animal ‘genomics’ (the mapping of whole gene sequences) our humanity is (the mapping of whole gene sequences) our humanity is increasingly defined in genetic terms. increasingly defined in genetic terms.

We therefore look to geneticists and scientific ‘experts’ to tell We therefore look to geneticists and scientific ‘experts’ to tell us ‘objectively’ us ‘objectively’ what it means to be humanwhat it means to be human..

Challenging Human IdentityChallenging Human Identity

But the prevalence of genetic discourse has caused problems But the prevalence of genetic discourse has caused problems for the modern (anthropocentric) for the modern (anthropocentric) distinction distinction between between humanshumans and and nonhuman animalsnonhuman animals. .

E.g. Genomic research has revealed that we share 98.7% of E.g. Genomic research has revealed that we share 98.7% of our genes with chimps, so in strictly genetic terms not only our genes with chimps, so in strictly genetic terms not only are chimps essentially human, but humans are basically are chimps essentially human, but humans are basically chimps. chimps.

But this is just one of a whole series of challenges posed by But this is just one of a whole series of challenges posed by new bio-technologies to:new bio-technologies to:

- the human/animal boundary - the human/animal boundary

- the culture/nature distinction- the culture/nature distinction

These challenges are sharpest where animals are used in These challenges are sharpest where animals are used in biotechnology:biotechnology:

““It is clear that the prospect pf applying genetic biotechnology to It is clear that the prospect pf applying genetic biotechnology to animals raises particular public sensitivities, and that existing animals raises particular public sensitivities, and that existing and current applications have far-reaching ramifications for and current applications have far-reaching ramifications for society’s relationships with animals” (Phil McNaghten 2004, society’s relationships with animals” (Phil McNaghten 2004, 534).534).

““The science of genomics and the manipulation of animal The science of genomics and the manipulation of animal genomes raises novel issues and promotes new ways of genomes raises novel issues and promotes new ways of thinking about what animals are, how they involve and relate thinking about what animals are, how they involve and relate to each other, and the social and biological relationships to each other, and the social and biological relationships between humans and animals” (Matthew Harvey 2007, 1).between humans and animals” (Matthew Harvey 2007, 1).

So the genetic modification of animals and their use in So the genetic modification of animals and their use in biotechnology raises complex and difficult issues for biotechnology raises complex and difficult issues for sociology. sociology.

The Use of Nonhuman Animals in ScienceThe Use of Nonhuman Animals in Science

““Animals are commonplace in bio-technological research, as Animals are commonplace in bio-technological research, as principal objects of study or as conduits and models for principal objects of study or as conduits and models for understanding human biology” (Matthew Harvey 2007, 1).understanding human biology” (Matthew Harvey 2007, 1).

But like slaughterhouses or animal testing laboratories, the use of But like slaughterhouses or animal testing laboratories, the use of animals in bio-technology is almost animals in bio-technology is almost invisible in everyday social lifeinvisible in everyday social life. .

We are dimly aware of these sciences, but we prefer not to We are dimly aware of these sciences, but we prefer not to acknowledge them – they are acknowledge them – they are an ‘absent presence’an ‘absent presence’. .

Whereas most people are straightforwardly opposed to cosmetics Whereas most people are straightforwardly opposed to cosmetics testing on animals, the use of animals in bio-technological research testing on animals, the use of animals in bio-technological research with possible medical benefits to humans is something many people with possible medical benefits to humans is something many people feel deeply ambiguous about.feel deeply ambiguous about.

This ambiguity highlights the tensions and contradictions in This ambiguity highlights the tensions and contradictions in modern society’s attitudes to science, nature and animals.modern society’s attitudes to science, nature and animals.

Reshaping Animal Biology: Reshaping Animal Biology: How are Animals used in Bio-technology?How are Animals used in Bio-technology?

Xenotransplantation/transgenesis –Xenotransplantation/transgenesis – the the transplantation of living cells, tissues or organs from one transplantation of living cells, tissues or organs from one species to another (e.g. from pigs or cows to humans) to species to another (e.g. from pigs or cows to humans) to produce ‘transgenic animals’.produce ‘transgenic animals’.

Uses – Uses – Proposed as a means to solve the long-term problem Proposed as a means to solve the long-term problem of huge demand for of huge demand for transplant organstransplant organs and lack of availability and lack of availability of human donors in cases of end-stage human of human donors in cases of end-stage human organ failureorgan failure (heart, liver, kidney and lung failure). (heart, liver, kidney and lung failure).

Problems – Problems – As well as ethical issues there are many technical As well as ethical issues there are many technical difficulties: Risk of ‘difficulties: Risk of ‘xenozoonosisxenozoonosis’ (transfer of animal ’ (transfer of animal diseases to humans via the transplant), and high incidence diseases to humans via the transplant), and high incidence of of immune rejectionimmune rejection (due to different DNA). (due to different DNA).

Animal Genomics –Animal Genomics – the ‘mapping’ of animal gene the ‘mapping’ of animal gene sequences in order to build up a ‘complete’ picture of the genetic sequences in order to build up a ‘complete’ picture of the genetic identity of a species. identity of a species.

Uses – Uses – sufficiently extensive gene-mapping will dramatically assist sufficiently extensive gene-mapping will dramatically assist selective breeding, the control of animal stocks, and could even enable selective breeding, the control of animal stocks, and could even enable the ‘reprogramming’ of organisms according to commercial, agricultural, the ‘reprogramming’ of organisms according to commercial, agricultural, scientific or medical needs.scientific or medical needs.

Problems – Problems – critics argue that these levels of knowledge and control of critics argue that these levels of knowledge and control of animal biology will lead to an intensification of exploitation.animal biology will lead to an intensification of exploitation.

Animal Cloning –Animal Cloning – cloning is the production of a new, cloning is the production of a new, genetically identical individual from a single parent animal.genetically identical individual from a single parent animal.

Uses - Uses - sometimes seen as a promising tool for preserving endangered sometimes seen as a promising tool for preserving endangered species, as well as producing transgenic animals for medical research species, as well as producing transgenic animals for medical research and agriculture.and agriculture.

Problems – Problems – cloned animals seem to have considerably shortened cloned animals seem to have considerably shortened lifespans, possibly due to shortened ‘telomeres’, which equate to lifespans, possibly due to shortened ‘telomeres’, which equate to premature ageing.premature ageing.

‘‘Humanimals’? Humanimals’? The Spectre of HybridsThe Spectre of Hybrids

Xenotransplantation (the insertion of human genes, cells or organs Xenotransplantation (the insertion of human genes, cells or organs into nonhuman animals, and/or vice-versa) appears to represent into nonhuman animals, and/or vice-versa) appears to represent a fundamental transgression of the human/animal boundarya fundamental transgression of the human/animal boundary. .

This raises all kinds of ethical, cultural and philosophical This raises all kinds of ethical, cultural and philosophical problems:problems:

- Are the resulting creatures humans or nonhumans? - Are the resulting creatures humans or nonhumans?

- Are they ‘humanimals’ (hybrids of human and animal)? - Are they ‘humanimals’ (hybrids of human and animal)?

- On what basis can we classify them? - On what basis can we classify them?

- What is their moral status?- What is their moral status?

These issues are sharpened by the fact that the main use of these These issues are sharpened by the fact that the main use of these ‘humanimals’ is for laboratory tests and medical research.‘humanimals’ is for laboratory tests and medical research.

The Fear and Fascination of MonstersThe Fear and Fascination of Monsters

From Mary Shelley’s (1818) From Mary Shelley’s (1818) ‘Frankenstein’‘Frankenstein’ to Ishiro Honda’s (1954) to Ishiro Honda’s (1954) ‘Godzilla’‘Godzilla’, modern cultures have consistently used monsters, , modern cultures have consistently used monsters, mutants, and hybrids as mutants, and hybrids as potent cultural symbolspotent cultural symbols..

These ‘abominations’ allow us to reassert our These ‘abominations’ allow us to reassert our classificationsclassifications, our , our ideas of the ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ideas of the ‘natural’ and ‘normal’, precisely by violating them – , precisely by violating them – because our rejection of these ‘freaks’ reinforces our belief that because our rejection of these ‘freaks’ reinforces our belief that what is ‘unnatural’ is also what is ‘unnatural’ is also immoralimmoral (this is the function of ‘taboo’). (this is the function of ‘taboo’).

But monsters are also more ambiguous, because the conjuring But monsters are also more ambiguous, because the conjuring of such hybrids in the of such hybrids in the imaginationimagination of science fiction is of science fiction is usually a fantastical comment on usually a fantastical comment on real developmentsreal developments in in sciencescience (e.g. Shelley on 19 (e.g. Shelley on 19ththC medicine and anatomy). C medicine and anatomy).

So monsters represent our So monsters represent our deepest anxietiesdeepest anxieties about modern science about modern science but also our awareness of its but also our awareness of its creative powercreative power. .

Animal Controversies 1:Animal Controversies 1:The OncoMouse™The OncoMouse™

On April 12On April 12thth 1988, a patent was issued to genetics researchers 1988, a patent was issued to genetics researchers at Harvard University for at Harvard University for the world’s first patented animalthe world’s first patented animal – the – the OncoMouseOncoMouse™: ™: A transgenic biomedical laboratory animal.A transgenic biomedical laboratory animal.

Licensed by Harvard to the bio-tech corporation Du Pont, and Licensed by Harvard to the bio-tech corporation Du Pont, and marketed by Charles River Laboratories in Massachussets.marketed by Charles River Laboratories in Massachussets.

The OncoMouse™ is a genetically engineered mouse which The OncoMouse™ is a genetically engineered mouse which contains in each of its cells a gene for cancer (an contains in each of its cells a gene for cancer (an ‘oncogene’) which it passes on to all of its offspring:‘oncogene’) which it passes on to all of its offspring:

““OncoMouse™ reliably develops neo-plasms (tumours) within OncoMouse™ reliably develops neo-plasms (tumours) within months… and offers you a shorter path to answers about months… and offers you a shorter path to answers about cancer” (Du Pont advert in cancer” (Du Pont advert in ScienceScience magazine, April 1990). magazine, April 1990).

Donna Haraway’s AnalysisDonna Haraway’s Analysis““Buying and selling, breeding and selecting, experimenting on, and Buying and selling, breeding and selecting, experimenting on, and

contesting the treatment of laboratory animals are not new contesting the treatment of laboratory animals are not new activities, but the controversies surrounding the patenting and activities, but the controversies surrounding the patenting and marketing of ‘the Harvard mouse’ were densely covered in the marketing of ‘the Harvard mouse’ were densely covered in the popular and scientific press in Europe and the US” (1997, 80).popular and scientific press in Europe and the US” (1997, 80).

So why did the OncoMouse™ generate so much controversy?So why did the OncoMouse™ generate so much controversy?

Donna Haraway (1997) suggests that the OncoMouse™ is many Donna Haraway (1997) suggests that the OncoMouse™ is many things at once:things at once:

- A living animal (and an object of global animal rights discourses).- A living animal (and an object of global animal rights discourses).

- An animal model for cancer (especially breast cancer).- An animal model for cancer (especially breast cancer).

- A scientific research tool for building knowledge.- A scientific research tool for building knowledge.

- A commodity in the exchange-circuits of global capitalism.- A commodity in the exchange-circuits of global capitalism.

OncoMouse™ as ‘Vampire’OncoMouse™ as ‘Vampire’But above all Haraway argues that the OncoMouse™ is a But above all Haraway argues that the OncoMouse™ is a

powerful symbol of “the significant traffic between the powerful symbol of “the significant traffic between the categories of nature and culture” (1997, 79).categories of nature and culture” (1997, 79).

This is what makes the OncoMouse™ a ‘vampire’:This is what makes the OncoMouse™ a ‘vampire’:

““Her status as an invention who/which remains a living animal is Her status as an invention who/which remains a living animal is what makes her what makes her a vampirea vampire, subsisting in the realms of the , subsisting in the realms of the undead” (79). undead” (79).

What is a Vampire?What is a Vampire?

A narrative figure which signifies the A narrative figure which signifies the crossing of natural boundariescrossing of natural boundaries (between living/dead, subject/object, human/nonhuman).(between living/dead, subject/object, human/nonhuman).

““The essence of vampires is the pollution of natural kinds” (80).The essence of vampires is the pollution of natural kinds” (80).

So vampires are inherently So vampires are inherently ambiguousambiguous – they are figures of – they are figures of violationviolation (of taboo), but also of (of taboo), but also of possibilitypossibility (of immortality). (of immortality).

Haraway points out that “Desire and fear are the Haraway points out that “Desire and fear are the appropriate reactions to vampires” (1917, 80). appropriate reactions to vampires” (1917, 80).

i.e. we fear vampires because they challenge our i.e. we fear vampires because they challenge our distinctions between what is ‘natural’ and ‘cultural’, distinctions between what is ‘natural’ and ‘cultural’, and what is human and nonhuman. and what is human and nonhuman.

This suggests that genetically engineered creatures like the This suggests that genetically engineered creatures like the OncoMouse™ are controversial because OncoMouse™ are controversial because they destabilise they destabilise our sense of what it means to be humanour sense of what it means to be human::

They are like us enough to be useful, but unlike us enough They are like us enough to be useful, but unlike us enough to be used – a highly contradictory position.to be used – a highly contradictory position.

Feminist Technoscience: Feminist Technoscience: Understanding HarawayUnderstanding Haraway

Haraway uses real and allegorical cases with potent symbolic Haraway uses real and allegorical cases with potent symbolic significance to illustrate her essential point:significance to illustrate her essential point:

i.e. that nature and culture, science and politics, biology and capitalism, i.e. that nature and culture, science and politics, biology and capitalism, humans and animals, are humans and animals, are perpetually combined and recombinedperpetually combined and recombined within the late modern social-economic-technological formation within the late modern social-economic-technological formation which she calls which she calls ‘technoscience’.‘technoscience’.

Haraway uses often fantastical language rich with metaphor and Haraway uses often fantastical language rich with metaphor and ambiguity in order to make this argument. ambiguity in order to make this argument.

Significantly, Haraway is Significantly, Haraway is neitherneither a social constructivist a social constructivist nornor a critical a critical realist, because she acknowledges both the realist, because she acknowledges both the ‘semiotics’‘semiotics’ (symbolic (symbolic cultural meanings) and the cultural meanings) and the ‘materiality’‘materiality’ (actual biology and natural (actual biology and natural properties) of the entities she discusses. properties) of the entities she discusses.

For Haraway the OncoMouse™ signifies a world in which “nature For Haraway the OncoMouse™ signifies a world in which “nature and culture are spliced together and enterprised up” (1997, 85).and culture are spliced together and enterprised up” (1997, 85).

Another metaphorical entity Haraway uses to express this is the Another metaphorical entity Haraway uses to express this is the ‘cyborg’:‘cyborg’: A fusion of the human being with technology. A fusion of the human being with technology.

She also incorporates established She also incorporates established socialistsocialist and and feministfeminist concerns by concerns by stressing that these ‘vampires’ and ‘cyborgs’ are also:stressing that these ‘vampires’ and ‘cyborgs’ are also:

- commodities within a global capitalist system.- commodities within a global capitalist system.

- beings located within a cultural system of gendered meanings.- beings located within a cultural system of gendered meanings.

- sentient beings with which we share our existence and to which - sentient beings with which we share our existence and to which we often owe a great deal we often owe a great deal (e.g. the OncoMouse™ as suffering (e.g. the OncoMouse™ as suffering Christ figure).Christ figure).

So Haraway shows how all these elements are brought together by So Haraway shows how all these elements are brought together by ‘technoscience’‘technoscience’ in complex combinations that demand an in complex combinations that demand an innovative socialist-feminist politics which is attentive to our kinship innovative socialist-feminist politics which is attentive to our kinship (close relations) with other animals.(close relations) with other animals.

Animal Controversies 2:Animal Controversies 2:ReReconstructing Salmon Biologyconstructing Salmon Biology

Rik Scarce (2000) – ‘Fishy Business: Salmon, Biology, and the Rik Scarce (2000) – ‘Fishy Business: Salmon, Biology, and the Social Construction of Nature’.Social Construction of Nature’.

- traces how salmon biologists ‘socially construct’ salmon. - traces how salmon biologists ‘socially construct’ salmon.

But Scarce acknowledges that salmon biologists do not construct But Scarce acknowledges that salmon biologists do not construct salmon ‘just as they please’, but in the context of salmon ‘just as they please’, but in the context of strugglesstruggles between: between:

- scientific freedom and commercial pressures- scientific freedom and commercial pressures

- researchers and managers - researchers and managers

- biologists and environmental campaigners - biologists and environmental campaigners

- laboratories and fisheries - laboratories and fisheries

- communities and even between countries. - communities and even between countries.

So salmon are a site for multiple social struggles over the meaning So salmon are a site for multiple social struggles over the meaning (and the control) of nature. (and the control) of nature.

Genetically Modified SalmonGenetically Modified Salmon

These struggles are particularly pronounced over the issue of These struggles are particularly pronounced over the issue of genetically modified genetically modified salmon.salmon.

Because the Because the gene-mapping of salmongene-mapping of salmon has both has both biologicalbiological and and economiceconomic implications: implications:

““Once the genes are mapped, complete, widespread tooling of the genetic make-up of Once the genes are mapped, complete, widespread tooling of the genetic make-up of salon will be possible” (2000, 117).salon will be possible” (2000, 117).

This will allow several techniques:This will allow several techniques:

A) The creation of ‘triploids’: these are salmon with 3 sets of chromosomes rather A) The creation of ‘triploids’: these are salmon with 3 sets of chromosomes rather than the usual 2, making them sterile. than the usual 2, making them sterile.

Producing triploids has the advantage of increasing the chances of survival of inter-Producing triploids has the advantage of increasing the chances of survival of inter-species hybrids.species hybrids.

““For example, you can cross a rainbow trout female with a coho For example, you can cross a rainbow trout female with a coho salmon male, and normally none of the offspring will survive. salmon male, and normally none of the offspring will survive. But if you make a triploid, and we usually do that by heat But if you make a triploid, and we usually do that by heat treating the eggs at a specific temperature shortly after treating the eggs at a specific temperature shortly after fertilization, you can make a fish that survives which is two-fertilization, you can make a fish that survives which is two-thirds rainbow trout and one third coho salmon. So it’s thirds rainbow trout and one third coho salmon. So it’s interesting then, to study their characteristics, to see if they interesting then, to study their characteristics, to see if they have some interesting traits” (Alex Stand – salmon geneticist, have some interesting traits” (Alex Stand – salmon geneticist, in Rik Scarce 2000, 117). in Rik Scarce 2000, 117).

This may be deeply objectionable to anti-geneticists and animal This may be deeply objectionable to anti-geneticists and animal rights activists, but triploids also have a rights activists, but triploids also have a conservationconservation use: use:

The production of sterile fish can be a way to prevent farmed The production of sterile fish can be a way to prevent farmed salmon from interbreeding with wild fish if they escape and salmon from interbreeding with wild fish if they escape and changing their genetic make-up, a significant bio-diversity risk changing their genetic make-up, a significant bio-diversity risk (esp. in Scotland and Canada).(esp. in Scotland and Canada).

B)B) DNA ‘fingerprinting’: this allows for the quick DNA ‘fingerprinting’: this allows for the quick identification of fish from different stocks.identification of fish from different stocks.

This technique also has seemingly contradictory (This technique also has seemingly contradictory (commercialcommercial and and conservationconservation) uses.) uses.

E.g. genetic techniques may be valuable for answering E.g. genetic techniques may be valuable for answering conservation-related questions such as the differences that conservation-related questions such as the differences that develop over time between farmed and wild salmon. develop over time between farmed and wild salmon.

So the issues around genetic modification are not clear cut, So the issues around genetic modification are not clear cut, and Rik Scarce views genetically modified salmon as and Rik Scarce views genetically modified salmon as a site a site of social struggle and contested meanings. of social struggle and contested meanings.

Especially a struggle to control and appropriate salmon Especially a struggle to control and appropriate salmon biology between conservationist vs. industrial-biology between conservationist vs. industrial-commercial interests.commercial interests.

From this perspective the technology itself may be neutral: it From this perspective the technology itself may be neutral: it is a question of who is a question of who controlscontrols the technology and who the technology and who determines how it is determines how it is usedused..

Rik Scarce argues that the trend towards genetic modification is Rik Scarce argues that the trend towards genetic modification is unstoppable because it offers unstoppable because it offers new ways of understandingnew ways of understanding (and therefore (and therefore controllingcontrolling) salmon, which are useful to many ) salmon, which are useful to many social groups with different agendas.social groups with different agendas.

This means that increasingly salmon will not only be ‘socially This means that increasingly salmon will not only be ‘socially constructed’ through struggles over their meaning and use, constructed’ through struggles over their meaning and use, but also ‘physically reconstructed’ by humans.but also ‘physically reconstructed’ by humans.

““The knowledge being created represents the possibility of a level The knowledge being created represents the possibility of a level of control over the salmon that only a few years ago was of control over the salmon that only a few years ago was unimaginable… The industrialized construction of salmon will unimaginable… The industrialized construction of salmon will then be complete. Salmon will have two identities. They will still then be complete. Salmon will have two identities. They will still be fish, but they also will have been reproduced by society as be fish, but they also will have been reproduced by society as entirely new entities, new entirely new entities, new socialsocial facts” (Scarce 2000, 120). facts” (Scarce 2000, 120).

– – So will salmon then be ‘natural’ creatures or ‘social’ So will salmon then be ‘natural’ creatures or ‘social’ inventions? inventions?

– – Will they be ‘hybrids’ of nature and society?Will they be ‘hybrids’ of nature and society?

Animal Controversies 3: Animal Controversies 3: ‘Dolly’ the Cloned Sheep‘Dolly’ the Cloned Sheep

‘‘Dolly’Dolly’ (1996-2003) was the first animal to be cloned from an adult (1996-2003) was the first animal to be cloned from an adult ‘somatic’ cell (as distinct from the ‘gamete’ cells from which ‘somatic’ cell (as distinct from the ‘gamete’ cells from which embryos normally develop) using the process of ‘nuclear transfer’.embryos normally develop) using the process of ‘nuclear transfer’.

Somatic Cell Nuclear transferSomatic Cell Nuclear transfer = removing the DNA from an = removing the DNA from an unfertilized egg, and injecting a nucleus containing the DNA to be unfertilized egg, and injecting a nucleus containing the DNA to be cloned. Theoretically the newly constructed cell will then replicate cloned. Theoretically the newly constructed cell will then replicate the inserted DNA, and if placed in the uterus of a female mammal the inserted DNA, and if placed in the uterus of a female mammal a cloned organism will develop. a cloned organism will develop.

The successful production of Dolly proved that a cell taken from a The successful production of Dolly proved that a cell taken from a specific body part (a mammary gland – hence the name ‘Dolly’, i.e. specific body part (a mammary gland – hence the name ‘Dolly’, i.e. Dolly Parton) could be used to recreate a whole organism.Dolly Parton) could be used to recreate a whole organism.

This was the end result of years of research funded by the UK This was the end result of years of research funded by the UK government at the Roslin Institute, Edinburgh.government at the Roslin Institute, Edinburgh.

‘‘Dolly Mixtures’: Dolly Mixtures’: Sarah Franklin’s Sarah Franklin’s AnalysisAnalysis

Sarah Franklin (2007) – ‘Dolly Mixtures: The Remaking of Sarah Franklin (2007) – ‘Dolly Mixtures: The Remaking of Genealogy’.Genealogy’.

GenealogyGenealogy = a complex lineage or line of descent in which a single = a complex lineage or line of descent in which a single element is the product of multiple influences, like a family tree.element is the product of multiple influences, like a family tree.

Franklin (p. 2) suggests that ‘Dolly is a mixture not only because she Franklin (p. 2) suggests that ‘Dolly is a mixture not only because she embodies a novel technique for combining genes and cells but embodies a novel technique for combining genes and cells but because she constitutes the outcome of a lengthy and complex because she constitutes the outcome of a lengthy and complex historical and biological genealogy as an experimentally bred sheep’.historical and biological genealogy as an experimentally bred sheep’.

For Franklin Dolly is the product of multiple overlapping For Franklin Dolly is the product of multiple overlapping histories:histories:

- of the colonial wool trade - of the colonial wool trade - of animal domestication - of animal domestication

- of the industrialization of livestock - of reproductive bio-medicine - of the industrialization of livestock - of reproductive bio-medicine

Franklin calls Dolly a Franklin calls Dolly a ‘‘bio-cultural entitybio-cultural entity’.’.

‘‘Bio-cultural’ emphasizes the inseparability of bio-technologies Bio-cultural’ emphasizes the inseparability of bio-technologies from the from the systems of meaningsystems of meaning (culture) that they both (culture) that they both reproduce and depend upon: reproduce and depend upon:

- Including beliefs about nature, reproduction, scientific - Including beliefs about nature, reproduction, scientific progress, and categories such as sex, gender, and species.progress, and categories such as sex, gender, and species.

Franklin argues that “Because Dolly’s assisted creation out of Franklin argues that “Because Dolly’s assisted creation out of technologically altered cells confirms the viability of new technologically altered cells confirms the viability of new forms of coming into being, of procreation, her existence can forms of coming into being, of procreation, her existence can be seen to redefine the limits of the biological, with be seen to redefine the limits of the biological, with implications for how both sex and reproduction are implications for how both sex and reproduction are understood and practiced.” (2007, 5).understood and practiced.” (2007, 5).

i.e. Dolly challenges our understanding of biology as simply i.e. Dolly challenges our understanding of biology as simply ‘natural’.‘natural’.

The Method of ‘Mixtures’:The Method of ‘Mixtures’: Assessing FranklinAssessing Franklin

‘‘Dolly Mixtures’ traces with great skill how the cloned sheep in Dolly Mixtures’ traces with great skill how the cloned sheep in question is the outcome of question is the outcome of complex intersectionscomplex intersections of international of international capitalism, colonial history, animal domestication, agricultural capitalism, colonial history, animal domestication, agricultural science, selective breeding and bio-technology.science, selective breeding and bio-technology.

However:However: Like Donna Haraway, Franklin could be accused of being Like Donna Haraway, Franklin could be accused of being content to simply content to simply describedescribe connections without really connections without really analysing analysing them, without identifying underlying structures, hierarchies of them, without identifying underlying structures, hierarchies of causes, etc. causes, etc.

Like Haraway she weaves a very skilfully and vividly written Like Haraway she weaves a very skilfully and vividly written tapestry, but it seems to have no central critical point. tapestry, but it seems to have no central critical point.

From this point of view, Franklin’s approach is not analytical From this point of view, Franklin’s approach is not analytical enough, and perhaps not sociological enough. enough, and perhaps not sociological enough.

Animal ControversiesAnimal Controversies

Animals, Bio-technology and Animals, Bio-technology and Human SocietyHuman Society

From Natural Selection to Genetic From Natural Selection to Genetic Manipulation: A Radical Break?Manipulation: A Radical Break?

The distinction between older methods of The distinction between older methods of selective breedingselective breeding and and genetic modificationgenetic modification is not absolute. is not absolute.

Arguably human selection (breeding) is already a Arguably human selection (breeding) is already a break from break from ‘nature’‘nature’ (natural selection) and genetics is only a step further. (natural selection) and genetics is only a step further.

From this point of view the difference is mainly one of From this point of view the difference is mainly one of timetime: : genetic techniques allow much genetic techniques allow much fasterfaster selection of desirable selection of desirable qualities. qualities.

However, genetic technologies such as xenotransplantation However, genetic technologies such as xenotransplantation transgress species boundariestransgress species boundaries in a way that selective in a way that selective breeding could never do (so a stronger argument can breeding could never do (so a stronger argument can perhaps be made that these technologies create ‘perhaps be made that these technologies create ‘unnatural unnatural kindskinds’).’).

‘‘Unnatural Kinds’? Unnatural Kinds’? For and Against For and Against Respecting the Integrity of SpeciesRespecting the Integrity of Species

Against:Against:

A common public view is that science should not ‘interfere’ with the A common public view is that science should not ‘interfere’ with the ‘building blocks’ of nature, and should therefore ‘building blocks’ of nature, and should therefore respect the respect the integrity of speciesintegrity of species rather than modifying them to suit humans. rather than modifying them to suit humans.

But But DarwinDarwin showed that showed that species are not fixed entitiesspecies are not fixed entities, they are , they are always always changingchanging and continually and continually shaped by their environmentshaped by their environment..

He also showed that evolution is not governed by any ‘grand plan’ He also showed that evolution is not governed by any ‘grand plan’ given by God or nature, but merely by a given by God or nature, but merely by a strugglestruggle for survival. for survival.

So if natural selection already ‘interferes’ with species, then So if natural selection already ‘interferes’ with species, then why shouldn’t humans do so?why shouldn’t humans do so?

– “– “What or who sanctifies?” (James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA)What or who sanctifies?” (James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA)

……For and AgainstFor and Against Respecting the Respecting the Integrity of SpeciesIntegrity of Species

For:For:

Current species are the product of countless Current species are the product of countless millennia of millennia of adaptationadaptation to the environment through natural selection. to the environment through natural selection.

Therefore the fact that species are not fixed for eternity does Therefore the fact that species are not fixed for eternity does not mean that they are constantly shifting: the not mean that they are constantly shifting: the time-scaletime-scale involved in species evolution is immense.involved in species evolution is immense.

This difference in time-scales between natural selection and This difference in time-scales between natural selection and genetic modification should induce some genetic modification should induce some human modestyhuman modesty..

The speed of genetic modification could lead to disastrous The speed of genetic modification could lead to disastrous unanticipated consequencesunanticipated consequences (re: ‘The Risk Society’). (re: ‘The Risk Society’).

‘‘Going Against Nature’:Going Against Nature’:The Essentialist CritiqueThe Essentialist Critique

Rooted in a religious worldview and also influenced Rooted in a religious worldview and also influenced by by romanticismromanticism..

Views nature as sacrosanct (‘God-given’): Views nature as sacrosanct (‘God-given’):

human ‘meddling’ with nature’s ‘design’ (i.e. with the human ‘meddling’ with nature’s ‘design’ (i.e. with the integrity of nature) is immoral, arrogant and bound integrity of nature) is immoral, arrogant and bound to disaster.to disaster.

Interprets the difference between selective breeding Interprets the difference between selective breeding and genetic modification in and genetic modification in absoluteabsolute terms. terms.

Adopts the discourse of the ‘Adopts the discourse of the ‘unnaturalunnatural’ as the ’ as the ‘‘immoralimmoral’ or ‘unhealthy’ (where healthy = virtuous). ’ or ‘unhealthy’ (where healthy = virtuous).

Bio-technological Risk?Bio-technological Risk?

Animal biotechnology faces a variety of Animal biotechnology faces a variety of uncertainties, safety issues and potential risks. uncertainties, safety issues and potential risks.

E.g.E.g. concerns have been raised regarding: concerns have been raised regarding:

–– The use of ‘vectors’ (i.e. viruses designed to The use of ‘vectors’ (i.e. viruses designed to transfer DNA into an organism) with the potential to transfer DNA into an organism) with the potential to be transferred to gene sequences of be transferred to gene sequences of other other organismsorganisms..

–– The potential effects of genetically modified animals The potential effects of genetically modified animals on the on the environmentenvironment. .

– – Human Human health and food safetyhealth and food safety concerns for meat or concerns for meat or animal products derived from animal biotechnology. animal products derived from animal biotechnology.

Vital Interests?Vital Interests?The Rights-Based CritiqueThe Rights-Based Critique

Opposes the genetic manipulation of animals and practices such Opposes the genetic manipulation of animals and practices such as xenotransplantation on ethical grounds.as xenotransplantation on ethical grounds.

Argues that these technologies violate the animals’ Argues that these technologies violate the animals’ ‘vital interests’‘vital interests’ - to ‘- to ‘express their natureexpress their nature’, to be ’, to be free from abusefree from abuse, and , and not to be not to be killedkilled. .

Rejects the notion that the use of animals in science should be Rejects the notion that the use of animals in science should be based on finding a ‘balance’ between human interests and based on finding a ‘balance’ between human interests and animal ‘animal ‘welfarewelfare’. Instead sees the ’. Instead sees the ‘‘rights’ of animalsrights’ of animals as as equivalent in principle to equivalent in principle to human rightshuman rights (e.g. Peter Singer). (e.g. Peter Singer).

Suggests that the increasing use of animals in bio-technology Suggests that the increasing use of animals in bio-technology represents a ‘step backwards’ from represents a ‘step backwards’ from civilised valuescivilised values (re: Elias), (re: Elias), towards an increasing tolerance of towards an increasing tolerance of crueltycruelty and and mistreatment.mistreatment.

Genomic Capitalism? Genomic Capitalism? The Social CritiqueThe Social Critique

Less concerned with the essential immorality or ethics of Less concerned with the essential immorality or ethics of genetic technologies and more concerned with how genetic technologies and more concerned with how social social structures of inequalitystructures of inequality are likely to determine their are likely to determine their useuse..

Points to the legacy of ‘Points to the legacy of ‘eugenics’eugenics’ (scientific racism) in the new (scientific racism) in the new genetic technologies (‘The Bell Curve’). genetic technologies (‘The Bell Curve’).

Envisages Envisages unequal accessunequal access to genetic technologies based on to genetic technologies based on disparities of wealthdisparities of wealth (e.g. life extension for the wealthy). (e.g. life extension for the wealthy).

Points to the Points to the political controlpolitical control and and social engineeringsocial engineering implications of genomic technologies (‘Brave New World’).implications of genomic technologies (‘Brave New World’).

Bio-Politics?Bio-Politics?The Radical CritiqueThe Radical Critique

Nikolas Rose (2007) – ‘The Politics of Life Itself’Nikolas Rose (2007) – ‘The Politics of Life Itself’..

Focuses on how genomics and bio-tech science are being driven Focuses on how genomics and bio-tech science are being driven by powerful by powerful corporate capitalist interestscorporate capitalist interests, so much so that we , so much so that we are seeing the emergence of a are seeing the emergence of a ‘‘bio-capitalismbio-capitalism’.’.

Argues that these new forms of knowledge are also creating new Argues that these new forms of knowledge are also creating new possibilities for the possibilities for the social control of populationssocial control of populations by political by political authorities, in a widespread authorities, in a widespread politicization of ‘life itselfpoliticization of ‘life itself’ (through ’ (through biomedicine, biotechnology, and pharmacology).biomedicine, biotechnology, and pharmacology).

Suggests that these new form of Suggests that these new form of ‘bio-power’‘bio-power’ are leading to new are leading to new definitions of what it means to be human, in emerging forms of definitions of what it means to be human, in emerging forms of ‘bio-citizenship’.‘bio-citizenship’.

Scientist Fiction:Scientist Fiction:Bio-technological UtopiasBio-technological Utopias

Supporters of genomics and bio-technology often conjure up Supporters of genomics and bio-technology often conjure up spectacular futuresspectacular futures in which all kinds of human limitations have been in which all kinds of human limitations have been transcended.transcended.

““It conjures up worlds where disease will be precisely targeted, It conjures up worlds where disease will be precisely targeted, human ageing retarded, and biology re-written” (Tim May 2007).human ageing retarded, and biology re-written” (Tim May 2007).

E.g.E.g. “Will our children live to be 160? Will the replacement of damaged “Will our children live to be 160? Will the replacement of damaged human body parts become routine maintenance?” (Forum 2006). human body parts become routine maintenance?” (Forum 2006).

But whilst it is easy to dismiss these But whilst it is easy to dismiss these ‘futurist’ visions‘futurist’ visions, they are neither a , they are neither a matter of fact nor pure hype, but they occupy the space in-between, matter of fact nor pure hype, but they occupy the space in-between, where where new worlds are imaginednew worlds are imagined (and sometimes built). (and sometimes built).

For this reason, these bio-technological visions of the future are For this reason, these bio-technological visions of the future are sociologically significant.sociologically significant.

Nightmare Visions: Nightmare Visions: Bio-technological DystopiasBio-technological Dystopias

Aldous Huxley (1932) – ‘Brave New World’.Aldous Huxley (1932) – ‘Brave New World’.

Huxley imagined a future in which humans are Huxley imagined a future in which humans are biologically biologically engineeredengineered in test tubes to be adapted to certain roles in test tubes to be adapted to certain roles according to a rigid according to a rigid social hierarchysocial hierarchy which cannot be which cannot be challenged because it is entrenched in people’s biology.challenged because it is entrenched in people’s biology.

E.g.E.g. workers destined to perform the most mundane and workers destined to perform the most mundane and repetitive tasks were given doses of alcohol whilst at a repetitive tasks were given doses of alcohol whilst at a critical stage of foetal development to inhibit mental ability.critical stage of foetal development to inhibit mental ability.

This kind of scenario may seem fantastical, but critical This kind of scenario may seem fantastical, but critical sociologists point to the sociologists point to the very real potentialvery real potential that genomics that genomics and bio-technology will be used for (or lead to) the and bio-technology will be used for (or lead to) the reproduction and extension of reproduction and extension of social controlsocial control and and inequalityinequality. .

Culture Without Limits?Culture Without Limits?

For strict social constructionism, bio-technology signals For strict social constructionism, bio-technology signals ‘the end of nature’‘the end of nature’ as a set of ‘natural limits’ to the as a set of ‘natural limits’ to the possibilities of human culture.possibilities of human culture.

On this view ‘life itself’ has become socially and On this view ‘life itself’ has become socially and culturally malleable or ‘plastic’.culturally malleable or ‘plastic’.

This means that there really is This means that there really is no fixed ‘natureno fixed ‘nature’ beyond ’ beyond what humans socially and technologically construct. what humans socially and technologically construct.

For social constructionists like Rik Scarce (2000) this For social constructionists like Rik Scarce (2000) this underlines the need to understand nature in terms of underlines the need to understand nature in terms of how it is how it is socially interpretedsocially interpreted, used and understood. , used and understood.

The Disappearance of Nature? The Disappearance of Nature? Bio-postmodernismBio-postmodernism

In its most radical version this amounts to In its most radical version this amounts to ‘bio-postmodernism’.‘bio-postmodernism’.

i.e.i.e. the argument that humans now have the technological potential the argument that humans now have the technological potential to fully to fully transcend transcend their ‘natural’ and ‘biological’ limitations.their ‘natural’ and ‘biological’ limitations.

Bio-postmodernism suggests that we are Bio-postmodernism suggests that we are free from the constraints free from the constraints of natureof nature and can now and can now re-shapere-shape the world and ourselves the world and ourselves according to our desires.according to our desires.

i.e.i.e. We have become metaphorical ‘ We have become metaphorical ‘cyborgscyborgs’ (hybrids of nature and ’ (hybrids of nature and technology) who can ‘technology) who can ‘re-program’ our own naturere-program’ our own nature at will. at will.

This takes the idea of ‘This takes the idea of ‘reflexivityreflexivity’ (our ability to reflect upon and ’ (our ability to reflect upon and change our own actions) and extends it into our biological nature, change our own actions) and extends it into our biological nature, so that humans are viewed as so that humans are viewed as wholly self-creating beingswholly self-creating beings..

The Persistence of Nature: The Persistence of Nature: A Realist ResponseA Realist Response

But critical realists argue that the But critical realists argue that the realityreality of the new genetic and of the new genetic and bio-technologies is far more modest than the bio-technologies is far more modest than the exaggerationsexaggerations of of scientists and media commentators often suggest. scientists and media commentators often suggest.

Biology remains overwhelmingly a domain of Biology remains overwhelmingly a domain of unalterable factsunalterable facts which humans have very which humans have very limited controllimited control over. over.

Bio-technology is beset with all kinds of Bio-technology is beset with all kinds of problemsproblems, , risksrisks and and potential for potential for unintended consequencesunintended consequences: it rarely lives up to its : it rarely lives up to its promise and is not ‘miracle science’.promise and is not ‘miracle science’.

Critical realists point to the irony of our hubris (over-confidence) Critical realists point to the irony of our hubris (over-confidence) at a time when human societies are globally threatened by a at a time when human societies are globally threatened by a natural phenomenon natural phenomenon beyond our controlbeyond our control (i.e. climate change). (i.e. climate change).

A Sceptical Account: A Sceptical Account: Scientific Hyperbole vs. Modest RealitiesScientific Hyperbole vs. Modest Realities

Despite its symbolic significance the OncoMouse™ was Despite its symbolic significance the OncoMouse™ was unsuccessfulunsuccessful as a technoscientific commodity – it never sold very widely, even at a as a technoscientific commodity – it never sold very widely, even at a loss-making price. loss-making price.

Despite the ambitious language of genomics, only Despite the ambitious language of genomics, only very smallvery small sections sections of animal gene sequences have as yet been mapped. The ambition of animal gene sequences have as yet been mapped. The ambition of total gene-mapping is of total gene-mapping is far from realisationfar from realisation..

For all the controversy it has generated, xenotransplantation has only For all the controversy it has generated, xenotransplantation has only been used to substitute human organ function for been used to substitute human organ function for short periodsshort periods (with (with constant medical intervention) whilst waiting for human organs – it constant medical intervention) whilst waiting for human organs – it may may nevernever be viable for long-term animal to human transplants. be viable for long-term animal to human transplants.

Dolly the sheep was the Dolly the sheep was the onlyonly clone in clone in 277 similar attempts277 similar attempts to survive to survive into adulthood, and then lived for only 6 years, barely half of the into adulthood, and then lived for only 6 years, barely half of the normal life expectancy for a sheep (12-15 years). normal life expectancy for a sheep (12-15 years).

Animal Controversies:Animal Controversies: Public Attitudes and Official EthicsPublic Attitudes and Official Ethics

Phil McNaghten (2004)Phil McNaghten (2004) – Argues that the core reason for public – Argues that the core reason for public controversy over GM animals is that “controversy over GM animals is that “they symbolize and give they symbolize and give voice to underlying tensions between ‘moral’ and ‘instrumental’ voice to underlying tensions between ‘moral’ and ‘instrumental’ approaches to animalsapproaches to animals” (2004, 533). ” (2004, 533).

McNaghten notes that McNaghten notes that expert advocatesexpert advocates of animal bio-technology of animal bio-technology such as the UK Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology such as the UK Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) have acknowledged the need to take Commission (AEBC) have acknowledged the need to take public concernspublic concerns into account in order to effectively extend the into account in order to effectively extend the use of GM animals.use of GM animals.

But he criticizes official bodies for classifying public ethical But he criticizes official bodies for classifying public ethical concerns as either ‘concerns as either ‘deontologicaldeontological’ or ‘’ or ‘utilitarianutilitarian’:’:

‘‘Deontological’ ethics:Deontological’ ethics: focuses on the ‘ focuses on the ‘intrinsic’ rightness or intrinsic’ rightness or ‘wrongness‘wrongness’ of the bio-technology, including:’ of the bio-technology, including:

-- the idea that it is ‘blasphemous’ (‘playing God with nature’) the idea that it is ‘blasphemous’ (‘playing God with nature’)

-- the idea that it is ‘unnatural’ (breaches species boundaries) the idea that it is ‘unnatural’ (breaches species boundaries)

-- the idea that it is ‘disrespectful’ (violates the ‘right’ of the the idea that it is ‘disrespectful’ (violates the ‘right’ of the organism to express its own nature) organism to express its own nature)

‘‘Consequentialist’ ethics:Consequentialist’ ethics: focuses on the focuses on the possible possible consequencesconsequences of the bio-technology, including: of the bio-technology, including:

-- the consequences of the technology for animal welfare the consequences of the technology for animal welfare

-- the possible risks to human health the possible risks to human health

-- the risks to the environment and genetic diversity the risks to the environment and genetic diversity

On this basis On this basis official reports into public concernsofficial reports into public concerns tend to tend to dismiss what they call ‘deontological’ concerns as based dismiss what they call ‘deontological’ concerns as based on a ‘on a ‘naturalistic fallacynaturalistic fallacy’.’.

‘‘Naturalistic Fallacy’Naturalistic Fallacy’ = an ‘irrational’ belief in ‘God-given’ = an ‘irrational’ belief in ‘God-given’ natural barriersnatural barriers between species, which gene transfer between species, which gene transfer technologies are believed to technologies are believed to violateviolate, when in fact the same , when in fact the same genetic outcomes can be achieved (much more slowly) genetic outcomes can be achieved (much more slowly) through selective breeding. through selective breeding.

This argument is used by official bodies such as the AEBC to This argument is used by official bodies such as the AEBC to marginalise public concernsmarginalise public concerns..

But McNaghten argues that this framework for understanding But McNaghten argues that this framework for understanding public concerns over animal bio-technology is public concerns over animal bio-technology is too narrowtoo narrow and therefore and therefore misrepresents public attitudes. misrepresents public attitudes.

His research suggests that people’s ‘deontological’ attitudes to the use His research suggests that people’s ‘deontological’ attitudes to the use of animals in biotechnology are not based on a naturalistic fallacy but of animals in biotechnology are not based on a naturalistic fallacy but upon the ‘embodied social practices’ which connect particular social upon the ‘embodied social practices’ which connect particular social groups and individuals with animals.groups and individuals with animals.

i.e. the activities through which different kinds of people experience and i.e. the activities through which different kinds of people experience and reflect upon animals in their daily lives.reflect upon animals in their daily lives.

E.g. as pets, in sport, as wild creatures, as prey, and as subjects of E.g. as pets, in sport, as wild creatures, as prey, and as subjects of scientific research. scientific research.

McNaghten also argues that what official bodies call ‘consequentialist’ McNaghten also argues that what official bodies call ‘consequentialist’ ethical attitudes reveal deep public unease and distrust of how bio-ethical attitudes reveal deep public unease and distrust of how bio-technoscience is institutionally regulated and governed:technoscience is institutionally regulated and governed:

““The misgivings people express towards the applications of GM animal The misgivings people express towards the applications of GM animal technologies appear to be reflections of broader syndromes of technologies appear to be reflections of broader syndromes of mistrust towards those institutions seen as responsible for such mistrust towards those institutions seen as responsible for such applications” (2004, 547). (Re: Ulrich Beck – ‘The Risk Society’).applications” (2004, 547). (Re: Ulrich Beck – ‘The Risk Society’).

Summary: The Remaking of Global Summary: The Remaking of Global Nature-CulturesNature-Cultures

Late modernity has seen the emergence of biotechnology and Late modernity has seen the emergence of biotechnology and genetics as new and powerful genetics as new and powerful ways of knowing and acting ways of knowing and acting upon nature. upon nature.

These developments are not just important for science, but These developments are not just important for science, but also have very significant also have very significant social/sociological implicationssocial/sociological implications..

The discourse (language) of genetics has permeated deeply The discourse (language) of genetics has permeated deeply into our into our society and culturesociety and culture, so that we increasingly view , so that we increasingly view the world and ourselves in terms of genetics.the world and ourselves in terms of genetics.

These developments have challenged These developments have challenged anthropocentric anthropocentric definitions of human identitydefinitions of human identity, which elevate humans above , which elevate humans above the nonhuman world of animals and nature. the nonhuman world of animals and nature.

SummarySummary

Animals are frequently used in bio-tech research, a fact that Animals are frequently used in bio-tech research, a fact that generates deep generates deep public uneasepublic unease, which has in turn fed the , which has in turn fed the controversiescontroversies surrounding bio-technology. surrounding bio-technology.

These controversies can be understood as a symptom of the These controversies can be understood as a symptom of the tensions and contradictionstensions and contradictions at the heart of modern at the heart of modern society’s relationships with animals. society’s relationships with animals.

Public attitudes to the use of animals in biotechnology are Public attitudes to the use of animals in biotechnology are typically typically mixedmixed and deeply and deeply ambiguousambiguous, but there is a , but there is a consistent feeling that the genetic manipulation of animals consistent feeling that the genetic manipulation of animals is ‘is ‘going against naturegoing against nature’.’.

This is rooted in the idea that animal bio-technology produces This is rooted in the idea that animal bio-technology produces ‘‘unnatural kindsunnatural kinds’ which transgress the ’ which transgress the natural boundariesnatural boundaries between species. between species.

SummarySummary

The common fear of ‘unnatural kinds’ is part of a long history of The common fear of ‘unnatural kinds’ is part of a long history of social ‘social ‘tabootaboo’, in which ‘’, in which ‘monstersmonsters’ of one kind or another have ’ of one kind or another have served to reinforce society’s notions of the ‘natural’ and served to reinforce society’s notions of the ‘natural’ and ‘normal’, and its ‘normal’, and its boundaries between the human and the boundaries between the human and the nonhumannonhuman. .

They can also be seen as part of a ‘They can also be seen as part of a ‘naturalistic fallacynaturalistic fallacy’ which ’ which regards regards species boundariesspecies boundaries as fixed, ‘God-given’, and as fixed, ‘God-given’, and inviolable. inviolable.

This in turn supports This in turn supports anthropocentric definitions of human identityanthropocentric definitions of human identity as essentially as essentially separateseparate from and from and superiorsuperior to other animals. to other animals.

The controversy generated by the ‘The controversy generated by the ‘hybridshybrids’ produced in ’ produced in biotechnologies such as xenotransplantation and cloning can biotechnologies such as xenotransplantation and cloning can therefore be understood as reactions to the therefore be understood as reactions to the challengechallenge hybrids hybrids pose to this sense of pose to this sense of human identityhuman identity..

SummarySummary

But But public uneasepublic unease at the use of animals in bio-technology can at the use of animals in bio-technology can also be seen as rooted in people’s also be seen as rooted in people’s everyday relationships everyday relationships with animalswith animals – their ‘ – their ‘embodied social practicesembodied social practices’. This is ’. This is usually overlooked by official ethics committees. usually overlooked by official ethics committees.

Equally, there are various different kinds of critique that can Equally, there are various different kinds of critique that can be made of bio-technology, from be made of bio-technology, from animal rightsanimal rights positions to positions to radical critiquesradical critiques of ‘bio-capitalism’ and ‘bio-politics’. These of ‘bio-capitalism’ and ‘bio-politics’. These are not all reducible to a ‘naturalistic fallacy’. are not all reducible to a ‘naturalistic fallacy’.

““The ills that afflict most human beings now and in the The ills that afflict most human beings now and in the foreseeable future require no high tech solutions – merely foreseeable future require no high tech solutions – merely clean water, sufficient food, a living wage, and moderately clean water, sufficient food, a living wage, and moderately competent politicians and bureaucrats – and they are competent politicians and bureaucrats – and they are unlikely to be significantly ameliorated by developments in unlikely to be significantly ameliorated by developments in biomedicine” (Nikolas Rose 2007, 78-9).biomedicine” (Nikolas Rose 2007, 78-9).