EU SOCRATES ERASMUS European Community

IP Biothique en science de la vie et de lenvironnement

Transgenic and cloned animals: Ethical

Problems?

By:
Camara D., Dimitrova Ir., Doynova M., Jachacz3 L., Kachakova2 D., Kepka3 M., Ould
Isselmou1 CB., Vorniere1 JP., Yungarva2 Tsv.,
1

: Agro campus Rennes

: University of Sofia Sv. Kliment Ohridski
3
: University of Life Sciences, Lublin
2

Perugia, 13 27 avril 2008

Summary
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3
2. Methods.................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1. Transgenic methods......................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Cloning methods ............................................................................................................. 4
3. Results .................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1. Transgenic applications................................................................................................... 4
3.2. Cloning applications........................................................................................................ 5
Example for a research result: .................................................................................................... 5
4. Ethical problems? ................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Economical aspects of using cloned and transgenesis animals........................................ 6
4.2 Consequences of Transgenesis for Animal Welfare ........................................................ 6
4.2.1 Reproductive and other biotechnological interventions:........................................... 6
4.2.2 Mutation effects......................................................................................................... 7
4.2.3 Expression of the transgene....................................................................................... 7
4.3. Transgenic ethics............................................................................................................... 10
4.3.1. Transgenic Positives................................................................................................... 10
4.3.2. Transgenic Negatives ................................................................................................. 11
4.4. Religion and Ethics ........................................................................................................... 11
4.5. Public Acceptability .......................................................................................................... 12
4.6. Ethical problem of patenting alive creature: ..................................................................... 12
4.6.1. Negatives for Patenting Animals................................................................................ 12
4.6.2. Positives for Patenting Animals ................................................................................. 13
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 13
5.1. Ethical questions ............................................................................................................... 13
5.2. Global Discussion: ............................................................................................................ 17
6. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 18
7. Bibliografy ........................................................................................................................... 19

Abstract
Progresses that enable genetic engineering wake up passions leading to excess,
forgetting sometimes the risks on the human being and the environment. In spite of the
religious considerations, the use and research on cloned and transgenic animals give birth to
some interrogations concerning the economical motivations of scientists and the risks for
mankind. So, in order to avoid dramatic consequences, some ethical questions, coming from
fears related to the use of these new technologies, have been developed. The comparison of
opinions among three European countries: Poland, Bulgaria and France, shows the
differences in the perception of the risks linked to Genetic engineering. Even if it seems now
impossible to return back, some recommendations are emitted to reduce the dangers due to
transgenic and cloned animals. Among them, breeding in confined environment would limit
the propagation risks and a latency time would enable to control better these too young
technologies.
Key-words: Cloning, transgenic animals, transgene, welfare concerns, ethical problems,

1. Introduction
Centuries ago, the British economist Thomas Robert Malthus preached a
demographic restriction so that it has balance between the human growth and the available
resources. At the time much of thinkers to the image of Karl Marx saw selfishness in the
remarks of Malthus. But the ecological concerns renew the Malthusian problems today.
Today the strong demographic growth is not balanced with the animal and vegetable
resources available. We attend an increase in the needs nutritional and food but also with
medical requirements because the man is also distressed by the proliferation of certain
diseases of which cancers. Faced with these enormous problems, the scientist, having the
heavy spot to find solutions to satisfy humanity, acts for an improvement of the animal and
vegetable productivity and for a better use of these resources. And to be done, science has
recourse to the cloning and the transgenesis. Recently, the United States of America
accepted the meat marketing resulting from animals transgenic. On the other hand in Europe,
the tendency is always with the approach of precaution.
The people attitude about cloning and transgenic raises debates between almost
everybody. Supporters of each side have to find facts and arguments to prove their position.
There are many different ethical problems concerning cloning and transgenesis and that
depends quite a lot on peoples believes. The goal of our work is to compare and confront
our different opinions about these problems.

2. Methods
2.1. Transgenic methods
A transgenic animal is an animal that has been genetically altered so that it will
produce a specific protein. Foreign DNA has been inserted into the animals DNA so it will
produce a protein it does not normally have.
The way to make transgenic animal:
isolation of a specific gene
the gene is inserted into a plasmid and then replicated inside a bacteria
isolation of the gene from the bacteria and creation a linear bit of DNA
foreign DNA can be inserted in a number of different ways. It can be inserted by
microinjection into a fertilized egg, where the DNA sequence is injected directly into
the male pronucleus, or it can be created by delivering DNA in vitro to ES cells, then
the ES cells are grown to the blastocyst stage and inserted in the uterus of a
surrogate mother.

2.2. Cloning methods:

Is the process of making an identical copy of something. In biology, it collectively
refers to processes used to create copies of DNA fragments (molecular cloning), cells (cell
cloning), or organisms. The term also covers when organisms such as bacteria, insects or
plants reproduce asexually.
Reproductive cloning uses "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) to create animals
that are genetically identical. This process entails the transfer of a nucleus from a donor adult
cell (somatic cell) to an egg which has no nucleus. If the egg begins to divide normally it is
transferred into the uterus of the surrogate mother.
Steps of cloning: Researchers typically must first inject a female with hormones to
induce her to super-ovulate (produce more eggs than usual) so that they can harvest her
eggs, often surgically. The nuclear transfer is performed and the reconstructed cloned
embryos are incubated until they reach a certain size, at which point they are surgically
implanted into surrogate mothers, often several embryos per surrogate in the hopes that at
least one will 'take.'

3. Results
3.1. Transgenic applications:
Different types of transgenic animals have been invented to cater to specific social
needs. Transgenic disease models are animals genetically altered to exhibit human
pathologies that they do not normally have. This can be helpful in studying a disease so that
we may understand them and develop treatments. Some human disease models that have
been created so far in mice include HIV, Alzheimers, and Oncogenes. These models help us
gain insight to what causes the disease and its progression. Transpharmers,
Xenotransplanters, and transgenic food sources are other types of transgenic animals that
have also been created.
Transpharmers are transgenic animals that are genetically altered to produce
pharmaceutical compounds in either the milk, eggs, or blood. Gene pharming is a technology
that scientists use to alter an animal's DNA. These genetically modified animals are mostly
used to make human proteins that have medicinal value. The protein encoded by the
transgene is engineered to be secreted in the animal's milk, eggs, or blood, and then
collected and purified.
Xenotransplantation describes when an animal organ is transplanted into a human.
Xenotransplanters are animals genetically altered to better prepare their organs for
transplantation into human recipients. This is a very useful technology because there is an
enormous backlog of patients needing organ transplants, and the body normally rejects the
foreign animal organs. When this occurs, the body could go into hyperacute rejection and the
immune system will kill the organ by wiping out all cells in it. The organ will turn black and die.
By modifying the pig genome, through functional deletion of selected pig genes and through
the introduction of certain human genes, immunological barriers have been overcome to a
great degree in suppressing hyperacute and acute vascular rejection mechanisms particular
to xenografts.
Transgenic animals as food ressources- this classification of transgenic animals
involves genetically modifying animals to accommodate the needs of human consumption.
An example of this is when growth hormone is incorporated into an animal's genome. Gene
constructs encoding growth hormone have been incorporated into the genome of several
species of salmon to create superfish. These animals show increased growth rates,
improved flesh color and increased disease resistance
Many examples of success in aquaculture have been also observed: we can quote
the Atlantic salmon in which one incorporated obstructs it coding for the growth hormone
resulting from the chinook Salmon and that coding for the synthesis from an antifreeze
resulting from the halibut which lives in cold and deep water.

Also, one counts the US clam, the shrimp (Macrobranchium rosenbergi), the sea
urchins (Lexochinus albus) but much of other commercial species could be interested by
these methods: the mussel Mytlilus galloprovincialis, the punt oyster Ostrea edulis, the turbot
(Scophthalmus maximus) and majority of the species currently exploited in aquiculture.

3.2. Cloning applications:

Agriculture researchers are interested in cloning livestock such as cows, pigs, sheep,
goats, and poultry primarily for the purposes of breeding to create copies of 'valuable'
animals. Currently, farmers use the animals that have the best genetics for some desired
quality such as fast growth, leaner meat, or high milk production as breeding animals to
produce offspring that will have similar qualities. By cloning these top breeders, farmers want
to extend their reproductive potential and create whole herds or flocks with these uniform
characteristics.
Cloning is also used to produce copies of transgenic animalsanimals who have
been engineered with genes from another species in order to have better traits for production
(such as faster growth, disease resistance, altered milk or meat products with 'health
benefits' for humans, etc); to produce pharmaceuticals in their milk, blood, urine, or semen
(pharming); or to produce tissues and organs for transplantation into humans
(xenotransplantation). If animal cloning is approved, generation and proliferation of
transgenic animals is likely to become the major application of cloning technology.
Cloned animals gave the researchers opportunity to compare genetically identical
animals and this might be very helpful to get a more precise knowledge of certain biological
processes in the organisms of animals.

Example for a research result:

Dolly (1996-07-05 2003-02-14), a Finn Dorsett ewe, was the first mammal to have
been successfully cloned from an adult cell, though the first actual thing to be cloned, was a
tadpole in 1952. She was cloned at the Roslin Institute in Scotland and lived there until her
death when she was six. Dolly was publicly significant because the effort showed that the
genetic material from a specific adult cell, programmed to express only a distinct subset of its
genes, could be reprogrammed to grow an entire new organism. Cloning Dolly the sheep had
a low success rate per fertilized egg; she was born after 277 eggs were used to create 29
embryos, which only produced three lambs at birth, only one of which lived.
There were early claims that Dolly the Sheep had pathologies resembling accelerated
aging. Scientists speculated that Dolly's death in 2003 was related to the shortening of
telomeres, DNA-protein complexes that protect the end of linear chromosomes. However,
other researchers, including Ian Wilmut who led the team that successfully cloned Dolly,
argue that Dolly's early death due to respiratory infection was unrelated to deficiencies with
the cloning process.
Dolly was eight months old before the world was told. Is there a deliberate conspiracy
of silence on this subject because of the unsettling ethical and moral questions no one wants
to face?

4. Ethical problems?
Why is it necessary to investigate moral and ethical concerns about animal
biotechnology at all? Someone may feel that the key questions and problems are scientific or
agricultural or medical or commercial once, best left to expert practitioners. Does ethical
debate have any practical importance in the real world? No new scientific or technological
developpement can claim immunity from ethical scruinity. Science can not be pursued in a
complete moral and ethical vacuum in any society that claims to be healthy and civilised.

Moral and ethical concerns are of considerable practical importance in influencing public
attitude towards modern biotechnology. Potential benefits of modern biotechnology maybe
lost if new processes and products fail to gain consumer acceptance because of moral
concerns which surveys in many countries.

4.1 Economical aspects of using cloned and transgenesis animals.

One of the reasons of scientists to create cloned and transgenic animals is to provide
food to satisfy the needs of the increasing world population and to avoid the hunger in the
world. The analysis of the costs and the benefit shows lower production costs, this being
related to the genetic improvement of the capabilities of the animals, in particular a fall of
veterinary expenses by resistance increased to the diseases and a better assimilation of food.
In the case of the exploitations of the mixed-farming-breeding type, the production of
food for the cattle would be at lower cost within the framework of the use of transgenic
cultures.. On the other hand, we would see appearing costs of controls related to the
necessary traceability of the products in bond with the needs for food safety. Lastly, the
increased productivity, the higher outputs, a cycle of shorter breeding, independence with
respect to pathologies, are as many points which allow the increase in products of
exploitation and the realization of interesting commercial margins, by economies of scale
made possible by the use of more powerful products.
Faced with this expansion of multilateral economic interests, one can put the ethical
question of the motivations of the scientist.
Indeed, isnt he led by the market and the soft food of the patents? Is its step really
objective?
The stakes of the transgenesis push the laboratories with a true race with the patents
for the gene discovery and their functions. Consequently one could see, thanks to the
transgenesis, the appearance of new genetically modified animal species pertaining at a firm
which would have a patent or a franchise agreement on such species. Generally the patent
applications are intended to cover not only the technique which made it possible to create the
clone of adult and its precursors but also all the derivatives of this technique: clones
themselves, their descendants, and their products, which they are of agricultural use,
pharmaceutical, surgical or medical (www.senat.fr/rap/r99).
Thus, it seems that the actions carried out by the researchers do not have any more
like simple goal research of the truth but well a race with the property of living and its
patentability. The great industrial, principal groups profit of the technological projections, are
generally attracted by mow prospects for colossal benefit. At this point in time ethical
dimension is not considered any more, the individual economic interests taking precedence
over the interests of the community which are seen ridiculed in the long run, because of the
losses of the wellbeing related to the environmental pollution.

4.2 Consequences of Transgenesis for Animal Welfare

Three factors that may negatively influence the health and welfare of transgenic animals
have been identified by van Reenen & Blockhuis:

4.2.1 Reproductive and other biotechnological interventions:

Studies involving certain species (for example, sheep and cattle) have shown that in
vitro procedures employed both before and after microinjection (in vitro culture, embryo
transfer) might lead to increased gestation length, body weight, incidence of dystocia, and
perinatal loss and anomalies, relative to in vivo (artificial insemination) procedures. Moreover,
there is evidence that microinjection, irrespective of successful integration of the foreign DNA,
increases embryonic and fetal losses in manipulated mouse embryos. The culling of mice for
embryo recovery, and other surgical interventions used in generating transgenic animals,
also compromise welfare.

4.2.2 Mutation effects

Following microinjection, foreign DNA often becomes integrated within or near an
endogenous gene, thereby creating a new ("insertional") mutation and causing a loss of host
gene function. Integrated microinjected material is sometimes associated with chromosomal
translocations, and with other rearrangements leading to developmental defects.

4.2.3 Expression of the transgene

The extent to which transgenic animals express harmful consequences from exposure to
foreign proteins and/or expression of a transgene is dependent on the following, interrelated,
factors:
The biological properties of the resulting protein;
The tissue(s) in which transgenes are expressed;
The route of secretion of the gene product; and
The level of transgenic expression.
Several strategies are being developed to improve the control of transgene expression.
Should we make such animals?
Since it is unethical and immoral to use humans for testing new therapeutic drugs,
disease model animals serve a strong benefit to society. Models like Alzheimers mouse do
not suffer noticeably, so with strong medical benefit and little animal suffering, such
experiments should be allowed to proceed. For models like oncomouse that involve tumor
formation, the potential for suffering is much greater, so we are in favor of legislation
mandating a minimization of animal suffering using pain killers and early sacrifice when
possible. Since transpharmer animals likely dont even realize they are manufacturing the
drug in their milk, and since such drugs can save thousands of lives, we are also strongly in
favor of transpharming. Transgenic animals are a very controversial topic which requires
close watch so that the animal has very minimal or if possible no suffering while maximizing
the medical benefit. Superpigs are an example of animals that were given human growth
hormone and they had to be put to sleep because they were immobile and their organs failed.
Thus we agree with the current moratorium on creating any new transgenic animals for food
sources, other than fish with seem to tolerate growth hormone with few bad effects.
Welfare concerns over cloning of farm animals
Invasive medical interventions. These are performed on donor animals for oocyte
extraction and on surrogate mothers. Oocyte extraction for pigs and sheep is usually
surgical, with all the accompanying stresses of recovery.
Suffering caused to surrogate mothers. Pregnancy is typically prolonged and cloned
calves and lambs may be 25% heavier than normal. Higher birth weights lead to painful
births and often the need for caesarean section.
'Large Offspring Syndrome' (LOS) is a commonly observed problem with cloned
animals in which the animal is significantly bigger at birth than a conventional animal. It is not
uncommon for the animal to be twice the normal birth weight, and one lamb was reported as
being five times the normal birth weight. This results in an overly painful and stressful labor
and delivery for the mother, often requiring surgical intervention to deliver the baby. LOS is
often accompanied by a variety of other symptoms as well.
Abnormal foetal development and late pregnancy mortality, leading to frequent death
at various stages of development. Death in the second half of gestation is a common Postnatal mortality.

The viability of cloned offspring at delivery and up to weaning is reduced compared

with normal births. Surviving newborn clones have altered neonatal metabolism and
physiology an elevated proportion of them dies before weaning (complications include
gastroenteritis, umbilical infections, defects in the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal and
neurological systems, as well as susceptibility to lung infections and digestive disorders).
These animals have short lives of suffering.
Health problems during life. Clones may have a greater propensity in later life for
respiratory problems and immune system deficiencies compared with normal animals. Many
clones have died or have had to be put down at a young age. Underlying weaknesses in
cloned animals may not be fully revealed until the animals are stressed in some manner. A
study undertaken at the US Department of Agriculture and published in October 2005
suggested that clones may be born with crippled immune systems.
While very little information about cloned animals is publicly available (due to
research confidentiality), it is clear that abnormalities are the norm, not the exception.
Cloning is often pursued in order to aid in the intensive production of livestockto
produce animals that grow faster so they can be slaughtered sooner, and to raise more
animals in a smaller space. The rise of 'factory-farming' has already led to serious animal
health problems, including animals who grow so big so quickly that their bones break, and
animals who are confined to spaces so small they cannot even turn around or stretch.
Inefficiency and wastage of life (this includes embryos, foetuses and mature animals
these are killed as part of the procedures). To clone Dolly, for example, 277 cloned
embryos were implanted, only 13 pregnancies resulted, and only 1 animal was born
successfullyDolly.
A recent paper from New Zealand refers to the process as still inefficient and highly
prone to epigenetic errors.
Is cloning unnatural?
Cloning (or at least cloning of mammals) is unnatural. This argument is one of the
most popular in public debate and in mass media. However, it does not hold. Firstly there is
an empirical objection: Cloning, even cloning of mammals, occurs in nature. Identical twins
are clones, and they are very natural. Cloning of twins is natural, but cloning an offspring
from an adult animal is not. This does not occur in nature. But obviously the method used in
the case of Dolly and many other cloned animals works. The mechanisms used to produce
the clone of an adult animal are natural mechanisms. There the argument of non-naturalism
is falsified by empirical cognition.
Does cloning violate the realm of the Creator?
This second argument is more a popular than a scientific one. However, many people
argue in this way, one of the most famous being Prince Charles. They believe that cloning
and genetic modification intrude into areas that are the preserve of the Creator.
Like in the first case there are several objections against this argument. First of all
a formal objection this argument will reach and convince only believers. For non-believers
it wont be valid.
The classical Christian definition of creation is:
- Bringing something from not-being to being;
- Producing something out of nothing. Cloning, however, is not producing living
beings out of nothing, but uses living cells to bring into life a cloned creature;
- Hence it cant be understood as a violation of the realm of the Creator.
Another important point is that genetic diversity could be narrowed too far because of
the cloning. If a special race is cloned very often, because it has very good abilities, it will
cause the problem of in-breeding.

It is a fundamental ethical concern too, because in Christian theology the whole world
is Gods creation and one of its most characteristic features is variety. No other human has
the right or freedom to manipulate or destroy our unique value.
Does cloning violate animals bodily integrity?
The first two arguments against cloning are not very helpful, as we have seen. The
third one comes closer to our problem of farm animal cloning. Yes, cloning obviously violates
the bodily integrity of an animal. The exchange of almost all genetic material of the oocyte is
a violation of this germ of life. We accept a violation of bodily integrity if it increases and
enhances the overall well-being of the individual himself or (under certain, very restricted
conditions) even of other individuals (e.g. if a kidney is donated by and explanted from a
living person).
Does cloning violate animals sentience capacity?
Under certain conditions and with particular aims of great importance or high urgency,
the causation of pain in farm animals by cloning may be ethically right.
Does cloning violate animals dignity/intrinsic value?
In recent decades, among philosophers and theologians there has been a long and
intensive debate about whether we should or must attribute intrinsic value, inherent worth
or dignity to non-human beings. Attributing dignity or intrinsic value to an individual does not
mean that this individual has the same rights as human beings. It means only that his/her
rights have to be considered with the same attention and respect as the rights of humans.
And a second aspect demanding our attention: Attributing intrinsic value to animals does not
mean that we must not use them for our own purposes. The decisive point is that we must
not consider other individuals with intrinsic value as mere means for our purposes we
always have to keep in mind that they are subjects with their own needs, own interests, own
good and aims.
Consuming Cloned Meat and Milk. Consumer Attitudes. Ethical concerns
The health problems associated with cloned animals, particularly those who appear
healthy but have concealed illnesses or problems that appear unexpectedly later in life, have
the potential to pose real risks to the safety of the food products derived from those animals.
Ian Wilmut, a lead scientist involved in the creation of Dolly, has warned that even small
imbalances in a clone's hormone, protein, or fat levels could compromise the safety of its
milk or meat.
There is little information on the effects of eating meat or drinking milk from cloned
animals or their offspring. The 2002 NAS (National Academy of Sciences) report found no
evidence [that] cloned animals are unsafe to eat, but data is still lacking. To date, there are
only a few scientific studies that compare the meat and milk products from cloned and noncloned animals, and the studies have not found definitive, significant differences in the
composition of the meat and milk products.
In one study, the cloned cattle did have significantly higher levels of some fats than
the non-cloned animals, and there were four other areas, largely regarding muscle
composition, in which clones differed from the comparison groups. Another study found
differences in the mineral and fatty acid content of milk from cloned versus non-cloned cows.
Cloned animals and their offspring may be for sale on the marketplace already,
making people unwitting consumers of meat and milk they want to avoid. Consumers should
have the opportunity to make informed choices about their food, which necessitates labelling
meat and milk from clones and clones offspring. And prior to these animals being fed to the
public, there should be public discussions about the related ethical issues, since there is
such widespread opposition to this technology.

In early 2008, the Food and Drug Administration announced that they considered
meat and milk from cloned animals to be safe to eat despite years of controversy and a long
list of unresolved ethical, health, and animal welfare concerns. The agency will not require
any of these foods to be labeled. The FDA had reviewed additional studies and these studies
had been carried out by the same researchers interested in getting cloned animals approved
for the marketplace. It is no surprise that the FDA has continued to endorse the safety of
cloned foods. Consumers have a right to know how their food was produced so they can
make informed decisions about what they buy and what they feed their families.
There are numerous ethical implications associated with cloning. Year after year,
surveys consistently show that roughly two-thirds of Americans are uncomfortable with or
disapprove of animal cloning. In fact ethical concerns are so strong that 63 percent of
Americans would not buy food from cloned animals even if it were labeled as 'safe.' Just
because a food may be safe does not mean it should be produced. Federal government
should consider ethical issues when making a decision on cloning and genetic engineering.
In Europe, people are convinced that there are alternatives to provide sufficient food.
Safety as such is not an issue where acceptance of this technology is concerned, but there
are other aspects to consider, especially ethical considerations.
Many people believe that animal cloning will be used to pave the way for human
cloning, particularly since essentially the same SCNT procedures would be used.
Researchers in England and Australia have already backed a proposal to fuse a human cell
to an animal egg to create embryos that are 99.9% human and 0.1% rabbit. People are
concerned that cloning represents a dangerous 'transgression' of science.
Consumers in the USA recently signed and delivered a petition to the US Centre for
Food Safety, altogether representing 50 million people, and not just US animal welfare
groups but also groups such as the Consumer Federation, Food and Water Watch, Friends
of the Earth, the Humane Society of the United States, the Religious Coalition for
Reproductive Choice, and the Centre for Environmental Health.
They pointed out quite a number of problems in relation to animal welfare, the main
one being the low success rate in cloning. This is one of the reasons why cloning will not
easily become a common technology to produce animals for food purposes. Additionally, it is
still very expensive. The suffering of surrogates has already been mentioned by several
speakers, and offspring abnormalities do represent an issue today, even if the technology will
improve in the future. The petition also mentioned food safety risks: cloned animals might be
more sensitive to zoonoses that can be transferred to humans.

4.3. Transgenic ethics

It is true that transgenic animals hold the potential for enormous contributions to
science and medicine. What remains uncertain is whether engineering new life and
modifying existing forms is ethical in modern society. Technicalities in genetic engineering no
longer limit the ability of scientists to manipulate life forms. So now that we know how to
make such animals, we now use ethics to determine what bounds we hould use with this
new technology.

4.3.1. Transgenic Positives

The advantages of using transgenic animals can be divided into three broad
categories: medical, scientific, and food benefits. Medical advantages are seen with disease
models like Alzheimers mouse and Oncomouse that teach us how diseases initiate and
progress. Such models are required for performing experiments not ethical in human beings.
Medical advantages are also seen in transpharming models that produce life-saving
pharmaceuticals in their milk and Xenotransplanters that grow organs for human transplants.

10

Scientific benefits are seen in some animals engineered to over-express a specific

protein (or knockouts engineered not to produce a specific protein) to help elicit a newly
discovered proteins function. Food benefits are seen in superfish that grow faster and larger
than regular fish. Basic science and medical research would benefit from fewer required lab
animals and generation of more accurate data because of a greater genetic similarity in the
test subjects, for example mice or monkeys. Agriculturally, farm animals that can produce
better products, more efficiently while consuming less food themselves would be a valuable
commodity. Additionally, disease resistance and faster production times offer even more
incentive to progress. The potential to successfully utilize transgenic animals is huge, as is
the possibility of exploiting them.

4.3.2. Transgenic Negatives

There are many concerns involved with making transgenic animals, some real some
products of fear. Commonly applied to the practice of genetic modification is the phrase
playing God, which can mean that man has become arrogant and disregarded his respect
for nature, or has otherwise violated nature in some way.
Destroying the integrity of the animal genome, in this case applied to the intactness
of a genome, is a worry of environmentalists. The question of interest arises, who is really
benefiting: the human species or biotech investors? The worry that animals may be reduced
to instruments or tools is important to consider. Then there is the slippery slope argument
which says that what can be done with animals may someday be done with humans. The
most widely accepted arguments against the technology object to animal suffering, and point
to preservation of the welfare of transgenic animals which is rooted in modern environmental
philosophy. Also loss of genetic diversity, environmental hazards, and human health risks
pose questions that must be addressed. In any case, the primary worry remains; will a given
experiment result in mutant animals with increased mortality or other negative effects on the
health and well-being of that animal? Unfortunately, we cant know until we try.
Another fact to keep in mind when discussing the tampering with genes and genomes
is that we have been doing it for centuries via selective breeding. Selective breeding has
given us the broiler chicken which grows to approximately 2 kg in about 40 days, half the
time it took 30 years ago. The chickens grow muscle faster than the skeletal and
cardiovascular systems which support it and end up with leg problems and heart failure. With
effects like these on the welfare of non-genetically altered animals, few would permit the use
of a controversial new method to again push the animals to their production limits.

4.4. Religion and Ethics

Several religious groups, including from Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu,
and Buddhist faiths, have rejected animal cloning on ethical grounds. Cloning and genetic
engineering are viewed by these groups as tantamount to 'playing God.'
Jews and Christians have traditionally opposed animal cruelty and taken the stance
that animals are not considered sacred as the human soul is. Also, because they lack reason,
animals may be reasonably used for human benefit.
Muslim ethics are guided by the Quran and hadith. The controlling concept is that of
tawhid or the absolute unity of God. This principle states that whatever has not been
forbidden by God is allowed within the boundaries of the Quran, meaning that animals may
be used for the benefit of mankind. Islam welcomes genetic engineering as it does all new
discoveries that help ease the suffering of humanity.
Hinduism and Buddhism are two great religions of India. Both believe animals to be
vital energetic beings and treat them as such. Reincarnation aids in this concern for
creatures. In the Hindu faith, Kaamdhenu is the sacred cow of Gods which can fulfill all
wishes and desires and is considered the mother of all cows.

11

4.5. Public Acceptability

There seems to be a significant lack of public support for animal transgenesis. For
example, in a European Commission poll on attitudes to biotechnology , it was reported that
nearly 50% of Europeans considered that, if they were able to, they might not allow
production and use of certain forms of transgenic animals. Moreover, a majority of
respondents opposed farm animal transgenesis. This situation was endorsed in a more
recent European poll, in which a minority approved the use of transgenic animals. Some
believe, however, that scientists, as guardians of scientific knowledge, possess the only
correct view, while the public are ill-informed or misled. Others argue that considerations
within the scientific community are considerably influenced by self-interest and professional
loyalties. Public concerns, however, go beyond issues of pain, suffering, and the welfare
conditions of animals.
Some argue that the application of transgenic technologies is incompatible with the
Three Rs concept. Thus, it is claimed that welfare problems encountered in the early phases
of the development of new transgenic strains are often overlooked, and that animal welfare
considerations are secondary to commercial criteria.
A second criterion is the need to show animals respect. The housing, husbandry,
handling, and use for experimental purposes of laboratory animals might be said to be further
violations of their species-specific life (their "telos"), as can substantial alterations to the
genome.
Other key ethical concepts about which the general public and scientists often
disagree are "naturalness", "integrity", and "intrinsic/inherent value". Thus, while the public
might perceive animals as linking humanity to nature, some scientists may tend to consider
laboratory animals as tools to manipulate and exploit.
A further criterion for public acceptability relates to the possible adverse effects of
animal transgenesis on future generations and the environment. One way of addressing
these concerns is to invoke the precautionary principle, which states, broadly, that one
should not proceed with a new process unless consideration has been given to the worstcase scenario. If scientists do not anticipate potential problems, it is likely that public views
will continue to contribute to and possibly distort, the outcome of any debate, thereby
increasing polarity.
A final criterion concerns respect for lifestyle and religious orientation. Determining
one's own lifestyle depends on the availability of relevant information, for example via
unambiguous product labelling. In the case of genetically modified products, such as foods
and pharmaceuticals derived from transgenic animals, the situation regarding labelling has
yet to be resolved.
These differences in values, views, and lifestyles can be said to constitute different
"world views". Clearly, there is no right or wrong position concerning these world views but, in
democratic societies, radical technological change, such as the widespread production and
application of transgenic animals, should only be introduced with explicit public consent.

4.6. Ethical problem of patenting alive creature:

4.6.1. Negatives for Patenting Animals
One grievance against the Patent and Trademark Office is for allowing that animals
are patentable before ever examining whether they should be patentable.
Animals are freely patentable as long as they fulfill the requirements of utility, novelty
and non-obviousness. Religions the world over object to the patenting of life, many taking it
to be a devaluation of the individual by placing a price tag on it. Although many religious
leaders see problems in making wealthier the companies who dump millions into research

12

with hopes of wonder drugs and cancer cures, they less often perceive the benefits to human
health.
Another worry is that all transgenic farm animal patents will be held by a small
number of corporations which will drive the family farm out of business. Without patents, the
owners of transgenic animals would only license their animals to those capable of paying:
large companies (Walter, 1998).
It must also be noted here that currently, the main interest in transgenic animals is for
medical and scientific research, not farming which further strengthens the case for
patentability. For the arguments against patenting animals, less are actually opposed to
patents than are opposed to the technology itself, something that may not change anytime
soon.
Could patenting animals lead to human patents? It is already permissible to patent
purified genes and animals with integrated human genes. The Patent Office has not issued
a statement defining the number of human genes required to make up a human-animal
chimera.

4.6.2. Positives for Patenting Animals

The process of creating a good disease model in a transgenic animal is no easy feat.
It requires years of development in the lab, talented scientists, and money. Stimulus for
allowing the patenting of animals is that this return has the potential to be reinvested and
thus help biotechnology grow even more.
Another aspect of patents is that of visibility of new technologies. More attention
means less secrecy, and with any luck may lead to increased collaboration which would
stimulate the field to an even greater extent. The public would also benefit from this situation
as they would be better equipped to enter into the discussion of ethics and laws over
transgenic animals, instead of being kept in the dark in the ever increasing pace of science.
Benefits of patents covering transgenic animals outweigh the possible risks posed. Also, the
risks should not be dismissed but rather incorporated into patent law just as the European.
Patent Office has taken objections towards the broadness of the oncomouse patent and
reformed it to be more specific and reasonable.

5. Discussion
5.1. Ethical questions
Some important questions can be raised according to the ethical problems due to the
use of transgenic and cloned animals:

&

Am I cannibal if I eat some food from animal which had been transplanted with a
human gene?

# Poland

and Bulgaria: we think that consuming food and milk from transgenic
animals is not cannibalism because this thing doesnt harm any human, doesnt
violate the human integrity.

# France: a gene is a material, it has been lent to an animal which will produce it

himself. And the animal has his own capacity integrate this new material. Anything
from human hasnt been produced by the animal which has received the gene.
Even if I m not cannibal, this process isnt natural and it harms the integrity of the
animal.

Concerning the answers to this question, French, Bulgarian and Polish student all
agree on the fact that there is no cannibalism in eating food from an animal with a human
gene. Whereas Bulgarian and polish consider the argument of the human integrity and the

13

aspect of harming him, French put the accent on the capacity of the animal to appropriate the
integration of the gene.

&

Transgenic and cloned animals are monsters?

# Poland and Bulgaria: no, because there is no effect on the humanity. If transgenesis

is out of control for example if the transgenic animal has two heads or no eyes, then
we can say that animals are monsters. Transgenic animals are not monsters but
they cant be found naturally. Cloned animals look like the original so they are
neither monster.

# France: yes because there are no longer natural but it depends on each case.

Sometimes it can be considered as a monster, for an example those who have

received a gene of growth will be bigger than we usually see, and then it made
somebody fearful to it. Concerning cloned animals, they wouldnt be seen as
monsters as they are a copy of nature but the fact that they are created unnaturally
can induce that they are monsters: If one day cloning is applied to human, we
should think they are monsters, so for us its the same for animals.

To this question, answers differ between France on one hand and Poland and
Bulgaria on the other hand. Polish and Bulgarian base their argumentation on the
phenotypical aspect whereas French students consider also the relation with the natural
process of appearance.

&

Transgenesis and cloning animal: Is there any propagation risks? Are they a threat
for biodiversity?

# Poland:

Transgenesis dont threat biodiversity and we can say that it increases

biodiversity because the animals have a new genome. On the other side natural
selection lasted a million years whereas selection by transgenesis can last shorter.
According to cloning, we think the same as the Bulgarian students.

# Bulgaria: We think that creating too many cloned animals reduce biodiversity. For

example, if there is a population of normal animals and if there is a kind of death

disease, some animals will survive and others will die. But if there is a population of
identical (cloned) animals, all animals will die or all animals will survive. Concerning
propagation risks, maybe there are some risks that depend on animal species.
Transgenic animals dont threat biodiversity and they may increase it. Scientists
develop techniques which make sterile transgenic animals but they are not 100%
sure for now. So there is a propagation risk.

# France: not at short term because of the possible creation of new species but yes at

long term. Indeed breeding in aquatic environment can be compared in terms of

risks with the field crops. The reproduction is uncontrolled in the case of breeding at
sea and the gametes are subjected for the majority of the aquacultural species to
the dissemination by streams, equivalent to the anemophily dissemination for the
plants. So breeding of transgenic animals in floating cages at sea becomes very
problematic because it is impossible to control the emission of gametes and their
dissemination. A possible propagation of transgenic gametes in the environment
can then generate dramatic consequences with the crossing of individuals
transformed with natural populations, leading to a true genetic contamination on the
level of the wild aquatic populations. Also, the improvement of the growth of the
accidentally released transgenic animals could have a devastator effect on the

14

environment and the ecosystems, with the stronger effect as the individual is
located in top of the food chain. From higher food needs, the mutant animals not
only harden the intraspecific competition for the search for food but also destroy the
populations of preys and finally all the balance of the ecosystem. This phenomenon
can be observed in the case of the introduction of an exotic species into an
ecosystem (Ex: perch of the Nile in Lake Victoria, Tanzania). According to cloning,
the biodiversity wont be changed because cloned animal are just a simple copy of
the natural one.
Again answering this question, opinion differ: for Poland, neither transgenesis nor
cloning threat the biodiversity, for Bulgaria cloning leads to a decrease in the biodiversity but
transgenesis would increase it thanks to new gene whereas French think that there is an
effect of transgenic animals , different according the time, and no effect of cloning.

&

Does animal suffering from cloning or transgenesis exist?

# Poland:

We think that some animals feel pain and suffering like humans. In our
opinion scientists shouldnt make experiments with dolphins and monkeys because
they have a lot of grey matter. Indeed, the more grey matter they have, the more
they suffer.

# Bulgaria: We agree with the French students and we think that animals feel pain but
nowadays, scientists use anaesthetics and perhaps animals dont suffer.

# France: Yes. First of all, we produce tested animal just in order to introduce in it a

disease and analyse the evolution of this disease, the final aim being to serve the
human being. In this sense, the sick animal suffers. These methods lead to the
suffering of the animal. Then, it has been shown that transgenic or cloned animal
dont live generally a long time because of healthy problem like arthritis in the
example of Dolly that led to her euthanasia. Also, the voluntary handicap caused by
a gene effect in the case of transgenesis lead to a evident suffering and
disagreement on the animal. Even if they dont suffer immediately, maybe at long
term, they will suffer from the new gene reaction.

All students agree, in a certain measure, on the fact that there is suffering.

&

Should we patent a living creature?

# Poland:

We agree with Bulgarian. On the other side the patents on transgenic

animals may be a form of control to spread them.

# Bulgaria:

The legislation behind transgenic animals helps to keep this new

technology from becoming an unethical source of scientific study, and we support of
strong legislative oversight of transgenic experiments. Patents on transgenic
animals are a controversial topic. Patents are a way to increase incentive for
creating them, but some animal rights activists think that it is unethical to patent
animal life. There is no law that says livingthings cant be patented however.

# France: A living creature belongs to nature but not to a person (scientist) even if he

has genetically modified it. It does not mean that he has created it. Only God and
Nature can create, man can no longer create a living creature. On this fact man
should not patent anything.

On the first hand, French students are opposed on the base that living creature
belongs to nature. On the other hand, Polish agree with Bulgarian.

15

&

Is there any risk for the human being ?

To the safety question: are you going to choose a transgenic food? The Polish
teacher Wojciech Cybulski answers that the question of lobby, and the works on DNA would
lead to construct primary products, and also risks of indigestion. For him, studies have shown
cases of cancer stomach, nitrogen amine production can be a possibility and can lead to
health problems.

# Poland: Nowadays we cant answer for this question but we think that the future will
answer

# Bulgaria: We think that may be there is no risk but more investigations must be
done. May be there are some side affects that can appear after long latent period.

# France: Any scientist doesnt prove any safety in consuming meat or milk from a
transgenic animal that is why man must be more cautious about them (transgenic
product). While we dont know the real effects of those foods Emanuel Kants
advice is to feed with something (food) we really know. So yes we think that there is
a possible risk for human being as a consumer.

Opinions are different according of countries but one similarity is observed: any
country cant be sure even if French and Bulgarian students think that there is a possible risk
for the human being.

&

These methods will be used on the human being?

# Poland: We think that these methods wont be used because we think that human

cloning causes many ethical problems for many people. According to our religion,
people are final act of God. It is not ethical to use people like an experiment
because everyone has an equal low to natural live and happiness. Moreover it
could be a problem for a person to know that he is only the copy of somebody else
so they would have to develop a different personality to be a unique person.

# Bulgaria: Some methods are already used- especially in in vitro fertilisation. May

be in the future science will develop so much that it will be able to create human
clone and maybe it will be able to cure some diseases by gene therapy. But we
think that there will be rules and laws and in the world, human cloning will be
forbidden. That doesnt mean that scientist wouldnt be curious and wouldnt try to
make human clones.

# France:

Of course, these methods will be used on a human being because

scientists are used to making their thinking on application whatever the
consequences will be. Lots of scientists are used to celebrating their capacity. The
real question is how to use it on human being so as to be a benefit to humankind?

To this last question, France and Bulgaria agree on the fact that genetic
engineering is going to be used on human being. Poland thinks that it shouldnt be used, as
the others students, but dont know if it will be used on human being.

16

5.2. Global Discussion:

In this study, we confronted the global views about ethical problems caused by
transgenic and cloning animals between polish, Bulgarian and French students.
Nature is not ours to do exactly what we like with. On a Christian understanding, all
creation owes its existence ultimately to God. This does not mean that we cannot use
animals, but it does mean that humans have a duty of care and respect towards them, as
creatures which exist firstly for God, and only secondarily may be used by us. Such use must
be responsible and with a dignity due to another of God's creatures and we should hold back
from some uses.
Cloning for now is not a good technique-make many animals suffer. We dont agree
with this but if we want to develop the technique, we have to test its validity and thats why
more and more experiments have to be done, that will lead to more and more suffering of the
laboratory animals. Science cant stop developing and even if it is forbidden, scientists would
continue to make experiments illegally.
Another argument: the example of Aliens. If they came to our planet, we would
become at the place instead of animals, and they will make experiment with us. How would
we react? If we were the weakest would we accept the experiment? If they treated us like
animals maybe we would realize how it is harmfull to treat animals on a bad way, and also
we would realize how sellfish we are.
World population is increasing, and natural resources are no more being produced
normally.
To survive, human kinds need nature. Only natural resources can provide a
sustainable live for human being. That is why man need to change his mind so as to give to
nature a better treatment. On this topic, some ethical questions, according to cloning a
transgenic have been studied in order to know about religions, economics and public views.
Religion and Modern times: Holly books had been written a long time before our
generation. Somebody who has a religion is taking the holly book as a reference. That is why
it is so difficult to have universal goals for using nature resources, or to have a direction in
which we may go on in order to have a better treatment of the environment.
Dont you think that in some points, like in environment care, we must use our reason,
our mind, so as to find a way leading to new universal goals?
We should practice new technologies only if it benefits more than it harms, that is the
way of an utilitarist society. To live in a sustainable way, we may take into account the next
points:
To lower our requirement ( according to Socrates, a human being must drop
some desires in order to live successfully)
to produce enough for mankind
being more and more careful on using biotechnology
not to create monster
being cautions in human consumption (food from GMO mustnt be dangerous on
human health)
Avoid as far as possible animal suffering
Dropping more and more the capitalist ideology. It means that scientist mustnt be
motivated by wealth but only by mankinds interest. Experience has taught that
these scientific advances also serve interests which also go against the well-being
of humans
Having moral principles

17

The use of the animals in research, teaching and for tests is acceptable only if this
one can potentially contribute to the comprehension of problems or environmental
principles; or with the comprehension of basic biological principles; or with the
development of knowledge which is likely to benefit human, with the animals or
the environment;
Optimal standards of health and care of the animals contribute to the production
of more credible and more reproducible experimental results;
The acceptance of the use of the animals in science depends largely on
confidence on the public in what is related with the mechanisms and the
procedures used to ensure the justification, the need and the humane character of
the use of the animals;
Breeding of transgenic animals must be confined so as to avoid any
dissemination or escape of organizations genetically modified in the natural
environment and any mixture with the wild populations.
Mankinds welfare is nowhere to be found if environment and animals welfare are not
taken into account. And the only solution is to think together so as to have a public solution
which includes ethical and moral goals.

6. Conclusion
The creation and utilisation of cloned and transgenic animals raise some questions
relatives to Ethical values like cannibalism, suffering, threat...
The relation between Animal and human, which is a pilar around which these
interrogations run, determine answers.
Since the antique Greece, thinkers have been opposed according to the place they
gave to Animals: From the equality between Human and Animal for Pythagoras, the
consideration of Animals as young brothers for Francisco of Assisi, to the status of thing at
the service of Humans for Platon, Hippocrates..
To answer this question, it is necessary to consider that the human being cant live
without Nature, and without animals, so he has to exploit the nature to survive. To another
hand, if he abuses the natural ressources or if he tries to dominate the nature, this situation
would lead to his own end, because of his direct dependency toward Nature.
So it appears that the Human being mustnt exploit animals in an exaggerated way.
The aim is to determine where is the ethical limit beyond which the exploitation of Animals by
Humans would lead to the end of Humanity.
The precaution approach establishes that the use of transgenic and cloning methods
is beyond this ethical limit. Indeed, genetic techniques are a threat for dignity and respect of
Animals but also is a badly evaluated-risk for animal and environment biodiversity.
One recommandation would consist in a methodology of the evaluation process of
risks of cloning and transgenesis. At this point we are confronted to a scale time problem:
Results of experimentation are not necessarily visible at a small scale time but have to be
analysed on several generation to discuss their liability.
The consequences of the too recent techniques of genetic engineering mustnt be
considered lightly and need a latency period.
Yet, the consideration of various opportunities that could offer the use of transgenesis
and cloning, and the economical pressure from capitalist markets motivate the precipitation.
So it seems necessary to respect a latency period for analysing the risks of
biotechnologies to determine whether yes or no- theses techniques are beyond the ethical
limit.

18

Nature is not ours to do exactly what we like with. On a Christian understanding, all
creation owes its existence ultimately to God. This does not mean that we cannot use
animals, but it does mean that humans have a duty of care and respect towards them, as
creatures which exist firstly for God, and only secondarily may be used by us. Such use must
be responsible and with a dignity due to another of God's creatures and we should hold back
from some uses.
It is really hard to reach a consensus as to what should be done about animal
experimentation, and to find an ethical justification. In a last case scenario, we would all put
our lives before that of animals, that does not however mean that we do not give animals any
value, or believe that their welfare should not be taken into account. Ethically and
scientifically, it is in everyones interest that animals used for experimentation lead as normal
lives as possible, and suffer as little as possible. We hope and are confident that alternative
methods will one day come to replace the use of most/all animals in testing, and until that
time the creation of a deontological code seems to be the safest and best solution.

7. Bibliografy
Anonym.The ethicla aspects of animal cloning for food supply- Proceedings of Round
Table debate; Europian group in ethics in sciences and new technologies to the
european commission, Brussles, 24-25 september 2007
Anonym. Commodifying animals: ethical issues in genetic engineering of animals Brenda
Almond, published in Health, Risk and Society, Volume 2, Issue 1 march 2006, pages
95-105
Al-Qaradwi Y.A., Islam et clonage, islamonline consulted 27 avril 2002.
Bazined Martin, Braxton Maceo, Transgenic animals, August 2005
Betteridge K. J., A history of farm animal embryo transfer and some associated techniques,
Animal Reproduction Science ,2003, 79, 203244.
Einsiedel E.F., Public perceptions of transgenic animals, Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 2005,
24(1), 148-157.
Fraslin J. M. (Eds.), Bioethics in life and enviromental sciences, Brumar 2007
Helmut K., The new macdonald pharm.11371141.
Houdebine L. M., Animal transgenesis: recent data and perspectives, Biochimie, 2002, 84,
Leboeuf G., "La transgnse, quelle application pour la faune aquatique et dans les
programmes de lIfremer, Ifremer, 2002, revue,36p.
Mephan B., Balls M., Barbeiri O., Blokhuis H. J., Costa P., Crilly R. E., Delpire V. C.; The use
of transgenic animals in the European Union- the report and the recommendations of
Ecvam, Workshop 28, T.
Mette E., The golden rule and bioethics. A reflection

upon the foundation of ethics,

http://www.ep.liu.se/exjobb/cte/2002/001/;Smith L. C., Bordignon V., Babkine M.,

Fecteau G., Keefer C., Benefits and problems with cloning animals.

19

Straughan R., Ethics, morality and animal biotechnology, bbsrc (biotechnology and biology
science research council);
Smith L.C., Bordignon.V., Babkine.M., Fecteau G., Keefer C., Benefits and problems with
cloning animals.
Web sites :
www.food andwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/foo..., Cloned animals on the Dinner plate;
www.msuinfo.ur.msstate.edu/.../710cloning.html,Researchers cloning techniques hold
promise in human medicine;
www.marymeetsdolly.com
www.eyeondna.com/category/genetic-engineering/
www.endanimalcloning.org/faq.shtmls
www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/story/41-cloning
www.marieandashley.spaces.live.com/bolg/cns!8B96B..
www.bioethicsbytes.wordpress.com, Transgenics and a world of limitless possibilitiesAnimal farm
http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/PAC/Transgenic_Animal_Guidelines
http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/courses/BIO_343/lecture/transab.html, Trnasgenic
Animals
http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/2401/24-%20pdfs/06-kelly61-74.pdf,The safety assessment
of foods from transgenic and cloned animals using the comparative approach
www.pewtrusts.org, Options for future discussions on genetically modifies and cloned
animals. ngineering animals: ethical issues and deliberative
www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/reports/the_gene_and_the_stable_door_2002 .pdf
http://zbh.com/sermons/cloning.htm
www.gsk.comwww.actionbioscience.org
www2.toulouse.inra.fr/lerna/regulatio/OGMLarrere.pdf , consulted on Sunday 23rd of march
2008
vwww.agrocampus-rennes.fr/scripts/fr/bioethique/pdf2007/Clonage_transgenese.pdf http://www.humgen.umontreal.ca/GenConsult/docs/25.pdf
http://www.ogm.gouv.qc.ca/infopot_ani_poisson.html
http://www.stopvivisection.info/article.php3?id_article=68,Dos santos Carine
http://leclonagedangerouprogres.over-blog.com/article-5426328.html, consult le 8 avril
2008

20