An Ethical Dilemma: Genetic Modification for Agricultural Purposes.

Over the past few decades, a new concept of genetic modification (GM) has arisen in the scientific community. With the advent of GM, experiments first took place to verify the validity of its effects on human health. In the article, “‘CRISPR babies,’ Bartha Maria Knoppers and Erika Kleiderman, a professor and an academic associate at McGill University, respectively, discuss the experiment where a scientist, Jiankui He, explored GM through two babies in the hopes of making them immune to AIDS. This led to significant backlash from the scientific community because of the ethics surrounding this type of experiment. However, scientists had already begun experimenting with gene editing for agricultural purposes, and ethical questions continued to rise as experimentation progressed. Whether this technology is used for positive or negative purposes, the U.S. agricultural industry could be affected for generations to come, which begs the question: Do the benefits of genetic modification in the U.S. agricultural industry outweigh their consequences? Therefore, it is crucial to explore the ethical implications of this topic and examine the benefits, the consequences, and the nuances surrounding GM for agricultural purposes. 

Although many arguments can be made against GM as a practice, it is important to evaluate the positive aspects of the situation. According to the article, “Is It Ethical to Genetically Modify Farm Animals for Agriculture?” published by an online scientific source from Harvard University, “The percentage of genetically modified farm animals is tiny compared to the number of animals slaughtered for humans to eat. This practice is widely seen as morally acceptable.” Humanity has widely accepted killing animals for eating purposes before because it benefits them, but because it might seem like GM in animals is not beneficial, it is not as widely accepted. Elisabeth H. Ormandy, Julie Dale, and Gilly Griffin, members of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, agree with this sentiment, arguing that “productivity of farm animal species can be increased using genetic engineering. Examples include transgenic pigs and sheep that have been genetically altered to express higher levels of growth hormone” which would therefore amplify the agricultural industry and thus satisfy the American population and its economy, which would mean that this practice is ethical enough to be included in the agricultural process. In another perspective on animal safety, Emilie McConnachie and her colleagues, researchers on animal welfare from various backgrounds, surveyed to see how people felt about genome editing in animals and found mixed results: “Certainly [cattle] must feel the pain when their horns are removed. It would therefore be a civilised and humane action to genetically modify the cows to be born hornless, to spare [them] unnecessary pain” (6-7). Along with the other viewpoints discussed, this argument agrees with the idea that gene editing can be a positive thing to implement in agriculture, especially for allowing animals to be put through less pain in agricultural processes. This eases the ethical dilemma that animals are abused when they are put through the agricultural system. However, another participant from McConnachie and her colleagues’ study argues, “With genetically modifying animals, we don't truly know what kind of side effects may happen to the long-term health of [the] animal” (8). This means that if experts are not aware of the possible negative consequences, it is not entirely certain if it is ethical to commit to such practices. This sentiment disagrees with the rest of the ones discussed prior by showing the uncertainty surrounding GM, even if GM can provide benefits in the long run. 

While considering the positive side of GM, it is important to consider the negative side. According to Judith Benz-Schwarzburg and Arianna Ferrari, senior researcher at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna and scientific staff at the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems, respectively, animal “sperm and egg donors and surrogate mothers are normally killed if they are not ‘re-usable’ for other purposes (such as in other animal experiments)” (1-2). This practice subsequently goes against the ethics and benefits presented previously, as the benefits taken from these experiments can be helpful, but ultimately harm the subjects involved. According to Jarrod Bailey, a geneticist, animal lives lost are “difficult to quantify” and it can be concluded through analysis of data that there are many lives lost (12). Given the number of lives that are lost due to their lack of value, Bailey, Benz-Shwarzburg, and Ferrari concur that the ethical consequences outweigh the benefits of this practice. Valeria Jefferson, writer for the Journal of Environmental Health, argues that GM practices violate “religious and consumer rights,” which not only shows the consequences of this practice on animals but the ones from a human point of view, adding to the context of the negative aspects of GM (1). Korinn N. Murphy and William P. Kabasenche, a graduate research assistant and a clinical professor of philosophy at Washington State University, respectively, assert that GM on agricultural livestock “values animals solely as production units and erodes opportunities for meaningful connection between humans and the animals they raise” (7). This therefore erodes the baseline of ethics that have been built in these experiments and could further implicate the agricultural industry.

Through the heated debate surrounding GM in agriculture, new ideas have arisen to qualify these intricate debates. For example, Matthew P. Feldmann, a co-owner at Goshen Education Consulting, and his colleagues conclude that “bacillus thuringiensis that induces plants to produce a protein that is toxic to insect pests,” which shows that these plants could be helpful in the efficiency of the agricultural industry, essentially growing it through new technology (2). However, Feldmann and his colleagues go on to contend that “animals fed on genetically modified grain could experience a buildup of antibiotic resistance,” bringing into question the ethics of, once again, testing on animals (3). The conflict that arises within this singular article is evidence enough to call into question the extensive debate surrounding this topic in the first place. Ainsley Newson and Anthony Wrigley, professors at the University of Sydney and Keele University, respectively, argue that “if a technique can be used widely and efficiently, without careful guidance of its use, a certain ‘tipping point’ can be reached that changes the status of technology,” tying into the practices discussed in Feldmann’s findings, as the use of GM in plants can be beneficial, but the use of GM regarding animals can be detrimental to their health (4). This “tipping point” describes the line that can be crossed if GM is used more regularly. However, Newson and Wrigley continue their argument more abstractly: “While genome editing may not present us with any specifically new ethical issues concerning genetic modification – it is in that regard just another technique that allows such modifications to take place – that is not the end of the story” (3). Through this logic, it could mean that the future of GM is broad, and without the right information in place, the agricultural industry could be affected negatively. 

It is important that the United States population, especially active consumers, be aware of the ethical consequences and questions surrounding GM. This is because the principles of GM could ultimately violate some of the ethical postulates consumers may base themselves on when actively consuming products. Without their awareness, the American agricultural industry could be detrimentally affected. It currently needs to be determined where the future of GM could go, but, certainly, the ethics surrounding this topic will continuously be debated. It is necessary to remember that there are moral questions involved while also exploring the other more technical implications of GM.