Genetic engineering and animal welfare

Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology

Genetic engineering of animals has been proposed to address societal problems, but public acceptance of the use of this technology is unclear. Previous work has shown that the source of information proposing the technology (e.g. companies, universities), the term used to describe the technology (e.g. genome editing, genetic modification), and the genetic engineering application (e.g. different food products) affects technology acceptance. We conducted three mixed-method surveys and used a causal trust-acceptability model to understand social acceptance of genetic engineering (GE) by investigating 1) the source of information proposing the technology, 2) the term used to describe the technology, and 3) the GE application for farm animals proposed. Further, participants expressed their understanding of technology using a range of terms interchangeably, all describing technology used to change an organism's DNA. We used structural equation modelling and confirmed model fit for each survey. In each survey, perceptions of benefit had the greatest effect on acceptance. Following our hypothesized model, social trust had an indirect influence on acceptance through similar effects of perceived benefit and perceived risk. Additional quantitative analysis showed that the source of information and technology term had little to no effect on acceptance. Applications involving animals were perceived as less beneficial than a plant application, and an application for increased cattle muscle growth was perceived as more risky than a plant application. When assessing the acceptability of applications participants considered impacts on plants, animals, and people, trust in actors and technologies, and weighed benefits and drawbacks of GE. Future work should consider how to best measure acceptability of GE for animals, consider contextual factors and consider the use of inductive frameworks.

Genetic engineering, welfare, and accountability

Comments on the implications of genetic engineering for animal welfare. Welfare problems associated with techniques used to achieve genetic changes; Detrimental effects of genetic modifications to welfare; Modification of farm animals for biomedical products. Implications of genetic engineering for animal welfare are changing rapidly and need to be reviewed regularly. They include the welfare problems associated with techniques used to achieve genetic changes, which are similar to problems of other experimental approaches; these should be considered carefully, especially where techniques are used on a routine basis. When it comes to the genetic modifications themselves, some are detrimental to welfare, some are neutral, and some are beneficial; these results include direct effects of the intended change, side effects, and indirect effects. Currently, the two main applications are modification of farm animals for biomedical products--which appears to be largely neutral for welfare--and modification of mice as models for human disease, which results in suffering, often severe suffering. Beneficial applications are rare and still experimental or theoretical. The situation is similar with regard to the use of recombinant hormones and viruses; use of recombinant vaccines has potential for improving welfare, but may raise other ethical problems. Although few, if any, of these concerns are specific to genetic engineering, various factors combine to suggest that particular safeguards are needed in this field. These include the facts that changes can be produced rapidly and repeatedly, and that one of the driving forces behind genetic engineering is commercial exploitation of technology. In general, ethical evaluation still is done on a case-by-case basis, using the limited criteria seen as directly relevant to each case, rather than on a broader framework. There also is little public accountability, whereby the public can have confidence that such evaluation is being carried out properly. Calls for advisory "watchdog" committees to consider ethical questions on the use of animals are endorsed by this article. Furthermore, it is essential for public confidence in the safeguarding of animal welfare that the procedures of such committees should be well-publicized.