Symposium introduction: What should animal science departments be doing to address contemporary issues?

What do individuals in different science groups within a life sciences organization think about genetic modification?

An assessment was undertaken of the attitudes of individuals within the science community towards a program to produce genetically modified cattle for altered milk composition, expectantly allowing for research into the treatment of multiple sclerosis in humans. The majority of respondents to an electronic survey expressed favorable attitudes to the program, thought it beneficial, respected individual freedom and was fair and just and disagreed that it was harmful. A passion for science and having a suitable lifestyle were the most important motivating factors for individuals. Finally, there were a wide range of responses to a number of cultural beliefs or myths. Science grouping significantly affected the responses. Compared with Systems and Land groups, Plant and Reproduction groups more strongly agreed with the project, thought it less harmful to interest groups, felt that genetic modification of animals was more morally acceptable, and more strongly agreed with the myth statements. These results indicate a diversity of beliefs and attitudes towards genetic modification amongst those within the science community, and highlight the importance of understanding ethics and myths in dealing with them. It is suggested that the diversity of beliefs could be better used to help shape public policy and understanding of biotechnology.

Western Coordinating Committee-204 goals and why they are important to the future of animal production systems

There are scientists who believe that science is value-free and that social and ethical issues are not their concern. The birth of Dolly, the cloned lamb, greatly increased public and scientific awareness of ethical issues raised by molecular biology as they intersect with human experience. There are many other issues involving animal production systems, including animal welfare, rural community issues, and environmental concerns. Last year Germany became the first European nation to grant animals a constitutional right. Several European nations ban the use of traditional battery cages for laying hens and gestation crates for sows. In the US, 37 states have recently passed animal anticruelty laws. Times are changing, and if animal production systems are to be part of the future, animal scientists must join with society to solve these ethical issues. The Western Coordinating Committee-204 (WCC-204), Animal Bioethics, has as its goals to 1) create a forum in which animal scientists and nonanimal scientists may work together to examine and discuss contentious social issues, 2) provide a means of encouraging the development of research projects dealing with bioethics of the animal sciences, 3) develop mechanisms of outreach that would allow animal scientists to respond directly to consumers and critics, and 4) provide the means for ongoing critical analysis of the animal science professions in the context of their ability to address moral and sociopolitical issues. Animal scientists can no longer ignore social ethics, and by realizing the goals of Western Coordinating Committee-204, we can help maintain the future of animal production systems.