For the first case study, I chose to write mine on Alba the albino rabbit. I do not believe that it
was ethically acceptable for scientists to create a glowing rabbit just for an art show. Rabbits just
like any other animal deserve respect just as much as humans do. They have feelings as well and
it is wrong to modify their genome just for the sake of entertainment. Genetically modifying an
animal’s genome for the sake of science is acceptable to some degree. I understand that inserting
GFP in animals allows scientists to study cell processes that were previously invisible such as the
development of nerve cells in the brain or how cancer cells spread, but it shouldn’t be seen as a
form of “art”. Creating “glowing” rabbits is not “art”. These animals were not made to glow as
jellyfish were. If such things were done to humans and we put them on display all hell will break
loose. Just because humans can voice their likes and dislikes and animals can’t does not mean
that we can do whatever we want with them. They have value in their own right and us humans
should not take that away from them. It was fortunate that the research group did not release the
rabbit to the artist, but they still genetically engineered the rabbit for him which was wrong. Even
though researchers haven’t discovered any problems yet with GFP-altered animals, they are still
disturbing the animal’s appropriate expression genome. If a rabbit or any other GFP-altered
animal runs loose and breed in the wild, there is a high risk that it will create a whole new kind
of species that was not meant to be created. This can not only cause a large number of problems
for humans, but it can also disturb the natural environment of the wild. It is unfortunate that there
is no other alternative for creating glowing cells, but I don’t believe that it is necessary for any
animals to have glowing cells. Hopefully in the near future there will be another way to for
researchers to study cell processes without having to genetically modify an animal’s genome.
For the second case study, I chose to write mine on Ear Mice. I do not believe that it is ethically
acceptable to use mice to research the growing of body parts. As mentioned before in my
previous blog post about Alba, every animal has their own right just like humans do. It is not fair
or right for us humans to genetically modify an animal just for our own beneficiation. If the same
were done on humans to research ways to benefit animals, there would be disagreement
everywhere and no one would find it acceptable. Even after conducting so many research, there
has not been one successful case in which using mice to create body parts has been transplanted
to a human. To date, organs and any other body parts can only be transplanted from other living
human donors or cadavers. With that being said, the number of mice being used to conduct this
research is questionable and no one knows how many scientists will use to fund their research.
Not only does the surgery to implant the scaffolding put the mice at risk, but since scientists have
to genetically modify them to have little to no immune system so that their body won’t reject the
foreign material that also means it will not reject any other disease it contracts. Such a method is
morally wrong on so many levels. As human beings, we should not use animals as scapegoats for
our own research. What we see might be okay, but we are probably putting these animals in a lot
of pain that they can’t even voice. We are responsible to treat these little creatures with respect
and dignity just as we would with other humans. Since even scientists do not know how many
people this research will benefit, I believe that they should invest more in researching other ways
to create body parts without putting any animal to harm or having to genetically modify their
genome.
