Case_studies Ethical Considerations Relevant to Animal Welfare.pdf

of each article. Defend your answer by examining the following concerns with regard to animal

welfare: Respect, Fairness, Harms and Benefits and Intrinsic value. Your responses should be

roughly 300 words.

Go to blackboard and click on “Tools”, then “blogs”. Click on “Animal Welfare blog” and post

your responses. Please respond to one other student.

1. Respect

• Do animals deserve respect? If so, what type of respect do they deserve?

• Are there certain types of changes or modifications that we should not make to

animals? Why?

2. Fairness

• Should companies or individuals be allowed to patent modifications to life forms and

limit the ability of others to use them (by charging fees or requiring permission)?

• Do certain species have greater rights than others?

3. Harms and Benefits

• Should human benefits always outweigh animal harms?

• Is there a less harmful alternative?

• What human groups may be harmed or benefitted?

4. Intrinsic Value

• Do animals have value in their own right, or are they valuable only as they are useful to

human beings?

• What should our responsibilities be toward animals?

Ethical Considerations Relevant to Animal Welfare

Directions:

Select two of the attached articles that most interest you. Answer the ethical question at the end

Alba’s Case

Image courtesy of: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?

q=tbn:ANd9GcRPymZZNavjWyzv3W9GOnnphJYBPGzn0EWUXxxVhNhXTe8fIFUz

Since the early 1990s, scientists have been creating bacteria, roundworms, mice, and other

animals that glow green by inserting a jellyfish gene into their genomes. The modification helps

researchers study cell processes, including the movement of certain proteins, because glowing

proteins can be visualized whereas normal proteins cannot. In 2008, three U.S. scientists were

awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for developing the jellyfish green fluorescent protein

(GFP). GFP has become “one of the most important tools used in contemporary bioscience,”

according to the Nobel Prize Web site (http://nobelprize.org). This tool has allowed researchers

“to watch processes that were previously invisible, such as the development of nerve cells in the

brain or how cancer cells spread.”

Researchers have also created more than 100 glowing albino rabbits. GFP is inserted into a

rabbit zygote, and the rabbit grows with the jellyfish gene in each of its cells. The cells glow

under blue light.

An artist found out about the GFP research and asked to have a rabbit created for him to use in

his art show. Alba, the rabbit shown here, is an albino rabbit that glows green under blue light.

The research group that created her did not release her to the artist, but newspaper reports

indicate that she was specifically genetically engineered for him.

The risks of genetic engineering include disturbing the appropriate expression of the animal’s

genome. Researchers haven’t discovered any problems yet with GFP-altered animals. There is

also the possibility that the gene could enter the wild population if the lab animals with it leave

the lab and breed with wild ones.

So far, there is no alternative to genetic modification for creating glowing cells.

Was it ethically acceptable to make a glowing rabbit for an art show? Why or why not?

#2Disease-Model

Image courtesy of http://cancer.ucsd.edu/research-training/shared-resources/transgenic-core/services/PublishingImages/

transgeneschematic.gif

How similar are you to a mouse? It turns out that an astonishing 99 percent of mouse genes have

equivalent or homologous genes in humans. This genetic kinship means that mice can serve as very

useful models in studying many human diseases. Mice have been used as models for research on

cancer, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and a whole host of other disorders. Medical researchers choose

animal models when they believe it would be unsafe, unethical, or premature to conduct the research

using humans. To ensure that animals used in research are treated humanely, research funded by the

National Institutes of Health must adhere to the Guide to the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. This

manual covers in great detail how to house, feed, care for, and use research animals.

Researchers create transgenic mice by transferring foreign DNA into mouse cells to produce specific

traits. Mice that have successfully incorporated the gene and developed the disease of interest can then

be used to study the course of the disease and to look for potential treatments. For example, if there were

a gene known to cause lethal brain tumors in humans, it could be transferred into mice to make them

grow brain tumors. The way the tumor grows and ways to treat it could be studied with the hope that the

findings could eventually be applied to humans.

Hundreds of thousands of transgenic mice are being used in research. Besides the risks of genetic

engineering, discussed in other cases here (for example, mad-cow-disease cows, spider-silk goats, and

immunoglobulin cows), these mice will suffer symptoms of the disease under investigation. The mice are

killed at the end of the research, or earlier if they appear to be suffering too much.

There are as yet no equivalent alternatives for doing this type of research. Animals with simpler nervous

systems, such as fruit flies and nematode worms, are often used as models. Their genes do not have the

same high degree of similarity to humans’ as mouse genes do, so they may not be as effective as model

systems for studying disease.

Is it ethically acceptable to use mice as human-disease models? Why or why not?

Dyed Feathers

Picture courtesy of: http://www.audubon.org/sites/default/files/chicks_lead.png

People dye bird feathers for different reasons, such as to observe the movement of wild birds or

to tell one hatchling group from another. They also do it for human enjoyment.

To color the whole chick, including the feathers, people dye the embryo as it develops. A small

hole is drilled into the shell, the tip of a needle on a syringe filled with dye is inserted just

through the shell membrane, and the dye is injected. Harmless vegetable dyes like food coloring

sold in stores can be used. The hole is covered with wax, and the egg is returned to incubation.

If the shell is broken or the needle penetrates the embryo, the embryo dies. However, if the

embryo survives the injection process, the bird’s health and growth appear not to be affected by

this treatment. As the chicks grow, they molt, or shed, their feathers, and in adulthood, the birds

have normal-colored feathers. The number of people who modify birds like this is unknown, as

is the number of birds that have been dyed.

An alternative to creating colored feathers through dying them is to paint them, but as of 2009,

injecting dye into the egg is the only way to color the entire bird.

Is it ethically acceptable to dye birds for human enjoyment? Why or why not?

Ear Mice

Picture courtesy of: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/Vacanti_mouse.jpg

The scarcity of organs for tissue transplantation has created a serious medical problem.

However, the ability of scientists to grow an ear on the back of a mouse may lead to viable

alternatives to organ donation as a source of organs and other body parts (such as corneas) for

transplantation.

In this instance, scientists molded sterile, biodegradable mesh into the shape of a human ear

and placed cartilage from a cow knee onto the mesh. The mesh was then implanted into the

back of the mouse. The mouse provided energy and nutrients needed for cartilage to grow over

the scaffolding through extra blood vessels grown by the mouse. The strain of mouse used in

this experiment was modified to have little or no immune system and, therefore, the mouse did

not reject the foreign material. The goal of the research was to determine whether this approach

would be a viable method for growing organs, such as human livers, for transplantation in larger

animals, such as pigs. Scientists used to think that they could grow only simple human tissues

in culture in the laboratory, but this research shows that growing more complex structures is

possible.

The risks to the mouse include the surgery to implant the scaffolding and living with an ear on

its back. How many people this might benefit and how soon are not known, nor is the ultimate

number of mice to be used in this research.

There are as yet no equivalent alternatives for doing this type of research. To date, organs

(including skin) and body parts can only be obtained from living human donors and cadavers.

Is it ethically acceptable to use mice to research the growing of body parts? Why or why

not?

Giant Panda Breeding

Image courtesy of: http://images.gmanews.tv/v3/webpics/v3/2013/09/640_2013_09_24_00_59_40.JPG

The giant panda is an endangered animal, mainly because of the loss of habitat from human incursion

into its territory. Only about 1,600 of them are living in the wild, and about 170 are in captivity. The

reproductive rate of pandas is low, even in the wild, because female pandas are only fertile two days each

month and they are very picky about their mates, and male pandas have low sexual desire. When in

captivity, the stress of contact with humans adds to their low ability to reproduce.

To save the species from extinction, starting about 50 years ago, zoos and conservatories have been

using artificial insemination for females that do not mate or that mate unsuccessfully. Semen collected

from a male panda is injected into a female while she’s anesthetized. About 100 pandas have been

successfully born in captivity using this approach.

Artificial insemination introduces a slight risk of infection to the mother panda as well as some risks

associated with undergoing anesthesia. The male panda must also be put to sleep for a short time so that

his semen can be collected. Pandas born in captivity show few natural survival instincts and have not

been successfully introduced back into the wild. When panda cubs are born, they are the size of a stick of

butter and have a high mortality rate. Once a panda cub is 100 days old, it is considered to be out of

immediate danger.

There are currently no alternatives to natural panda breeding other than artificial insemination.

Is it ethically acceptable to artificially assist giant panda breeding? Why or why not?

Immunoglobulin Cows

Picture: https://loonylabs.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/cute-cow.jpg?w=590

The immune system makes antibodies in response to viruses, bacteria, fungi, allergens, cancer

cells, and other foreign matter. Some people are not able to make enough or any of their own

antibodies, so they are more likely to get infections and have difficulty recovering from illness.

Exactly how many people suffer from deficiencies of disease-fighting antibodies, or

immunoglobulins, is unknown, but the number is significant— in part because many different

conditions lead to immune deficiency.

Immunoglobulins can only be obtained from human donor blood. Human donor

immunoglobulins are expensive because they can’t be mass-produced. Using current human-

based technologies, one year of IVIG (intravenous immune globulin) treatment can cost

$50,000. IVIG is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat many

different conditions such as leukemia and AIDS. If there were a larger supply of

immunoglobulins, the cost of treatment would probably be significantly reduced.

In one experimental approach to treating immunoglobulin deficiency, a cow was genetically

engineered with human DNA to produce milk and blood containing human immunoglobulins and

then cloned. There are now four such cows, and cloning them will allow the genetically

engineered trait to be passed on to their off spring. The number of cows that may eventually be

used for this purpose is unknown.

Cloning occurs when a somatic cell is fused to an egg cell whose nucleus has been removed.

The embryo is then grown in a surrogate animal mother. Cloning is not a perfect science and

often produces animals with life-threatening deformities and conditions. Because this approach

is relatively new, the health of cloned cows over the long run is still unknown. Some researchers

have reported compromised immune systems, accelerated aging, and premature death in

cloned animals.

Animals that have had other species’ DNA inserted into their cells are called “transgenic.” Two

risks of genetic engineering include possibly disrupting the functioning of certain genes of the

cow and the possibility that the introduced gene could enter the wild population from

unregulated breeding.

Human donor blood is still the only available source of immunoglobulins.

Is it ethically acceptable to genetically engineer cows to produce immunoglobulins that

will be used to treat human diseases such as leukemia? Why or why not

Mad-Cow-Disease Cows

Picture: http://swh.schoolworkhelper.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Mad-cow-Disease-2.jpg?c71720

Mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), is a fatal,

neurodegenerative disease of cattle that results in destruction of the brain and spinal cord. Mad

cow disease was first identified in Great Britain in 1986, when a large herd of cattle was found to

be affected.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported only two cases of mad cow disease in

the 96 million U.S. cows. In June 2004, USDA began a BSE surveillance program and is testing

the 446,000 U.S. cattle considered at highest risk of infection. The strict regulations for

controlling mad cow disease include killing infected animals to make sure they do not get into

the animal or human food supply. If a few cows within a herd are infected, the entire herd must

be destroyed.

The disease in cattle is similar to a neurodegenerative condition in humans, Creutzfeldt-Jakob

disease (CJD). Both diseases are caused by the presence of abnormally folded proteins called

prions. Classical CJD is generally considered a disease of people over age 63 that develops

slowly over a long period of time and is caused by contact with infected human tissue. However,

a new form of CJD has been found in young people (ages 17 to 24) that progresses rapidly and

causes death within 13 months of the first symptoms. This form appears to come from eating

beef from cattle that have BSE. By October 2008, 164 deaths worldwide had been attributed to

CJD contracted from infected beef.

Researchers are currently working to genetically modify cows to make them resistant to mad

cow disease. If this approach proves to be effective, entire cattle populations may be made

resistant to the disease. The risks of genetic engineering include the possibility that the

appropriate expression of the animals’ own genes is altered and that the modified gene enters

the general population through unregulated breeding. Although the safety of eating genetically

modified organisms is debated, there are no established adverse health consequences.

Since cattle can contract BSE by consuming feed made from infected animals, an alternative

approach to genetic modification is to feed cattle only grains or grass, not meat byproducts.

Another alternative is to detect the disease early. Research is under way to create a rapid way

to screen for early signs of infection by detecting disease-causing prions in blood. Today, the

only way to prevent the spread of BSE is to slaughter animals suspected of being exposed to it.

Is it ethically acceptable to genetically engineer cows to be resistant to mad cow

disease? Why or why not?

Malaria Mosquitoes

Image: http://www.permaculturenews.org/images/mosquito_on_skin_2014.jpg

Malaria is a parasite-caused disease that produces fever, headache, chills, and vomiting in

humans. If severe enough, it can lead to death. Certain species of mosquito carry and transmit

the malaria parasites. Malaria affects 300 to 500 million people worldwide every year. It takes a

huge toll on the health and economies of those people and their countries. More than 1 million

people, mostly infants, die every year from malaria. There are drugs to treat it, but parasite

resistance to the drugs is increasing as funding for medications and mosquito eradication

efforts in the most-affected countries is decreasing.

If mosquitoes could be genetically modified so that they can’t carry or transmit malaria, they

would not be able to infect humans with the disease. Scientists are considering releasing

genetically modified mosquitoes into the wild to eliminate native malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

The modified mosquitoes would compete with the disease carrying ones, and the altered

mosquitoes would pass on to their offspring the trait that keeps them from transmitting the

disease. In addition to the risks of genetic engineering discussed in previous cases, there’s the

unknown risk of releasing genetically engineered mosquitoes into the wild.

Spraying insecticides and reducing mosquito breeding sites (such as pools of stagnant water)

are two methods for managing mosquito populations, but reducing their number is a continual

battle. Other methods of malaria prevention include sleeping under nets, applying insect

repellent, and covering up with clothing.

Taking antimalarial medication and following prevention methods may be easy for tourists, but

hundreds of millions of people can’t afford these protections, and millions suffer and die each

year. Nets to cover sleeping quarters cost around $10 each, but this is expensive in a society

where people may live on less than $1 per day. Several organizations are raising funds to

provide millions of nets to those in need.

Is it ethically acceptable to genetically engineer mosquitoes to be resistant to malaria

parasites? Why or why not?

Purebred Dogs

Labra-doodles: bred for those allergic to pet hair

Image: http://www.oceanstatelabradoodles.com/assets/images/OSL_029.jpg

Humans have genetically modified dogs for thousands of years by breeding them to have traits

humans find desirable—for hunting, herding, guarding, sport, and companionship, among other

reasons. For example, the sheep dog is bred for herding and has the characteristics that are

good for that job. There are over 45 million purebred dogs in the United States and millions of

dog owners.

To create a new breed, humans breed dogs with the desired traits. Offspring with some of the

desired traits are bred with each other until dogs with all the desired traits are achieved. These

dogs are then bred over several generations to ensure that the desired traits are inherited and

that no undesirable traits appear or reappear. These are called purebred dogs, and they are

highly valued by many people. These are the dogs that compete in kennel club dog shows.

Because of inbreeding (breeding within a family of a certain type of dog), some purebred dogs

have inherited problems that are passed on through generations. For example, many breeds of

dog, especially the medium to large ones, have problems with hip dysplasia, a disease that can

cause painful arthritis and crippling lameness. Sometimes puppies that have been overly inbred

(bred with close relatives) are born dead or with such grave problems that they are not able to

survive.

An alternative to breeding purebred dogs is to accept more cross-breeding and “mutts” as pets.

Is it ethically acceptable to breed purebred dogs? Why or why not?

#10

Sheared Wooly Sheep

Image: http://www.kindsnacks.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/StoneBarns_SheepShearing_2.jpg

The sheep population in the United States is nearly 7 million. Farmers raise sheep for milk,

meat, and wool. Animal farming has environmental consequences; the land is being used for

animal production instead of other purposes or instead of remaining wild, and the sheep

produce a lot of waste. On the other hand, sheep are a renewable resource that can be raised

in a sustainable manner and produce natural fiber that can substitute for synthetic fibers. The

multimillion-dollar sheep industry in the United States Sheep being sheared. accounts for

350,000 jobs.

One sheep produces between about 1 and 14 kg (2 and 30 lbs.) of wool, or fleece, annually,

depending on its breed. Wool is used in many products including clothing, upholstery, carpets,

mattress filling, and the covers of tennis balls.

To get the fleece, farmers shear the sheep. Shearing involves cutting or shaving the wool off. It

does not hurt the animals, but it can be stressful to them and they can be cut or injured. Sheep

are usually sheared once a year, in the late spring or early summer. This helps keep them from

overheating in the summer heat. Right after shearing, though, without their effective insulation,

the animals need to eat more food so that they can regulate their body temperature effectively,

and they need protection from the cold. It takes up to six weeks for the fleece to start growing

back.

Synthetic materials and other animals’ fibers can also be used to make products such as

clothing and upholstery. Production of synthetic fibers has its own environmental consequences,

though. It may require the use of petroleum-based products, which are energy intensive to

manufacture and produce certain toxic industrial pollutants as waste. For some uses, synthetic

materials have characteristics that are superior to wool’s, but in other cases, wool’s are far

superior.

Is it ethically acceptable to raise and shear sheep for wool? Why or why not?

#11

Spider-Silk Goats

Image: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7HcdUptVjh4/UjupXC5ZymI/AAAAAAAABI0/LbYgWO-hVLM/s320/619153-spider-goat.jpg

Spider silk is stronger and more flexible than any other known fiber. Five times stronger for its weight than

steel, it can be used in many products. Medical uses could include making artificial tendons and

ligaments, bandages, sutures, and artificial limbs. Because it can be woven into fiber, it can be used to

make protective clothing, bulletproof vests, and body armor. Its flexibility makes it valuable as paper.

Other products could include ropes, nets, parachutes, seatbelts, and airbags. In addition to being one of

the toughest materials on Earth, spider silk is also environmentally friendly; no toxic substances are used

to make it and it is biodegradable.

To date, no one has successfully farmed spiders for silk, nor has anyone been able to produce spider silk

artificially on a large scale. However, researchers have been able to create goats that produce spider silk,

by inserting spider genes into goat eggs. In these genetically engineered goats, the gene is expressed in

the mammary glands, and the transgenic goats secrete silk fibers in their milk. The fibers are removed

from the milk and spun into thread. These transgenic goats have since been bred, and their offspring

pass on their silk-producing genes to their offspring. In this way, thousands of goats capable of producing

the silk-fiber-containing milk can be generated.

Cloning is not a perfect science and often produces many animals with deformities and conditions that

are fatal. Because this is a relatively new science, there are uncertainties about the long-term health of

the resulting cloned goats. Issues such as accelerated aging, compromised immune systems, and

premature death have arisen. The risks of genetic engineering may include disrupting certain genes of the

goat so they no longer function and allowing the introduced gene to enter the wild population through

unregulated breeding.

In addition to the environmental concerns of farming animals discussed in other cases, raising dairy

animals requires techniques that some consider problematic. Females produce milk (lactate) when they

are nursing their young. Female goats that are already lactating can be bred while they are nursing and

will produce milk for over a year. They are bred again about every 12 months and are given a 2-month dry

interval when they are not milked. Some people believe that goats need more time to rest between

breeding cycles.

There is no alternative to creating transgenic goats as a profitable source of spider silk.

Is it ethically acceptable to genetically engineer goats to produce spider silk? Why or why not?

#12

Super-Sized Salmon

Image: http://www.wollastonlakelodge.com/wp-content/gallery/2013-july-19-24/02jul-21-2013-anthony-pantano-41-trout-day2.jpg

Salmon can be bred and raised in tanks on fish farms. Most salmon consumed in the United

States are from fish farms. Fish farming is an over-$100-million-a-year industry. The farms have

separate tanks for fertilized eggs, for newly hatched fish, and for each size fish as they grow.

Scientists have been able to make transgenic salmon that grow 11 times bigger, on average,

than a regular salmon of the same age. A growth-hormone gene is injected into fertilized eggs to

produce the super-sized fish. Not only do they grow larger than wild-type salmon, but they reach

sexual maturity more quickly and can be bred earlier. Because of their large size and their ability

to reproduce earlier, these transgenic fish can help meet the growing consumer demand for

salmon.

The risks of genetic engineering are not well defined but may include altering the appropriate

expression of the salmon genome, which could have undesirable consequences for the fish and

its well-being. Researchers at Purdue University have investigated the effects of transgenic fish

on wild populations of the same species. Using a fish called the Japanese medaka, scientists

found that just 60 transgenic fish could drive a population of 60,000 wild fish extinct in only 40

generations. Whether these results would be the same for salmon is not yet known.

People disagree over the health benefits of farmed compared with wild salmon. Farmed salmon

have more omega-3 fatty acids, which have proven health benefits, but also higher levels of

chemical contaminants known to cause cancer. However, some studies indicate that transgenic

organisms may have adverse health effects on consumers, such as unexpected allergic

reactions.

Alternatives to the super-sized salmon include farming nontransgenic fish or continuing to catch

wild salmon, which has environmental consequences of its own.

Is it ethically acceptable to genetically engineer fish to grow larger and thus provide

more food for humans? Why or why not?

#13

Veal

Image: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/veal-calf-featured.jpg

Veal is meat from calves that is valued for its tenderness and texture. Many people consider it a

delicacy, and people in the United States eat, on average, a little less than half a kilogram (1 lb.)

per year each. To produce veal, male dairy calves (baby cows) are taken from their mothers

soon after birth and raised for about 18 to 20 weeks before they are slaughtered.

Male dairy cows are considered to be of little value because they cannot produce milk and are

therefore killed or raised as veal. There are about 700,000 veal calves being raised in the

United States. The calves undergo the stress of being separated from their mothers and

transported from their birth site. They are at risk for pneumonia and diarrhea from being mixed

with other calves from other sources, and from their diet. The mortality rate for these calves is

not greater than for nonveal calves, however.

The most humane way to raise veal is under debate. Traditionally in the United States, the

calves have been kept in small individual pens where they cannot turn around, and they are fed

special milk-based diets to enhance their texture and flavor. It is believed that the calves must

be kept confined because moving around too much makes their muscles tough. Changes in the

industry are occurring due to mounting criticism, including and new regulations that address

such things as pen size and tethering practices (another way to keep the calves in place).

Other than using more humane (but still confining) measures, there is no alternative for

producing veal.

Is it ethically acceptable to raise calves for veal? Why or why not?

#14

Animals in Confinement – Captive Breeding programs

Please Utilize the Blackfish Documentary (posted in your study guide) to answer the ethical

question below:

Image: http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/26/c2df50658411e29dc322000a1d0930/file/Blackfish.jpg

Sea World has changed its mission statement to focus on conservation and biodiversity

issues rather than on the entertainment industry. Is it ethically acceptable for them to

remain in operation? Why or why not? What about Zoos?

#15

Conservation verses preservation: Wolves in Yellowstone

Please utilize the attached article on “Yellowstone Wolves” to answer the ethical questions: (this

choice will count as two articles)

There were no coyotes in Yellowstone before the wolf was eradicated. There, as in all

parts of the lower 48 states the coyote expanded its range dramatically when wolves

were eradicated. In order to truly restore Yellowstone to its pre- 1930 ecological

composition, the coyote would have to be eradicated. Should park managers make

coyote eradication a goal? Why or why not?

Due to losses of livestock by ranchers in surrounding areas, should political

consideration be given to ranchers in order for them to be compensated for their losses?

Are losses due to depredation by wolves different from those suffered from drought or

disease?

Students also viewed