I'm just going to jump right in with, I couldn't think of anything to write. And I know that I have two weeks to think of something, but those are also still two weeks of Vet School term 3, which really keeps me busy trying to not fall to far behind in any one subject while prepping for whatever test I have coming up (there are a lot) so instead of me just cutting this post short I am going to present my Ethics paper for your reading pleasure? (sure why not) and some photos because I can.
TTFN and sorry for not having something more pertinent if I think of something I will make a post next week.
Cloning for the purpose of de extinction: an
ethical dilemma
The bucardo became
an extinct species in 2000, in 2003 the last bucardo was born and died of respiratory
failure minutes after birth (Choi, 2009). This singular case brings the ethical
dilemma of de-extinction with its various avenues and rabbit holes. However, the
purpose of this paper is to explore what the ethics of de-extinction are today,
and what the ethics of de-extinction might be one day; by looking at the
welfare of the animals involved. As in case mentioned above, if de-extinction
were to become a viable process, what would the effects be on animal conservation,
what would the impact on the environment be when releasing cloned animals and
what changes in legislation would be required.
The process of de-extinction
has several steps starting with sequencing the animal’s complete genome and
ending with the implantation of a fertilized egg in to a surrogate dam. These
processes are, for the most part, out of the scope of this paper, however, the
last step is of great importance and is the beginning of the animal welfare
issues. Evaluation of animal welfare will use the 5 freedoms 1) no anxiety, 2)
behavior is to be normal, 3) to be comfortable, 4) free of disease, pain or
injury, 5) have energy from food and water. (Kirwan, 2018, p1) The act of
implantation causes the surrogate to lose three of its five freedoms; the
freedom from fear and distress, the freedom of normal behavior and the freedom
from pain and injury. Most animals that
are proposed for de-extinction have no domestic relatives, so in the act of
tranquilizing, moving, and handling the surrogate is exposed to mental
suffering; this is the loss of freedom from distress. The freedom to normal behavior is loss by
having to care for the fetus of a different species; therefore, that animal is
being deprived of its normal behavior. Undue pain or injury caused by the
pregnancy and parturition is the final loss “Cows and ewes used as surrogates
for SCNT-derived pregnancies appear to be at increased risk of late gestational
complications” (U.S. FDA, p, 199) (somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT is a
method of cloning). Care of the surrogate is of the highest quality; however,
it is currently impossible to complete the task with out compromising the
before mentioned freedoms.
What of the
offspring? What would its welfare look like? “There is an increased risk of
mortality and morbidity in perinatal calf and lamb clones” (U.S. FDA, p, 199). Even
with a high quality of care this seems to negate the freedom from pain. What
happens to the welfare of the cloned animals once born and healthy? There is a
very limited gene pool to pull from, the process of inbreeding would only be
viable to an extent (Choi, 2009), so cloning and genome sequencing would need
to continue.
If de-extinction
were to become a viable process, there could be a fundamental shift in thinking
about how to conserve endangered species. The possibility of cloning for the
protection of endangered species is already being considered one of the better options
available; “Conservationists in Brazil are poised to try cloning eight animals
that are under pressure” (Coghlan, 2012). However, there are problems with this
way of thinking, consider the Mammuthus primigenius one of the more popular de-extinction
candidates; a 10,000-year-old woolly mammoth carcass that preserves muscle
tissue the color of fresh meat (Wong, 2013). Consider the welfare of the cloned
woolly mammoth, while in captivity its’ shelter, food, and water would be
provided for, as well as the freedom from pain and injury. Nevertheless, the
freedom to normal behavior, and freedom from metal suffering is not guaranteed.
Now consider the mammoths welfare if it were reestablished as a wild species. Think
of the welfare of the native intact species. The mammoths could presumable
maintain normal behavior, and might also be free from mental suffering, there
should be food, water and shelter. Still the environment has changed, “evidence
reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the
average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.” (NASA, 2018), which would lead to
the loss of normal behavior and could create fear and distress, it could also
lead to pain or disease. Three of the freedoms are potentially compromised for
the mammoth, which might or might not be the case in the real world. Considering
the impact on the native species there are invasive species models which could
help shed some light on their welfare if mammoths were introduced; “Many
species are limited primarily by food availability and secondarily by density-dependent
factors” (Lohr, 2017 p.3), showing that they could impact the supply of food,
the quality of shelter and the normal behavior of animals. There is also the
potential for physical harm to humans. There is also a small possibility that through
the cloning process unknown viral DNA could be copied leading to a viral
outbreak in livestock, exotics, companion animals, or even humans. This is a
very unlikely outcome, but all possibilities need to be considered. Another
possibility is that the reintroduction of the wooly mammoth could help the
environment (Mann, 2018) making it an important ecologic species.
Currently de-extinction and animal
cloning have no federal laws. Rather, de-extinction has a set of guidelines
laid out by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Cloned
animals used for food have a set of health guidelines that need to be adhere to.
For example, if the dodo bird were brought back, and subsequently domesticated
in the U.S. using an entirely cloned population for the production of meat and
eggs for human consumption; there would be a required health check to insure
quality of the products. If the animal did not meet FDA standards for human
consumption then they would, like non cloned animals, be used in animal feeds. “No
animal feed risks unique to clones were identified in the Risk Assessment”
(U.S. FDA, 2008, p.3). Now reflect on human cloning and the field which is more
associated with the genetic manipulation processes of de-extinction eugenics, which
also have limited laws and regulations. Currently Australia has very strict
laws allowing only curtain licensed individuals to perform certain parts of the
process but never to complete a human clone; “Offense—placing a human embryo clone in the human body or the body of an
animal” (AU, NHMRC,
2017 p7). The U.S. has no federal laws banning cloning, only sanctions on
government spending in the areas of human cloning. However there are no such
sanctions for animal cloning. Revive and restore a non-profit organization, and
one of the largest de-extinction groups is based on charitable donations and
not government funding, thus circumventing the limitations of government
funding. (“Lour, 2018). Still once an extinct species has been successfully
cloned it could come under the endangered species act, and thus government
protection and taxpayer money, or they might be classified as invasive (IUCN
SCC, 2016, p17). The lack of federal laws in the U.S. leaves it to states to
regulate human cloning. The lack of laws means cloning is essentially an open
field where abuse of processes and techniques designed for de-extinction being
used in human cloning is a very real possibility. Having the partial genome for
a person could lead to the cloning of historic figures, although unlikely, as
current cloning techniques would allow for the cloning of those living as well
as the recently deceased, albeit with many failed attempts. It is this fact
which has kept full human cloning from being attempted as it would be unethical
to have hundreds of failed attempts. Just as the de-extinction process calls
for the use of hundreds of surrogates, 208 embryos were implanted for the
cloning of the bucardo, 7 goats became pregnant and of those 1 made term (Choi,
2009), while these are only animals there is still an ethical dilemma that
faces those seeking the return of extinct species.
De-extinction is mostly
still theoretical in nature, with the single exception of the bucardo. As such
the ethics are still only mostly theoretical as well. Yet the current state is
only for today. Looking forward as de-extinctions techniques evolve and change,
so will the ethical issues surrounding it. The facts remain the same, some
species have become extinct, whether due to environmental changes or the
effects of the human population, makes no difference to the extinct species. A
dead animal no longer requires welfare, so we should instead focus on the task
of preserving the welfare and lives of living animals, and the welfare of the
animals used as surrogates. “UNLESS
someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's
not.” (Seuss, 1971).
References:
Choi, Charles Q. “First
Extinct-Animal Clone Created.” National Geographic, 10 Feb. 2009, www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2009/02/news-bucardo-pyrenean-ibex-deextinction-cloning/.
Seuss, Dr. The Lorax. New
York: Random House, 1971.
“Our Supporters.” Revive
& Restore, 19 Mar. 2018, reviverestore.org/our-supporters/. https://reviverestore.org/our-supporters/
Kirwan,
A.P. (2018) Ethics in Veterinary
practice, St. George’s University.
United States,
FDA, “Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment.” Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment,
Center for Veterinary Medicine, U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Department
of Health and Human Services, 1 Aug. 2008. www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/UCM124756.pdf.
Coghlan, Andy. “Brazil Aims to Clone Endangered
Animals.” New Scientist, New Scientist, 12 Nov. 2012, www.newscientist.com/article/dn22493-brazil-aims-to-clone-endangered-animals/.
Wong, Kate. “Can
a Mammoth Carcass Really Preserve Flowing Blood and Possibly Live Cells?” Nature
News, Nature Publishing Group, 30 May 2013, www.nature.com/news/can-a-mammoth-carcass-really-preserve-flowing-blood-and-possibly-live-cells-1.13103.
NASA “Climate
Change Evidence: How Do We Know?” NASA, NASA, 8 Aug. 2018, www.climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.
Lohr, Cheryl A.,
et al. “Modeling Dynamics of Native and Invasive Species to Guide
Prioritization of Management Actions.” Ecosphere, vol. 8, no. 5, 15 May
2017, doi:10.1002/ecs2.1822.
Mann, Paul. “Can
Bringing Back Mammoths Help Stop Climate Change?” Smithsonian.com,
Smithsonian Institution, 14 May 2018, www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-bringing-back-mammoths-stop-climate-change-180969072/.
United
States, FDA, “Guidance for Industry Use of Animal Clones and Clone Progeny for
Human Food and Animal Feed” Guidance for
Industry Use of Animal Clones and Clone Progeny for Human Food and Animal Feed,
Center for Veterinary Medicine, U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Department
of Health and Human Services, 15 Jan. 2008 https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM052469.pdf
Australia, (NHMRC) National Health and Medical Research Council,“Prohibition
of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002.” Prohibition of Human Cloning
for Reproduction Act 2002, 21 Sept. 2017. www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00306.
IUCN SSC (2016). IUCN SSC Guiding principles on Creating
Proxies of Extinct Species for Conservation Benefit. Version 1.0. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/Rep-2016-009.pdf
