Translate

Monday, September 24, 2018

That Time Already Or. Ethical Dilemma's

Hello Dear Readers,
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

No comments:

Post a Comment