The use of transgenic farm animals presents many challenges to the bioethicist, not least how to analyse the ethical issues within a framework that does not implicitly assume adherence to a normative ethical theory. One possible solution is to use a series of prima-facie principles applied to the interest groups affected by transgenesis. One such scheme is based on the four prima-facie principles of respect for non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice. This paper illustrates these with respect to transgenic farm animals. The aim of this is a systematic analysis, which includes positive and negative aspects, and which can therefore serve as a starting point for debate in which a range of views exist. One possible interpretation of this analysis is based on Three Rs concept. The use of transgenic farm animals appears to contradict this concept, because, although there is the potential for a reduction in animal numbers, at present, transgenesis is a rapidly expanding field, reversing the recent modest reductions in other areas of laboratory animal use. Moreover, transgenesis permits novel uses of farm animals, such as the production of proteins for human medicine where they were previously obtained from human blood (the opposite of replacement). The technique of transgenesis also misses the point as far as refinement is concerned, by refining the animal to suit the production or experimental protocol, instead of vice versa.
PurselV.G., WallR.J., SolomanM.B., BoltD.J., MurrayJ.D., & WardK.A. (1997). Transfer of an ovine metallothionein-ovine growth hormone fusion gene into swine. Journal of Animal Science75, 2208–2214.
3.
DamakS., SuH., JayN.P., & BullockD.W. (1996). Improved wool production in transgenic sheep expressing insulin-like growth factor. Bio/Technology14, 185–188.
4.
CrittendenL.B., & SalterD.W. (1992). A transgene, alv6, that expresses the envelope of subgroup a avian leukosis virus reduces the rate of congenital transmission of a field strain of avian leukosis virus. Poultry Science71, 799–806.
5.
GeorgesM. (1997). Recent progress in mammalian genomics and its application for the selection of candidate transgenes in livestock species. In Transgenic Animals (ed. HoudebineL.M.), pp. 519–524. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
6.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1995). Report of the Committee on the Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies on the Breeding of Farm Animals.London, UK: HMSO.
7.
ZiomekC.A. (1998). Commercialization of proteins produced in the mammary gland. Theriogenology49, 139–144.
8.
SharmaA., MartinM.J., OkabeJ.F., TruglioR.A., DhanjalN.K., LoganJ.S., & KumarR. (1994). An isologous porcine promoter permits high level expression of human hemoglobin in transgenic swine. Bio/Technology12, 55–59.
9.
KerrD.E., LiangF., BondioliK.R., ZhaoH., KreibichG., WallR.J., & SunT-T. (1998). The bladder as a bioreactor: urothelium production and secretion of growth hormone into urine. Nature Biotechnology16, 75–79.
10.
Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation (1996). Animal Tissue into Humans, 255 pp. London, UK: HMSO.
11.
EyestoneW.H. (1994). Challenges and progress in the production of transgenic cattle. Reproduction, Fertility and Development6, 647–652.
12.
GavinW.G. (1997). Gene transfer into goat embryos. In Transgenic Animals: Generation and Use (ed. HoudebineL.M.), pp. 19–21. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
13.
NiemannH., & ReicheltB. (1993). Manipulating early pig embryos. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility48, Suppl., 75–94.
14.
GibsonY., & ColmanA. (1997). The generation of transgenic sheep by pronuclear microinjection. In Transgenic Animals: Generation and Use (ed. HoudebineL.M.), pp. 23–25. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
15.
WilmutI., SchniekeA.E., McWhirJ., KindA.J., & CampbellK.H.S. (1997). Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature385, 810–813.
16.
SchniekeA.E., KindA.J., RitchieW.A., MycockK., ScottA.R., RitchieM., WilmutI., ColmanA., & CampbellK.H.S. (1997). Human factor IX transgenic sheep produced by transfer of nuclei from transfected fetal fibroblasts. Science278, 2130–2133.
17.
EvansM.J., GilmourD.T., & ColledgeW.H. (1994). Transgenic rodents. In Animals with Novel Genes (ed. MacleanN.), pp. 138–178. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
BeauchampT.L., & ChildressJ.F. (1994). Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 556 pp. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
19.
MephamT.B. (1996). Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies: an evaluative framework. In Food Ethics (ed. MephamT.B.), pp. 101–119. London, UK: Routledge.
20.
MephamT.B., MooreC.J., & CrillyR.E. (1996). An ethical analysis of the use of xenografts in human transplant surgery. Bulletin of Medical Ethics116, 13–18.
21.
van ReenenC.G., & BlokhuisH.J. (1993). Investigating welfare of dairy calves involved in genetic modification: problems and perspectives. Livestock Production Science36, 81–90.
22.
WoychikR.P., StewartT.A., D'EustachioL.G., & LederP. (1985). An inherited limb deformity created by insertional mutagenesis in a transgenic mouse. Nature318, 36–40.
WolfE. (1997). Transgenic animals: an alternative? Proponent's statement. In Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics (ed. van ZutphenL.F.M., & BallsM.), pp. 271–275. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
25.
MooreC.J., & MephamT.B. (1995). Transgenesis and animal welfare. ATLA23, 380–397.
26.
PittiusC.W., HennighausenL., LeeE., WestphalH., NicolsE., VitaleJ., & GordonK. (1988). A milk protein gene promoter directs the expression of human tissue plasminogen activator cDNA to the mammary gland in transgenic mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA85, 5874–5878.
27.
ReddyV.B., VitaleJ.A., WeiC., Montoya-ZavalaM., SticeS.L., BaliseJ., & RobJ.M. (1991). Expression of human growth hormone in the milk of transgenic mice. Animal Biotechnology2, 15–29.
28.
LimontaJ.M., CastroF.O., MartinezR., PuentesP., RamosB., AguilarA., LleonartR.L., & FuenteJ.D.L. (1995). Transgenic rabbits as bioreactors for the production of human growth hormone. Journal of Biotechnology40, 49–58.
29.
CarverA., WrightG., CottomD., CooperJ., DalrympleM., TemperleyS., UdellM., ReevesD., ScottA., BarrassD., GibsonY., JeffreyY., SamuelC., ColmanA., & GarnerI. (1992). Expression of human alpha-1-antitrypsin in transgenic sheep. Cytotechnology9, 77–84.
30.
MassoudM., AttalJ., ThepotD., PointuH., StimmakreM.G., TheronM.C., LopezC., & HoudebineL.M. (1996). The deleterious effects of human erythropoietin gene driven by the rabbit whey acidic protein gene in transgenic rabbits. Reproduction, Nutrition and Development36, 555–563.
31.
MephamT.B., CombesR.D., BallsM., BarbieriO., BlokhuisH.J., CostaP., CrillyR.E., de Cock BuningT., DelpireV.C., O'HareM.J., HoudebineL-M., van KreijlC.F., van der MeerM., ReinhardtC.A., WolfE., & van ZellerA-M. (1998). The use of transgenic animals in the European Union. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 28. ATLA26, 21–43.
32.
PooleT. (1997). Transgenic animals: an alternative? Opponent's statement. In Animals, Alternatives and Ethics (ed. ZutphenL.F.M., & BallsM.), pp. 277–282. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
33.
WallR.J. (1997). A new lease of life for transgenic livestock. Nature Biotechnology15, 416–417.
34.
GavoraJ.S., BenkelB., SpencerJ.L., GagnonC., & CrittendenL.B. (1995). Influence of the alv6 recombinant avian leukosis virus transgene on production traits and infection with avian tumor viruses in chickens. Poultry Science74, 852–863.
35.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1996). Animal–Human Transplants: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation.London, UK: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
36.
HughesB.O., HughesG.S., WaddingtonD., & ApplebyM.C. (1996). Behavioural comparison of transgenic and control sheep: movement order, behaviour on pasture and in covered pens. Animal Science63, 91–101.
37.
RollinB.E. (1995). The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals, 255 pp. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
38.
ColwellR.K. (1989). Natural and unnatural history: biological diversity and genetic engineering. In Scientists and Their Responsibilities (ed. SheaW.R., & SitterB.), p. 33. Canton, MA, USA: Watson Publishing International.
39.
VerhoogH. (1992). The concept of intrinsic value and transgenic animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics5, 147–160.
40.
RussellW.M.S., & BurchR.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238 pp. London, UK: Methuen.
41.
Home Office (1998). Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 1997, 95 pp. London, UK: HMSO.
42.
Home Office (1999). Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 1998, 108 pp. London, UK: HMSO.
43.
Home Office (1997). Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 1996, 95 pp. London, UK: HMSO.
44.
MephamT.B., & CrillyR.E. (1997). Transgenic xenotransplantation: utilitarian and deontological caveats. In Animals, Alternatives and Ethics (ed. van ZutphenL.F.M., & BallsM.) pp. 315–365. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
45.
BroomD.M. (1993). Assessing the welfare of modified or treated animals. Livestock Production Science36, 39–54.
