----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVEN BISSELL" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: More on GM and ethics


Gus wrote in a post, (snip)

>However, philosophically, the ethical issue seems relevant no matter
>how high the contamination (of other crops by GMO genes I assume)

Steven here,

I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure what the philosophical issue
really is. It is only recently that some philosophers of ethics have
accepted that animals are moral agents. The idea that plants is far from
commonly accepted. In my class I spend an entire semester (BTW I *do not*
claim to be a philosopher, I'm a biologist cum social scientist) trying to
make the point that 'concepts,' such as species and ecosystems, are worthy
of moral regard.

John here,

I have arrived at my conclusion, species and ecosystems, while being
'concepts' are also much more than mere 'concepts': they are also acts. Thus
species are a higher level of classification which includes all individual
organism said to be member of the classification. This implies also that
species denotes those organisms which have perished, as well as those which
have not been born yet.

Species is only used as a concept when it is referred to as a
classification, otherwise, the term species also refers to the act for which
a species is engaged in, or about to engage in.

Only humans perhaps can engage in 'conceptualizations' without accompanying
acts [well I may be wrong because coyotes like to stare at the moon].

So, do I think that genes are worthy of moral regard? Not
so sure.

Nearly all agricultural crops are genetically far different from any
'natural' plant. By that I mean that selective breeding and such have
altered the genetics of plants so that they do not resemble any plant which
is found in nature. So, is the introduction of genes through GMO morally
different? A bit I suppose, but not enough, IMHO, to make a big ethical
difference.

John here again,

If some harm resulted to a species or community because of GM useage, then
it would be morally wrong in some way to push GM products. Why? because
there are certain moral norms in our human world which make some acts
morally wrong. Putting human genes into cows to produce oxytoxcin for the
purposes of commercial sales to impotent people may be morally wrong because
of the possible harm that this would do to the cows.

If GM plants and animals are no morally wrong, then neither is direct action
morally wrong to protect an old growth forest. A thing is morally wrong so
long as it 'violates' our sensibilities for correct and appropriate conduct.

Recently a cow was genetically engineered to produce 3 times as much milk,
but the poor cow suffered terribly and the company abandoned the program, as
did a company in New Zealand did after it genetically manufactured a Chinook
salmon which grew 3 times faster than a native species of Chinook salmon.
Well think about what would happen if the the salmon escaped (which it would
undoubtably do)? The company abandoned the GM fish citing irreversible
effects on native stocks.

The primary problem with GM plants and animals is that the adverse effects
may be irreversible. So we do not morally nor can we be in a moral position
at all, as long as we continue with the product research and development. No
insurance is available.

If we don't want something bad to happen which is irreversible, the we
morally cannot continue with GM commercialization and research.

Now if the UK allows planting of the GM corn, and it contaminates all of the
non-GM corn, and later it is determined that the non-GM corn fails to
produce or becomes hugely susceptible of a pathogen, then it is very
serious. For instance the potato famines of the 1840's in Ireland and in
Finland resulted from the exclusive cultivation of a single variety of
potato which became susceptible to the blight.

Steven, we will just have to wait and see when this happens on a large
enough scale to scare the be-jeepers out  of everyone for good. It has been
proved that there are lower economic returns associated withe GM varieties.
Cannot predict if corn borers are going to be a problem in the future unless
they are counted after the corn is planted, which means you cannot decide
before hand which variety to plant. The alternative is soil management in
the fall to reduce or eliminate the pupae; a much better ecologically sound
way of managing insects of economic importance.

chao

John Foster



I think the other question was whether or not a certain genetic combination
could/should be patented? Is the patenting of genetic material morally
acceptable? While at first blush this seems inappropriate, in thinking about
it, I think that at least the patent laws will keep some people from
aimlessly messing around. The patent laws, in a weird sort of way, afford
protection and prevention from inept manipulation.

As to whether or not is is 'morally' acceptable. I'm having a hard time
thinking of 'why not?' Gus, have you worked out an argument as to why it
might be morally suspect?

Steven

_________________________________________________________________
One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page - download MSN Toolbar now!
http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/