PSY1HAE Topic 15: Are "Creatures" We Modify or Invent Still Animals? PDF

 Topic 15: Are ‘Creatures’ We Modify or Invent Still Animals? companion dogs and cats. We tend to take this After completing this topic, you should: for granted, and we also routinely spay (desex)...

 Topic 15: Are ‘Creatures’ We Modify or Invent Still Animals? companion dogs and cats. We tend to take this After completing this topic, you should: for granted, and we also routinely spay (desex) our female companion animals. In some know much more about biotechnology is European countries, desexing is seen as an and how various techniques can be used to modify or invent animals unnecessary and intrusive surgical procedure that should be avoided if possible. Surprisingly, understand some of the common concerns around some forms of some of these countries have fewer problems biotechnology with over-population of pets than we do in Australia, demonstrating again how cultural differences in management practices can have a The primary objective in this topic is for you to huge impact on many aspects of human-animal become familiar with some of the newest relationships. technologies being used to modify animals, genetically and otherwise. The term biotechnology refers to the application of science to living organisms, so this encompasses a broad range of techniques that can be used to change animals and their offspring. These techniques change quite rapidly and we won’t be able to cover all of them, but you will get a taste of what is happening in this area of human-animal relationships. In the process of doing this we will briefly consider some of the ethical and legal issues that arise Are your companion animals desexed? Have you when we modify or create animals. What are the ever thought about whether this is the best way implications, if any, of humans creating living to manage their reproductive tendencies, or did organisms that would not otherwise exist? you just assume this was the case? Would you Of course, modifying animals is something make a different decision if you lived in a humans have been doing for centuries. The country where desexing was less popular? For Scythians, Iranian nomads who occupied the her PhD, Vanessa Rohlf examined factors central Eurasian steppes from about the 9th contributing to dog owner management century BC, were amongst the earliest people to practices. Consistent with the theory of planned master mounted warfare. They used geldings behaviour, she found that some of the biggest (castrated male horses) as their war horses determinants were social norms – what owners because they were quiet, not preoccupied with believed was expected of them by their friends mating, and less likely to fight with one another and family members. than non-castrated males or females. Surgical removal of reproductive organs is not Many current societies similarly practice the only practice we engage in to make animals, castration as an animal management tool. In particularly agricultural animals, more easily Australia, thousands of sheep, cattle, goats, and managed. Many production animals have their horses are castrated, as are nearly all male tails cut off, their beaks trimmed, or some teeth removed. Some people argue that it is their productivity. Amazing achievements were inappropriate for humans to engage in these commonplace, but the restrictions imposed by practices and we will consider why in another the biology of the animals were not really topic. In this topic, we are going to explore some removed until scientists developed methods for of the more contemporary methods used to collecting, storing, transporting, and artificially modify animals for human purposes. inseminating semen into females at exactly the right time in their reproductive cycle. The first Artificial Selection report of a successful artificial insemination (AI) Natural selection occurs whenever the features process involved a dog, who was inseminated in of an animal’s environment influence its 1784. Over the next hundred years a variety of reproductive success. As soon as humans animals were subjected to AI, but it first became started interacting with animals, millions of the focus of scientific studies, in Russia and then years ago, we probably had an influence over Japan, in the very early 1900s. which ones lived and died, and therefore af- fected the genetic makeup of subsequent generations. Meanwhile, the animals in our environment would have been having a similar impact on our own genetic makeup, influencing which human genes survived and which disappeared. Once animals and humans were domesticated and we began purposefully selecting animals who would breed, our influence on the genetics of those animal species increased enormously. Initially, we were constrained by the animals’ Interest in the use of AI increased in the 1940s behaviour, structure, and availability. Two when scientists developed tools like artificial animals needed to be in the same place at the vaginas and methods for storing and depositing right time for reproduction to occur and, no semen far more effectively than could be done matter how hard we tried to mate two animals previously. Improved storage methods meant together, if they would or could not cooperate, that there was no longer a requirement for male a successful pregnancy was unlikely to result. and female animals to be housed close together, and new technology for ‘extending’ sperm Even working within these constraints, truly meant that sperm from an ‘outstanding’ male astounding achievements were possible. animal could be deposited into many more Consider the various breeds of dogs that exist, females than he would be able to mate with developed purely through selective breeding. naturally. A study in Denmark showed that AI These breeds vary greatly not only in how they could produce a higher rate of pregnancies in appear, but also in their behaviour and other dairy cows than natural mating. This meant that attributes. There are also many distinct breeds the process attracted attention from commercial of cows, horses, sheep, and birds, all developed interests who were able to financially support by people with no special technologies other extensive research. Major universities in the USA than fences, sheds, ropes, and chains, able to got involved and, before long, AI was the keep animals apart when they didn’t want them method of choice for inseminating dairy cows. to breed, and means of transport to get animals Beef cattle, sheep, goat, horse, and poultry together when breeding was deemed desirable. industries quickly followed suit. Because semen Artificial Insemination could be preserved and transported across the planet, a global AI market quickly developed. Early selective efforts focused on how animals This market focused on the use of elite sires, looked, their temperaments or behaviours, and known, through testing of large numbers of Because these developments were driven by their progeny, to produce desirable commercial interests, they mostly affected characteristics in their offspring. breeding of agricultural animals. However, one interesting spin-off was the use of similar techniques in humans, with thousands of babies now produced each year following use of reproductive technologies. It was only in 1978, less than 50 years ago, that the very first human baby produced by IVF was born. The parents of baby Louise Brown were apparently not told that they would be the very first humans on earth to have a baby not conceived via natural methods. Imagine how terrifying this knowledge would be! Fortunately, everything went well. The Brown’s went on to have a second IVF baby, In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer Natalie, some four years later and both Louise Manipulation of female reproductive processes and Natalie now have their own families. One of proved more challenging initially, but two the doctors involved was awarded a Nobel Prize developments helped to ensure that females for his work – although perhaps he should also contributed fully to improvements in genetic have been counselled about the importance of quality. First, ovulation synchronization informed consent. programs coupled with AI helped with herd management by ensuring that female animals became pregnant exactly when this was most convenient for their owners. Second, in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer programs meant that eggs and embryos from the best females could be harvested, fertilised, and transferred into females of lesser quality for gestation. When combined with techniques for inducing ovulation of multiple eggs, this allowed the best females to produce many more offspring per year than is possible under natural conditions. The ability to freeze embryos meant Another spin-off has been application of IVF that these too could be transported around the techniques to animals that are difficult to globe, contributing to an unprecedented global produce using normal methods, including some transfer of genetic material. endangered species. As discussed in a previous topic, some animal species refuse to breed in captivity, making it difficult for them to be domesticated, and also difficult for those who want to save them from extinction. For some of these animals, modern reproductive technologies might offer one last chance for survival. Early in 2015, for example, emergency talks were held in Kenya to devise a plan to save the Northern white rhino from extinction. At that time only four of these animals remained alive, three in a Kenyan sanctuary where they were surrogate white rhino. This may never be under 24-hour armed guard, and one female in successful, of course, but efforts to save the a zoo in San Diego, who unfortunately died later species from extinction continue. Those involved in 2015. The single male in Kenya, called Sudan, have used crowd sourcing to fund their work. had a low sperm count and was too old (42 Spend a few minutes thinking about this project years) to mate naturally. He also had no horn; to save the Northern white rhino. How incredibly this was removed to save him from poachers, sad is it to know that future generations of attracted to Sudan by the fact that rhino horn is humans are unlikely to ever see one of these worth more per gram than cocaine. When the awesome animals? How much should be spent fifth remaining rhino, Nabire, died in a Czech trying to save this species? Can we place a zoo in 2014, her remaining eggs were monetary value on Sudan, the last remaining harvested and frozen. It was hoped that these male? What are we trying to save these rhinos may one day be fertilised by Sudan’s sperm and for, given that we cannot guarantee that a then implanted into a female surrogate, most suitable and safe habitat will ever again be avail- probably a southern white rhino. able? We will come back to some of these issue in later topics. Also worth thinking about is how AI and IVF caused rapid improvements in productivity in agricultural animals, which then allowed human populations to expand. Cows produce much more milk than they did previously and pigs and poultry require much less food and time to grow a marketable size. A reliance on elite animals means that genetic diversity has been sig- nificantly reduced worldwide. In addition, genetic manipulation has created many serious welfare issues for animals. Some species grow too fast for their bones to carry them and others struggle to deliver offspring that are too big to pass through the birth canal, for example. Some argue that it would be very difficult to feed 7 billion people without these advances in productivity. If the world needed twice as many pigs and cows and chickens to meet to current global demand for meat, we’d need to find food for these animals to eat, places to keep them, and ways of managing their waste. As we will find out in later topics, all of these factors would As of January 2020, three embryos had been impact the sustainability of the planet and its created using eggs harvested from the last two current occupants. remaining females and sperm taken from two Gene targeting deceased males. Neither remaining female is able to carry a pregnancy to full term so the Attempts to improve productivity through eggs remain frozen. While the creation of careful selection within a species continue down embryos using IVF was a significant two main paths. One rests on selection based achievement, unfortunately it has not yet been on specific genes rather than on the observable possible to develop a viable pregnancy using a phenotype produced by those genes. This only became possible once the entire genomes of target species were sequenced by genetic scien- tists. Another important innovation was development of sophisticated statistical techniques that allow the influence of multiple genes to be evaluated simultaneously. Initially, genome sequencing showed which important genes were located within close proximity to other ‘marker’ genes that had already been identified. Scientists could then select for these marker genes and hope that the genes they wanted would come along with them. More recently Whole Genome Association Studies have provided a way of scanning the entire genome to look for statistically significant areas of variation, which can then be selected for or against in subsequent generations. This could be crucial in cases where desirable genes are masked by other genes and it also means that decisions about which animals to keep for Cloning is important because it potentially takes breeding can be made while the animal is very some of the risk out of breeding animals. Every young, instead of having to wait to see what it farmer knows that if you take the very best bull looks like or how it performs as an adult. This and the very best cow, chances are you’ll end up should speed up improvements in productivity. with a wonderful calf. However, because of the Cloning recombination process, this doesn’t always work. Two excellent parents can produce very The second new approach to improving average offspring or offspring with serious productivity via artificial selection within a genetic problems. Cloning removes this risk by species is by cloning, whereby an animal clone allowing scientists to exactly copy the very best is produced that is genetically identical to an animals. Clones do not look or act identically to original animal. This process was first used in each other. Because development is so strongly cattle industries in the 1990s, when genetic influenced by environmental factors, clones can material taken from one fertilized egg was be quite different, even though they are geneti- transplanted into another egg to produce cally identical. In theory, this speeds up the offspring of higher quality. You might remember process of selective breeding for specific traits the famous ewe called Dolly, produced in 1996 because animals who have those traits, or at through a process called Somatic Cell Nuclear least the genetic potential to develop them, can Transfer. The process used to produce Dolly was be cloned. In practice the benefits of cloning for very similar to the one used to transfer genetic agricultural animals is hindered by the fact that material between two fertilized eggs, except the procedure is currently very inefficient and that in Dolly, for the first time, the genetic very expensive. Many cloned animals fail to material came from a normal body cell from an survive to adulthood. Public acceptance of adult animal. This was transferred into an cloned animals is low, and milk and meat from unfertilized egg from which the genetic material cloned animals has yet to reach markets. had previously been removed and the egg, now containing the genetic material belonging to the Cloning does have potentially important original animal, was transplanted into a applications in conservation since it can in surrogate and encouraged to develop into a principle resurrect a species even from a single new infant. animal or from preserved DNA. While recreation of dinosaurs, as in Jurassic Park, is unlikely, in 2009 scientists made several clones of a wild mountain goat called the Bucardo, just after it became extinct. Unfortunately, none of the clones survived. Several critically endangered animals have been successfully cloned, however, and this may help keep these species from extinction. Again, though, we need to think carefully about whether we are doing this for the animals’ sake or our own. Why save a species from extinction when we cannot guarantee it a habitat, and when the genetic diversity within the species may be extremely restricted? This is Meanwhile, scientists in Italy announced in not a question we can answer here, but it should 2005 that they had cloned a champion give you something to think about. endurance horse, Pieraz. Many horse sports do not permit registration of animals produced through non-natural methods of breeding, including cloning. However, where it is permitted, it has potential to generate vast sums of money for some lucky horse owners. Pieraz, like many successful horses, was castrated when he was young and cannot reproduce naturally. Foals from his clone are likely to sell very well. His owners were likely disappointed that only one clone survived from 34 embryos implanted Another area in which cloning has some support into 12 foster mothers, but technology has is in relation to pets. In 2004 a 17-year-old vastly improved since he was first cloned. There deceased cat called Nicky was cloned. This is nothing to stop his owners from trying again. process, reportedly costing $50,000, resulted in a genetically identical kitten, called Little In 2014, scientists in London reported that they Nicky by the owners who paid for the cloning had successfully grown cells containing the DNA procedure. Possibly these people were very of a very famous racehorse called Eclipse, who wealthy and possibly they failed to read the fine was unbeaten when he raced in the late 1700s. print about cloned animals not being identical Their plan is to create a clone from the old DNA, to the animal they are cloned from. Regardless, salvaged from a whip made from Eclipse’s tail when information about Little Nicky was hair over 200 years ago. Under current rules, released to the media it created an uproar. Many this clone would not be permitted to race, but people were concerned that someone was this could change. In 2013, the owners of a spending $50,000 to replicate a cat, while cloned quarter horse won a lawsuit against the thousands of very similar and perfectly healthy American Quarter Horse Association in Texas, cats were being euthanised annually in shelters arguing that their refusal to register cloned and pounds because they were unable to find horses violated anti-monopoly laws. This homes. Legislators subsequently tried to ban opened the door for other cloned animal owners the retail sale of cloned and genetically modified to challenge laws preventing them from pets in California, but this was not successful. competing in very lucrative sports. Could we see Apparently, if you have sufficient funds you can a Melbourne Cup one day in which the field con- clone whatever pet you like. Should we also tained clones? permit this in relation to human infants? Why or why not?  researchers at Harvard Medical School produced a mouse they called ‘oncomouse’. This mouse was genetically predisposed to develop cancer, which meant that it could be used to test drugs designed to treat this horrific medical condition. Having exclusive access to the oncomouse gave the Harvard scientists an incredible advantage in doing this important research, but this raised several important legal and moral issues. First, if Harvard agreed to supply oncomice to other researchers, no doubt charging a hefty fee, then what was to stop these other researchers from replicating the mice, either by breeding them naturally or using cloning, and thereby cutting Harvard out of future profits? Did Harvard own the mutation that led to the cancer predisposition, or did it belong to whoever purchased the mice? Does it even make sense for humans to be granted patents covering animals? Can scientists own genes or animals and what does this actually mean? Second, what about the interests of the An area in which cloning is already widely used animals? Is it OK for scientists to create genetic is medical research. Scientists have learned mutations and then reproduce these through much about human diseases in the past by cloning, when they may cause significant pain studying animals which are affected by similar and suffering for the animals concerned? If diseases. If such diseases are not naturally doctors wanted to create humans with awful occurring, then it is of great value if they can be genetic conditions so that these could be produced, either chemically or through genetic studied and potentially cured, we would likely manipulation. We’ll talk about genetic think they were criminally insane. So, why is it engineering in a little while, but one of the OK for scientists to do this with mice, or rats, or drawbacks of this technique is that it is very dogs, or chimpanzees? Should there be limits to expensive and time-consuming to create an what is permitted to be done to animals in the animal, often a mouse, that carries a disease- name of medical science? producing mutation in its genes. Once such an animal exists, cloning can be used to reproduce The answers to these questions are complex and it much more rapidly and more precisely than differ according to legal and cultural contexts. any other means, allowing scientists to create an Some people argue that we have no business entire population of genetically identical animals interfering with the basic building blocks of life. for study. Others feel that anything we can do to enhance human lives is worthwhile. In the USA, Harvard This can lead to great advances in medical was eventually permitted to patent the science, but also brings with it a number of oncomouse and other genetically modified significant challenges. For example, there is animals, but with humans excluded from the great controversy over whether people or patent – preventing Harvard from patenting companies who ‘invent’ particular types of genetically modified human beings. In Europe, genetically modified mice should be permitted patenting of animal varieties was not legally to patent these as ‘new’ inventions. This issue permitted, but it was eventually decided that first attracted attention in the 1980s, when genetically modified mice are ‘not animal had been discovered, rather than an invention varieties’ so patents are possible. Interestingly, that could be patented and exploited for profit. however, while patenting of the oncomouse was permitted in Europe, a similar patent, for a mouse called the Upjohn mouse, which was genetically engineered to go bald, was rejected. The European Patent Office decided that bene- fits in terms of promoting research to cure hair loss were not substantial enough to justify exploitation of the mice, but research into curing cancer was. In Canada, meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled that higher life forms, including mice, are not patentable at all. While you might not think that this is an issue that affects you, it actually affects us all. Scientific institutions argue that they cannot jus- tify spending millions of dollars on research to create new mouse lines unless they can then patent the results and be paid by other scientists who want to use their animal products for research purposes. This seems like a valid argument, but would it also apply in agricultural and companion animal settings. If you used your knowledge of genetic selection to create a new breed of sheep, would you then own that particular genetic combination? What would this mean? Could you prosecute people who bred This sounds like a good outcome, but does it similar sheep or who purchased one of your mean that research by drug companies will sheep and had it cloned? Do the sheep have any cease and access to new drugs and treatments ownership of their own genetic material? become more difficult? Some scientists seem to think so, but others argue the opposite – that And what of the actual genes involved? In gene patents stifle research because they October 2015, the Australian High Court ruled restrict access to genetic material. So, who owns that genes cannot be patented in Australia, the genetic material that resides in animals that overturning two previous judgements that said are cloned or even artificially selected over many the opposite. This came about because over 20 generations? We can’t answer this question at years ago, a company filed patents for a gene present, but we can say that it seems not to called BRCA1, which is associated with a belong to the animals concerned? Some people heightened risk of breast and ovarian cancer in find this is a little disturbing. humans. This is the gene that convinced Angelina Jolie to opt for elective removal of her Genetic engineering breasts. The patent meant that anyone testing Techniques like artificial insemination, embryo for this gene had to pay the company a licence transfer, and cloning represent just one type of fee. In essence, consumers were charged up to biotechnology, in which we remain restricted to $3000 to find out whether they were carrying a working with the genes available within each gene that predisposed them to cancer. The High animal species. No matter how sophisticated we Court ruled that the mutation was a naturally become at breeding two sheep together or two occurring component of the human body that dogs or two chickens, or how often we clone our favourite cat, the offspring of these transferred into other animals so that their combinations are still sheep or dogs or chickens mechanisms of action can be examined, as can or cats. We might be changing how they look or drugs that potentially disrupt their function. how they act or how much wool they produce, When combined with cloning, entire populations but we are not fundamentally altering the of affected animals, all genetically identical, can biology of the species. be produced. In addition, transgenic animals can be engineered to produce all manner of important biological substances, including therapeutic drugs and antibodies. Goats, for example, have been engineered so that their milk contains a protein taken from the golden orb spider. The silk from this spider is a hundred times stronger than human ligaments, making it perfect for those who want to create a knee replacement device, build a lightweight parachute, or create a bullet-proof vest. Getting enough silk from But, scientists have also figured out how to spiders is a challenge; not only do they produce identify and isolate genes, and then how to very small amounts, but they are cannibalistic, move them from one living organism to another making them difficult to farm. – initially within a species but more recently across species. This process of genetic engineering does potentially fundamentally alter the biology of a species, or even create a new species, and it is possible because genes from all species are very similar in terms of their chemical makeup. This means that genes code for the same protein building blocks no matter which cell they are inserted into. Genes that make jellyfish glow in the dark have the same amazing effect in fish and rabbits. Genes that make some fish grow faster than others also work when they are introduced into salmon, Goats, by contrast, are able to produce vast resulting in giant salmon able to convert food quantities of the raw materials for spider silk into flesh far more effectively than wild salmon and are easy to manage due to their long history can do. Genes that confer resistance to specific of domestication. Genetically engineered goats pathogens in some animals take this are also being used to produce many other characteristic with them when they are trans- products, including antithrombin, an anti- ferred to other animals. Genes that produce clotting drug which could previously be derived antibodies against common human diseases only from human blood donations. This is an also produce these antibodies when they are amazing breakthrough if your survival depends inserted into goats and cows. on this product, but what do you think of using goats and cows for this purpose? Are they still This property means that transgenic animals, goats and cows, or are they now better animals that have been produced by genetic described as ‘transgenic animal bioreactors’? engineering, can be used to investigate problems produced by undesirable genes in Products derived from genetically engineered other species, including humans. Genes that goats and cows are saving large multi-national cause medical conditions in humans can be pharmaceutical companies a great deal of time and money. In addition, however, they could soon be helping some of the world’s most impoverished people. At the University of California, scientists have engineered goats to produce extra lysozyme in their milk. This is an anti-microbial product found at high levels in human breast milk, and important in protecting infants against many common bacteria that cause diarrhoea. Preliminary studies have shown that the enhanced goat milk has a longer shelf life and that, when fed to baby pigs, it helps them recover more quickly when they are ill. The same may be true of human infants. Importantly, the goats and their kids, for at least the five generations studied thus far, appear to show no other effects of having the extra gene inserted. Since goats already exist in many impoverished parts of the world, widespread introduction of the responsible genes could one day prevent many infant deaths caused by poor nutrition and bacterial infection. Transgenic animals also have potential to improve sustainability of current livestock farming practices. Insertion of genes that Xenotransplantation protect animals against diseases associated with intensive farming practices means that One final use of transgenic animals that you antibiotic use can be reduced, with improved should know about is in relation to outcomes for the environment. Researchers in xenotransplantation – the transplantation of Canada have developed a transgenic pig, called living cells, tissues, or organs from one species the Enviropig, which digests phosphorus much to another. Human xenotransplantation offers a more effectively than other pigs. This is potential solution for organ failure, which is a important because most pigs excrete significant cause of death in developed undigested phosphorus in their faeces, which countries where the number of people waiting contributes to an unhealthy build-up of for donated organs far exceeds the number of phosphorus in environments where pig manure donated organs available. Unfortunately, it is used as fertilizer. Reduced-phosphorus pig doesn’t yet work very well. When animal organs manure is much less harmful. Who would have are transplanted into humans they are attacked thought that transgenic pigs could be good for by the immune system and, so far, even the environment? And don’t forget that one of powerful immunosuppressant drugs have been the big advantages with transgenic animals is unable to prevent this. Recipients generally die that they reproduce themselves, complete with within a few hours or days. the new genetic material. If two Enviropigs mate, In August 2015, it was reported by Antonio the result is more Enviropigs, so it is relatively Regalado in the MIT Technology Review that a easy to spread the gene throughout entire biotechnology company founded by Martine populations. This ensures future production Rothblatt, a very rich lady whose daughter has without great cost. Perhaps one day, ALL pigs a usually fatal lung condition, had managed to will be Enviropigs. keep a pig heart alive in a baboon for 945 days and a kidney for 136 days. This was achieved by using organs from pigs that had been genetically engineered to express five human genes, designed to prevent organ rejection. The company aims to transfer more human genes in future and carry out the first successful pig to human lung transplant within a few years. Eventually, they plan to keep over 1000 transgenic pigs in their purpose-built, pathogen-free facility in Virginia, where they will also have a surgical theatre and helipad. They hope to create a virtually unlimited supply of transplantable organs, which can be flown to The US Department of Agriculture sponsors where they are needed. Should we consider research designed to identify and minimise what the pigs might think about this idea? biological risks associated with genetically engineered animals, plants, and micro- organisms, but this is not sufficient to alleviate some concerns. Don’t forget, it was less than 100 years ago that someone in authority decided it was a good idea to introduce cane toads into Australia, so caution with respect to scientific innovation is always warranted. If you are interested in a science fiction account of what the world might look like post apocalypse and post creation of some wonderfully imagined transgenic animals, check out a fantastic novel by Margaret Attwood (author of The Hand Potential benefits associated with transgenic Maid’s Tale) called Oryx and Crake. Details are animals are clearly impressive, but this process in the reference list. remains very controversial. One reason for this is that people are concerned about what might There are also serious animal welfare concerns happen if transgenic animals escape. While the associated with all genetic technologies, chances of a very placid, human-antibody- including artificial selection, cloning, and producing, dairy cow escaping into the English genetic engineering. Some of these concerns countryside to create mayhem are perhaps non- relate to the sheer number of animals used in existent, fears about escaped insects and fish researching and developing these technologies. have some merit. People fear that giant salmon Often, dozens or even hundreds of animals are could out-compete wild salmon, resulting in used before a live birth is achieved. Cloning, for extinction of the wild variety, or interbreed with example, remains high risk. Incomplete other fish to produce serious ecological reprogramming of genetic material leads to consequences. Genetically engineered insects, aberrant gene-expression and high rates of perhaps carrying a gene that makes them pregnancy loss, congenital abnormalities and resistant to insecticides, could cause significant early postnatal mortality. Few clones, perhaps environmental damage. fewer than 1%, survive to old age.  body parts (like the brain), or does it depend on the overall percentage of human cells? We cannot answer these questions at present, but we want to end this topic by pointing you towards this 20-minute presentation given by Paul Root Wolpe at a TED event in 2011. Paul is a sociologist and bioethicist, and he was the first Chief of Bioethics employed by NASA. In his talk, he reviews some of the same issues we’ve covered in this topic, but he also presents some incredible examples of newer ways in which Other concerns relate to the welfare of the animals are being engineered to help humans animals that do survive. Many decades of accomplish their goals. Be warned, some of the selectively breeding dogs resulted in a content of this presentation could blow your concentration of both good and bad genes – mind – wait until you see what they’ve done with over 200 genetic diseases have been identified. cockroaches and eels! As you watch Paul’s High milk production in dairy cows is associated presentation, think about what you would do if with poor fertility and high growth in meat you were a scientist wanting to improve the chickens is associated with gait abnormalities world through biotechnology. If you could that cause constant lameness. Not only that, but create a new breed of animal to solve a current intense selection results in a lack of genetic problem, what would it be? diversity overall, making it more difficult to fix any problems that do arise by breeding from alternative animals. Sometimes, there are no alternatives. Perhaps more difficult to address than biosecurity and animal welfare concerns are ethical concerns about where humans should draw the line with respect to meddling with the integrity of animal species. Is it OK for us to resurrect species that are extinct or to create entirely new ones that have never before existed on this planet? Do you think it is a good idea to grow replacement human organs in animals? Summary Would you feel comfortable accepting an animal In this topic we explored some of the newer organ as a transplant? If not, what would it take technologies being used to transform animals in to change your mind? What if your child or ways that may make them even more useful to romantic partner was critically ill? humans. Some people find these techniques And exactly how many human genes can we highly disturbing and maintain that humans transfer into a pig before it becomes a human? have no business interfering with animals to this Imagine that the technology advances further degree. Others argue that they are no more than we ever thought possible and scientists controversial than the techniques of artificial start developing new breeds of animals drawing selection, which humans have been employing upon human genetic material. At what point for hundreds of years. As a society, we clearly would an animal become so much like a human need to make decisions about which practices that we would have to treat it as having the are acceptable, and which are not. To make such same kinds of legal rights? Are there critical decisions we first need to familiarise ourselves with what scientists are actually doing and why, and then we need to think long and hard about If you have any spare time, we’d encourage you the issues raised. Hopefully, you have to read the Margaret Attwood novel, Oryx and completed these tasks in this topic and will now Crake, for a glimpse into an imagined future feel comfortable entering into ongoing where biotechnology has clearly overstepped community debates about genetic technologies. the limits of what is reasonable. For the more Studies have shown that the general population practical minded, another really interesting actually has very limited understanding of book is Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling Up to biotechnological advances, so we need people Biotech's Brave New Beasts, written by Emily like you to take on leadership roles. Anthes in 2013. If you don’t like reading, Emily describes her book’s contents in a one-hour video you can find here. References and supplementary resources: Anthes, E. (2013). Frankenstein's cat: Cuddling up to biotech's brave new beasts. MacMillan Publishers. Attwood, M. (2003). Oryx and Crake. McClelland and Stewart. Foote, R. H. (2002). The history of artificial insemination: selected notes and notables. Journal of Animal Science, 80, E-Suppl 2, 1-10. Niemann, H., & Kues, W. A. (2007). Transgenic farm animals: an update. Reproduction, fertility and development, 19, 762-770. Regalado, A. (2015). Surgeons smash records with pig-to-primate organ transplants. MIT Technology Review. www.technologyreview.com/news/540076/surgeons-smash-records -with-pig-to- primate-organ-transplants Van Eenennaam, A. L. (2006). What is the future of animal biotechnology? California Agriculture, 60(3), 132-139.