Genetic Engineering: A Question of Ethics

Teresa Carlson
CD 5590
tcn03002@student.mdh.se

Abstract
In todays society, genetic engineering is an
increasingly important issue.
Many genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) and the products of
other GMOs are currently used and consumed by
humans, and research is continually conducted on
ways to modify the genetic traits of organisms to better
suit human lifestyles. This raises the question of
whether altering an organisms genetic structure
solely for anthropocentric purposes is ethical. The
aim of this paper is to present the purposes and
benefits of genetic engineering, and to compare them
to the ethical arguments against it. Also, an informed
opinion will be provided on whether genetic
engineering should ethically have a place in society.

1. Introduction
The production and use of genetically modified
organisms is increasing steadily. Although there are
many potential benefits to humans from this process,
the risks have not been adequately defined.
Researchers are developing new organisms too quickly
to accurately determine the effects of this procedure.
There are many people and organizations that are
completely against genetic engineering. The reasons
for their objections, as well as the potential benefits,
are both discussed in detail.
It is important to thoroughly examine all of the
statements both in favor of and against genetic
engineering to determine whether it should have a
place in our future. It is equally important to ensure
that the public has access to this information, as they
are the ones using or consuming the modified
products.
This paper outlines the history and process of
genetic engineering, and details the potential benefits
and risks to both humans and the environment posed
by the process. A description of the ethical problems

and arguments is given, followed by an educated

opinion about genetic engineerings place in society.

2. Genetic Engineering
A gene is a specific sequence of deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA). Each gene has instructions for the
expression of specific traits, such as hair color, eye
color and height. All of the genes in an organism work
together to create the final product: a living organism
[1]. Humans have over 100,000 genes in their bodies
[13].
Genetic engineering is a relatively new technique,
involving the transfer of genes from one organism to
another.
It
is
also
described
as
the
modification of genetic material by man that would
otherwise be subject to the forces of nature only. [14]
Genetic engineering research has only been around
since 1973, when it was first discovered that genetic
material could be identified and inserted into strands
of DNA. Since then, the process has become much
more advanced and widely used [15].
Each gene is identified as being related to the
expression of a specific trait. The gene for the desired
trait is isolated, and transferred to another organism [1]
using methods such as injection by needles, or
biolistics (using a type of guns to shoot the genetic
material into the nucleus of the cell) [13]. In other
words, genetic engineering is the technique of
artificially modifying the genetic make-up of living
organisms. It is even possible to exchange genes over
natural species barriers [1]. For example, animal genes
may be inserted into plants, and vice versa.
Genetic engineering is also called gene
manipulation, DNA manipulation, gene splicing, or
transgenics [13]. Genetic engineering changes the
physical properties of organisms, and most of the
effects are not yet known [1]. One of the major
concerns in genetic engineering is to ensure that the
gene which is inserted in an organism will be passed
on from one generation to the next, so that the

procedure will not have to be undertaken on each

organism [9].

3. Uses of Genetic Engineering

There are many arguments in favor of the use of
genetic engineering in the future. Among these are the
promises that genetic engineering will feed the world
[11], produce better crops, and be altogether good for
the economy. Many different organisms are being
used in todays genetic engineering research and
development, including plants, trees, animals, insects,
bacteria and viruses. Today, even human genes are
being used in genetic engineering [2]. The number of
organisms used in genetic engineering research is
steadily increasing, as is the number of types of
animals being used in the research. Genetically
engineered organisms are being used in many different
sectors today, including agriculture, biomedical
research, and animal farming.

3.1. Agriculture and Farming Benefits

In the agricultural sector, plants and crops are
engineered to express a resistance to herbicides and
specific pests. Scientists promise that genetically
modified plants will have better texture, more flavor,
and higher nutritional value than wild varieties of the
same crops [11]. There are also plants engineered to
last longer on the shelf, appear fresher for longer, and
survive the shipping process in better condition. Better
crop yields may be achieved using genetically
modified plants, meaning that land use will become
more efficient.
Also in the agricultural sector, research is being
conducted to modify certain insects to attack the
predators of specific crops [1]. Therefore, fewer
amounts of pesticides will have to be applied to the
crops, allowing for better environmental and human
health [11].
Farm animals are modified to increase productivity
and reduce costs for farmers. Pigs are engineered to
have less fat, fish are being modified to grow larger
more rapidly [1], and other animals are being
engineered to increase productivity [9].

3.2. Biomedical Research and Human Gene

Technology
Genetic engineering is increasingly important in the
area of biomedical research. Animals are used as
locations to produce pharmaceuticals and certain
proteins which have important medicinal applications
[9]. Pigs are used for the production of organs which

can be transplanted into human bodies, a process

which is called xenotransplantation [1].
Human genes are being studied intensely to
determine which genes cause the expression of certain
diseases in the individual. If the genes can be
identified, they could potentially be removed,
eliminating the disease in the future. If the gene
cannot be removed, the disease could at least be
predicted to occur in the individual [1].

4. Risks of Genetic Engineering

Although the benefits of genetically modifying
organisms may seem vast, it is important to consider
the fact that this is a very new technique, and the risks
involved are not fully understood. The test subjects
are living organisms, capable of growing, reproducing,
migrating and interacting with other living organisms.
This means that the risks involved with genetic
engineering are inherently more dangerous and
unpredictable than experiments using chemicals.
Because of the unpredictable nature of living
organisms, once a GMO has been released into the
environment, it is impossible to recall it [6].
History has shown us that scientists are not always
accurate in their assessments of new chemicals,
substances or technologies. There have been cases in
the past where chemicals have been created, used
abundantly, and the deleterious effects have only been
recognized when an enormous amount of damage has
been done.
Take for example DDT and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Both of these products
were thought to be miracle products, which would
help humans achieve a better lifestyle. It took a long
time for scientists or researchers to realize and prove
that they were causing drastic harm to the environment
[16].
One risk associated with genetic engineering is that
it is based on the idea that each trait of an organism is
encoded in a single, specific gene, and that the transfer
of that specific gene will also cause the transfer of the
sought-after attribute. However, genes cannot be
regarded as separate entities. They are all related, and
they are all influenced by many factors including the
external environment. This means that even though a
gene may be related to a specific characteristic in one
organism, it may not produce the same trait in another
species or even in another organism of the same
species. Therefore, it is almost impossible to predict
the effect that transferring a specific gene will have on
the individual to which it is transferred [16].

4.1. Risks of Genetically Modified Plants

Plants are genetically modified to express many
different traits, including the ability to survive in harsh
living conditions, and resistance to pests and
herbicides. One major risk posed by genetically
modified plants is the inability to constrain these plants
to designated areas. Plants may migrate through the
spread of seeds or pollen by insects, birds, human
beings, animals, or environmental factors such as the
wind [1]. If these organisms enter the environment,
they may have the ability to breed with their wild
relatives, or with organisms of completely different
species. The daughter plants of the genetically
modified organisms may have the modified gene as
well, causing certain unnatural traits to be expressed
[16]. This could drastically effect the environment in a
way which may not be easily remedied.
Plants which are genetically engineered to grow in
extreme climates or with a resistance to herbicides may
become pests or weeds themselves, as there may be no
way of removing them from the environment [1]. If
the plants are resistant to herbicides, stronger
chemicals may need to be created and used against the
once-desired genetically modified plant in order to
remove them from the land [16]. These harsher
chemicals will have an even greater impact on human
and environmental health.
Plants that are modified to express resistance to
certain pests may seem beneficial to humans and the
environment, as they would ultimately reduce the
amount of pesticides that would be applied to crops.
However, if insects are continuously exposed to the
pesticide, there is a slight chance that they could
develop a resistance to it, rendering the modified crop
useless.

4.2. Risks of Genetically Modified Foods

Since the reason behind genetic engineering is
basically to improve the quality of human lives, it is
important to discuss the potential adverse affects that
genetic engineering may have on human beings.
Genetic material can enter the human body through
food, bacteria, viruses, vaccines and medications [1].
Genetically modified foods are a major topic when
discussing genetic engineering.
Most genetically modified foods have a marker
gene inserted in them along with the gene representing
the desired trait. This gene normally causes a
resistance to certain antibiotics, and is inserted as a

way of determining whether the genes were transferred

successfully.
If the genes were transferred
successfully, the organism will exhibit a new
resistance to particular antibiotics.
Problems could arise for humans who eat food with
these genes in them, particularly if they are unaware of
the presence of the genes. The antibiotic resistance
gene could reduce the effectiveness of any antibiotics
that the person happens to be taking at the time they
are eating the product. Also, if people are constantly
eating food with antibiotic resistance genes in them,
they could develop a resistance to antibiotics as well.
Although this is only a small possibility, it is a very
important effect to consider when discussing
genetically modified food [16].
There is a risk that the nutritional quality of
genetically modified food will be lower than that of
unmodified foods. For example, if a gene is inserted
into a vegetable to increase the shelf-life of the
vegetable, shoppers could be led to believe that it is
still fresh, when it may actually be past its peak. Also,
vegetables could be modified to make them look nicer,
with brighter colors or bigger sizes, perhaps fooling
the public into thinking that they are actually better
products [16]. Genetically modified food may also
have higher levels of toxins than natural food [1].
In addition to the potential problems caused by
marker genes and decreasing nutritional quality,
genetically modified organisms may cause allergies in
many people. If people are not fully aware of the
nature of the food that they are eating, they may
consume substances which are harmful to them. Even
if a person knows that he should avoid a specific
substance, he may not be aware that the insertion of a
new gene into the product has caused the expression of
a similar substance. For example, people would not
expect milk genes to be inserted into carrots. If a
person were allergic to milk, he may also be allergic to
the carrots, without realizing that it is the same
substance causing the allergic reaction [16]. For this
reason, it is important that genetically modified foods
be clearly labeled.
Another reason why clear labeling is important is
because it gives consumers the opportunity to not buy
the genetically modified food if they do not support the
technique. It gives the people a voice, because if many
people are against genetic engineering and therefore do
not buy the modified food, then perhaps the genetic
engineering companies will take a closer look at the
risks of their actions.

4.3. Risks to Biodiversity

The introduction of genetically modified plants into

the environment may have devastating effects on
biodiversity. Birds, insects, and other animals that are
dependent on certain crops for survival may find
themselves unable to eat the genetically engineered
crops due to the introduced gene or modification [1].
They may be allergic to the new traits, or find them
poisonous. Also, if they fed on the organisms which
were once pests to the crop, then they may not have a
source of food, as the pests would no longer be in the
crop. Therefore, these animals would have to find
other sources of food, or face starvation. This would
impact the entire food chain and the predator-prey
relationships [16].
The introduction of a modified organism into the
environment may cause the displacement of
indigenous fauna and flora. If the new strain is
superior to the parent strain, it may take over the
habitat or eliminate the wild strain [13]. Also, any
change in animal behavior would affect the entire food
chain as well as predator-prey relationships.

5. Ethical Debate
Genetic engineering is a controversial and
complicated subject, as there are not only concerns
about the benefits and risks to the environment and
human health, but there are also concerns about
whether it is right to genetically modify organisms in
the first place. Genetic engineering allows scientists to
disrupt the natural evolution process, by completely
changing organisms.
Is it right to assume that a few scientists can
improve on the results of billions of years of natural
evolution? [1] Genetic engineering is seen by many
people as playing God [9] or putting people in the
place of the Creator [4], as it gives to a few people the
ability to change the natural world completely. By
genetically modifying organisms, a scientist assumes
that this extremely new science is better for populating
the world than God or any other Creator, including
natural evolution and natural selection.
Religious groups may have specific reasons for
objecting to genetically engineering. For example, a
Muslim would object to pig genes being inserted into
vegetables and fruits, especially if the modified
products were not clearly labeled as containing pig
genes [11]. Vegetarians would surely object to animal
genes being inserted in fruits and vegetables, as they
could no longer eat those products if they felt strongly
about not eating meat [11].
Humans are modifying the world in a way which
would never happen naturally. In addition to the

above issues, there are concerns about violating animal

and human rights, and also about whether genetic
engineering is much different from the very old
practice of selective breeding.

5.1. Environmental Ethics

Traditional ethics is concerned with the interactions
of human beings and societies, and is completely
anthropocentric in thought.
Over time, ethics
gradually evolved to include such things as womens
rights, childrens rights, and the rights of other
minority groups. Until recently, there has been little
concern over how the environment is treated. The
environment was seen largely as a resource that was
meant for human domination and use. However, a
new field of study has emerged, which attempts to
bring attention to the question, Who speaks for the
biosphere? [3] This assumes that the environment has
intrinsic value, above and in addition to other values
which society places on it.
Environmental ethics is concerned with responsible
personal conduct towards the environment, natural
landscapes, natural resources, and all species and nonhuman organisms [5]. It looks at such matters as
animal rights, resource use, over-consumption, and
pollution versus profit. Environmental ethics is now
being used in many parts of project planning, and
many companies now take full, or partial,
consideration of the effects of their products on the
environment.
The environment, plants and animals have many
values to human beings. The most recognized value is
the commercial value, meaning that if a profit can be
gained from something, then it has value. However,
environmental ethics requires us to think about the
intrinsic value or inherent worth of nature [7]. This
means that the environment and all living organisms
should be treated with respect, regardless of their
direct value to humans.
It is important to keep environmental ethics in mind
when discussing genetic engineering, as many of the
arguments against genetic engineering have to do with
whether it is right to modify organisms and the
natural environment.
Codes of environmental ethics are fairly new
concepts. However, they are being developed by
companies and organizations that wish to place the
environment at the top of their priorities. Many
companies may use this simply as a way to gain
customer support, or to get an edge over their
competitors. However, even if that is the reason they
are protecting the environment in their everyday
business, it is still a step in the right direction.

One environmental ethics code is the Canadian

Environment Networks Code of Environmental Ethics
and Conduct. This code outlines certain ways in which
companies must act towards the environment, and how
the possible impacts on the environment should be
considered in all actions and decisions.

5.2. The Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle states that no activity
should be undertaken until it is certain that no
detrimental effects will come as a result of that activity
[8]. The precautionary principle can be applied to
many different situations in many different
professions, including genetic engineering.
By genetically modifying organisms, scientists are
introducing an irreversible change into the natural
environment. This change could potentially have
drastic and far-reaching consequences, which could
forever change the natural processes of nature. These
changes could also impact the environment for many
years to come. However, most of the effects are
unknown, and many researchers and companies are
proceeding too quickly to fully understand the
implications of their actions. These researchers are
short-sighted, and have only the short-term benefits in
mind, the most important of which being financial
profit.
The precautionary principle should be employed
when conducting genetic engineering. This would
prevent future disasters, and ensure that development
does not proceed too fast to recognize the risks.
The precautionary principle could be interpreted to
mean that further research into genetic engineering
should proceed with extreme caution. Genetically
modified organisms should be created in closed
laboratories, where the organisms would be isolated.
In this way, it could be assured that the new organisms
would not pollute the natural environment or
negatively impact native species. Also, tests should be
continually conducted on the GMOs to ensure that no
effects have been overlooked. Negative impacts could
take a long time to be noticed, so the GMOs should be
continuously and closely monitored. Only after it is
proven that there are no harmful affects associated
with the GMO should it be released for sale or human
consumption.

5.3. Animal and Human Rights

The Canadian Environment Networks Code of
Environmental Ethics and Conduct states, Every life
form is unique, and has intrinsic value regardless of

any perceived value that it may have for humans [10].

This means that animals and plants are significant in
themselves and should be treated as ends in
themselves, rather than simply a means to a human end
[9].
Many groups have objections to the use of animals
in scientific testing. They recognize that animals have
interests, and that these interests should not be
violated. One argument for why animals have interests
is because they have the ability to suffer [3].
However, other groups believe that animals do not
have any rights at all. Still others agree that animals
do have rights, but wonder if animal rights should be
protected at the expense of human rights [9]. For
example, Immanuel Kant thought that animals lack
moral standing because they are not rational. This
means that they are not able to see what is right, and
try to act in that correct manner [3]. They are not able
to change their actions to do what is considered to be
good or morally acceptable. Instead, they may either
follow their instincts, or repeat the same behavior that
has been learned by their species for many generations.
Using animals in genetic engineering demeans
them as creatures, as they are treated merely as
commodities [9]. Inserting genes into animals and
causing unpredictable effects can be stressful, and in
some cases lethal, to the animals. Experimenting with
deleting genes, gene mutations or defective genes may
cause drastic physiological and behavioral changes [9],
which would be very traumatic to the organisms.
Also, even if the desired trait is expressed in the new
organism, the result may not be the intended one.
Many people are concerned that genetic
engineering violates human rights. One reason given
is that the well-being of humans is directly related to
the health of the environment. Therefore, it follows
that even with an anthropocentric world view it is in
our best interest to protect nature and all living
organisms [16]. If the environment is healthy and
diverse, then human beings will not suffer sicknesses
from such things as pollution.
Also, if the
environment is treated in a highly respectful manner
and resources are used sustainably, then those
resources will be around for years to come, benefiting
the whole society.
Since we are not completely aware of the effects of
modifying living organisms, is it right to burden future
generations with the potential adverse effects of
genetic engineering?
Once these organisms are
introduced into the environment, there is no way to
remove them, nor is there a way to predict the impacts
that they will have for years to come. Therefore, the
problems caused by genetically modified organisms
will be the problems of many generations to come [2].

It is not right to impose this kind of stress on future

generations. It is also not right to think that as long as
we are seeing the benefits from genetic engineering
now, that the potential effects in the future are of no
concern.

than selective breeding, and it has much more

unpredictable results. Whereas selective breeding
builds on the results of previous experiments and may
take several generations to complete, genetic
engineering produces a radical change in one sudden
step [9].

5.4. Natural Evolution

5.6. Patenting Living Organisms
The most ethical question about genetic
engineering is whether it is ethically right to make
drastic and sudden changes to an environment which
has evolved over billions of years to become what it is
today. Organisms have evolved through processes
such as natural evolution and natural selection, to
become perfectly suited for the constantly changing
environmental conditions. The conditions to which the
organisms must adapt include temperature, sunlight,
moisture and precipitation.
By changing the genetic make up of plants and
animals, scientists are assuming that they can improve
upon billions of years of gradual and natural evolution.
This is a very simple and uneducated way of thinking.
There is a reason why certain organisms have certain
characteristics, and are lacking other traits.
Many religious people see genetic engineering as
playing God, as it is essentially performing His duties
[9]. It is saying that people are more able to create and
change life than the ultimate creator, and have more
knowledge about how an organism should be than God
Himself has.

The creation of new or modified organisms

eventually led to the patenting of these organisms. In
1971, the government of the United States of America
issued its first patent on a genetically modified
organism. A certain type of bacteria was genetically
engineered to help clean up oil spills [1]. While this
organism may benefit both humans and the
environment, it raises the question of whether it is right
for animals and plants to be patented. Is it right to
define ownership over a specific species? Does this
not violate an organisms rights? Since then, more and
more organisms have been patented.
Patenting an organism requires an organism to be
invented [12]. The creator or inventor of that organism
should have a duty to society to ensure that it will not
cause any harm to the environment or to human health.
If the creator does not own the patent to the organism,
then the patent owner should have responsibility over
the risks of that organism. The inventor or patent
owner should be held accountable for any harmful
effects of his GMO.

5.5. Traditional Breeding

5.7. Duty of Scientists and Researchers

Many scientists argue that genetic engineering is no

different from the older, widely used process of
selective breeding.
Selective breeding involves
breeding individuals with specific traits over many
generations to create a strain of organisms in which
that specific trait will always be expressed. These
people claim that if selective breeding is allowed, then
genetic engineering should be allowed as well. They
would question why this is where the line has been
drawn, and why selective breeding is not also
forbidden.
Selective breeding interferes with natural selection,
but uses natural processes to do so [1]. There is no
mixing between completely unrelated species, and the
natural reproduction barriers are not crossed. While it
is highly controlled, the processes involved are all
natural. For example, plants cannot be naturally bred
with animals.
Genetic engineering, however, has no respect for
those natural barriers. It is a much more rapid process

Scientists and researchers have many professional

duties, as well as duties to other human beings. Many
times, these duties may be conflicting, and it is up to
the individual to decide which is the right choice. It is
for this reason that the question of duties leads to some
complicated discussions.
In their professions, researchers may have a duty to
their employers, or to the cause for which they are
researching. This may mean that they recognize the
duty to continue their research, even if humans or
animals may potentially be harmed in the process.
However, a conflicting duty would be that to humans.
Researchers would have the duty to protect human
health, and to not undergo any processes that could
place it in any danger.
From all of the risks outlined in the above sections
of this report, it is clear that there is the potential for
human health to suffer with the introduction of genetic
engineering and GMOs. Therefore, it would seem as
though by continuing with their work, scientists

involved in genetic engineering may be going against

their duty to society. On the other hand, there are
many potential benefits from genetic engineering,
including new cures for diseases. Therefore, the
scientists would have a duty to society to pursue those
possibilities.

5.8. Egoism
Ethical egoism is the belief that selfishness is a
virtue, as each person is best suited to know his owns
needs and interests. This means that each person
should act in such a way that would benefit only
himself, with no regard for the greater good or for
society as a whole.
When discussing genetic engineering, it is obvious
that many researchers are practicing this technique in a
very egoistic manner. While some companies or
individuals may have enormous concern for the
welfare of the environment and human health, others
are genetically modifying organisms without thought
of the possible consequences. These companies or
individuals are thinking only of the benefits to
themselves. Many will make a lot of money from their
products, and may also achieve fame.

5.9. Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism means that all actions should be good
for all of humanity, and that morality drives people to
act in such a way as to improve the world. Personal
interests must be bypassed so that all actions and
motives benefit society as a whole.
There are two sides to utilitarianism when
discussing genetic engineering. First, the risks posed
to human health and to the environment by genetic
engineering are great enough to say that it would
benefit society as a whole to completely stop all
research into the field. Society would be better if new
diseases were not created, or if the environments
natural processes were not disrupted in an irreversible
manner. Furthermore, the potential changes could
affect generations to come, and this is not fair to the
future of humanity.
The second side to utilitarianism is that which says
that the potential benefits from genetic engineering are
great, and that research should continue.
By
continuing with genetic engineering research, cures for
diseases could be found, prevention measures could be
determined, and human health could actually improve.
This means that society as a whole would benefit from
ongoing research into genetic engineering. However,

this manner of thinking is clearly solely

anthropocentric.
To achieve a balance between the two sides of this
argument, one could suggest that research continue,
but under stringent and strongly enforced guidelines.
This could mean following the precautionary principle.
Ethical principles and guidelines should be written
and strictly adhered to. This could mean that any
genetically modified organisms must be grown or
cultivated in a closed lab, where there is no possibility
of escape into the natural environment. Also, GMOs
should not be used, consumed or sold before it is
absolutely sure that there will be no harm to human
health. The one problem with this solution to what
would constitute as utilitarianism is that this is also
clearly an anthropocentric point of view.

6. Conclusion
While the benefits of genetic engineering may be
far-reaching, the impacts are not entirely known.
When genetically modified organisms are released into
the environment, they cannot be removed, and it may
take decades or centuries to fully realize the
consequences. The impacts will affect the entire
world, not only those people who create and release
the organisms. Some people are so eager to proceed
quickly and develop new potentially beneficial GMOs
that they do not stop to fully consider the impacts of
their decisions. Researchers are too blinded by the
opportunity for wealth that they cannot see the
potential disastrous effects.
Ethically, it is very wrong to proceed with genetic
engineering. All of the above arguments have shown
that it is not right for humans to change the world in an
irreversible and radical manner.
While it does not seem wise to proceed with
genetic engineering, it is not reasonable to believe that
all genetic engineering research with halt. Therefore,
if research is to continue in the future, strict guidelines
should be created and adhered to. There must be better
risk assessments done for the potential impacts of the
modifications, adequate testing, and reporting on the
actual impacts or outcomes of the modifications.
The public must become informed about the risks
and benefits of genetic engineering, in order to make
informed decisions about whether of not to use
modified products [1]. Furthermore, it is essential that
all genetically modified foods be labeled clearly with
what genes have been added.
Several questions remain to be answered about
genetic engineering. What percentage of human genes
must an organism have before it too is considered

human? Does the presence of human genes in an

organism change its ethical status? If human genes are
inserted in plants and animals for human consumption,
does this mean that humans would become cannibals?
In conclusion, genetic engineering research should
proceed slowly, and only by following codes of
environmental and professional ethics.
The
precautionary principle should be employed, and
genetically modified organisms should not be
produced, sold, or consumed until the effects are
completely known.

7. References
[1] Epstein, R. Redesigning the World Ethical Questions
About Genetic Engineering. Vajra Bodhi Sea: A Monthly
Journal of Orthodox Buddhism. Vol 32 (76): 34-39. 2001.
<http://online.sfsu.edu/%7Erone/GEessays/Redesigning.htm
>
[2] Epstein, R. Ethical Dangers of Genetic Engineering.
Synthesis
and
Regeneration,
Issue
20,
1999.
<http://www.greens.org/s-r/20/20-01.html>
[3] Fox, K., McAvoy, L. Environmental Ethics: Strengths
and Dualisms of Six Dominant Themes.
< http://www.fw.umn.edu/NRES3011/FoxMcAvoy.html>
[4] Lassen, J., Madsen, K.H., Sandoe, P. Ethics and genetic
engineering Lessons to be learned from GM foods.
Bioprocesses and Biosystems Engineering. Vol 24 (5): 263271, 2002. <http://www.springerlink.com>
[5] Partridge, E. Environmental Ethics: An Introduction.
1980. http://gadfly.igc.org/e-ethics/Intro-ee.htm
[6] Rifkin, J. Playing Ecological Roulette with Mother
Natures Designs. The Trouble with Meat, Vol 9 (3). 1998.
<http://www.emagazine.com/mayjune_1998/0598feat2.html>
[7] Taylor, P. Are Humans Superior to Animals and
Plants?
<http://www.fw.umn.edu/NRES3011/discussion.html>
[8] Tickner, J., Raffensperger, C. The Precautionary
Principle in Action: A Handbook.
Science and
Environmental Health Network. <http://www.biotech-

info.net/handbook.pdf>
[9] Boyd Group. Genetic engineering: Animal welfare and
ethics.
1999.
<http://www.boydgroup.demon.co.uk/genmod.htm>
[10] Canadian
Environmental

Environment Network.
Ethics.

Code of
1994.

<http://www.royalroads.ca/ste/research/gender/Env_Code.ht
ml>
[11] Church of Scotland. Genetically Modified Food: Pros
and Cons. Society, Religion and Technology Project. 1999.
<http://www.srtp.org.uk/gmfood1.htm>
[12] Church of Scotland. Patenting Life? - An Introduction
to the Issues. Society, Religion and Technology Project.
1996. < http://www.srtp.org.uk/scsunpat.shtml>
[13] New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
Issues and Ethics Surrounding Genetic Engineering of
Foods.
<http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/schools/activities/johngmf
.htm>
[14] Online Biology Dictionary.
online.org/dictionary.asp>

<http://www.biology-

[15] ThinkQuest. DNA: Heredity and Beyond - History of

Genetic Engineering. <http://library.thinkquest.org>
[16] Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment (VOICE)
website, Ethics and Genetic Engineering - A Response to
the Department of the Environment's Consultation Paper.
<http://www.voice.buz.org/genetic_engineering/ethicsandge.
html>