Re-interpreting some common objections to three transgenic applications: GM foods, xenotransplantation and germ line gene modification (GLGM).
Concerns about safety to the individual, the wider community and the potential impact on the environment are typical consequentialist objections to transgenesis that feature prominently in public debates about its ethical acceptability. I consider some of these claims with respect to their motivation, validity and their overall influence on public policy using three well-discussed applications of transgenesis: GM foods, xenotransplantation and germ line gene modification (GLGM).
Carter
Lucy
L
Office of Public Policy and Ethics, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Australia. l.carter@imb.uq.edu.au
D000818:Animals; D030801:Animals, Genetically Modified; D030841:Food, Genetically Modified; D005818:Genetic Engineering / Q000941:ethics*; D015316:Genetic Therapy; D005854:Germ Cells; D006801:Humans; D030821:Plants, Genetically Modified; D011639:Public Opinion; D011640:Public Policy; D014183:Transplantation, Heterologous / Q000941:ethics / Q000379:methods*