Yes, Sire!
A species for us or a species for all?
For decades, the ability to genetically modify organisms has roused ethical debate. Yet scrutiny over these debates reveals a worrying trend; more people are supporting a pro-GMO stance on the grounds of solving sustainability issues, before considering whether more ethical and sustainable alternatives exist.
Recently in the world of GM, scientists have managed to create “surrogate sires” (Ciccarrelli et al., 2020, p.1). These are sterilised male animals who act as vessels for the production of sperm donated to them from another male carrying a desired trait.
The technique involves using CRISPR-Cas9 technology - a game-changing gene editing tool that can knock out the male fertility gene in sires and make them sterile. Sperm-producing stem cells can then be transplanted into surrogate sires, enabling them to carry traits from the donor.
Male mice, pigs, goats and cattle have all been subject to the technology, but so far only surrogate mice have successfully fathered healthy offspring.
Figure 1, Schematic diagram demonstrating how surrogate sires could be used to produce offspring carrying a desired trait. Sperm-producing stem cells known as spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) are taken from a donor male and cultured. Gene editing results in the recipient being unable to produce sperm carrying its own traits. However, after the recipient undergoes SSC transplantation from the donor, it is able to produce sperm carrying the traits of the original donor. This surrogate is then allowed to reproduce naturally. In turn, offspring are produced that carry genetic traits from the donor rather than the surrogate (Gottardo et al., 2019, p. 204).
For millennia, farmers have manipulated breeding in their flocks in order to produce the best, strongest and most productive flocks. Yet with the prospect of transplanting donor sperm into multiple of surrogates, this technology could be used to produce generations of genetically related offspring over and over again. Depending on the desired traits, this could result in herds of offspring that are capable of surviving off less water, less food and fewer antibiotics. CRISPR-Cas9 technology is therefore being hailed as a tool for tackling food insecurity and climate change, as well as species extinction.
Though I ask in the face of such technology, what right do we have to genetically engineer other beings?
To answer this question, we delve into the sticky realm of ethics. For me, this is a fascinating world, and I am constantly learning from the multitude of ethical principles that different people live by. At the moment, I derive mine from the premise that neither I, nor any other person, can know anything with certainty. In order to navigate life, I therefore look for answers in the wider world. How does Gaia sustain herself, and what role do I play within her?
From a broad perspective, one sees the world as an entity comprised of many parts. These parts are interconnected and interact with each other to support the whole Earth system; Gaia. We, including but not limited to, animals, plants and rocks, make up these parts and are all linked by the fundamental particles we share. In order to sustain ourselves, we must sustain Gaia. Thus, the ethical principle we begin from is;
We all have a role to play in the world, and we fulfil this role simply by being and existing as we are. You are entitled to your space, and one day, when the time comes for you to depart, someone else will take your place. On a similar note, the second principle we can take from the world is that;
2. All beings have an equal right and need to be.
All things, be they sentient or non-sentient, animate or inanimate, have a role to play in the world. Plants will photosynthesise, bodies will decompose and rock forms will lock away carbon for centuries before releasing their nutrients back into seas and soils. We wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for these processes, and neither would they be sustained without animals like us. There is therefore a fundamental equality between all things. All humans have a basic right to environmental security, as does every other entity on Earth, and this should be respected in every action we do. This builds into two further principles. Firstly;
3. We must act within a sustainable means to thrive.
You have a right to be here, but so do other beings ranging from animals to plants to water bodies. So, how are we supposed to eat, drink, live and interact with other beings if they also hold this right? It is a tricky one, but if we look to Gaia and take an ecosystem perspective, we see that we must strive to make choices that cause the least amount of harm. We can exploit, but not over-exploit. We can evolve a niche for ourselves, but not abuse it. Any action we do should not come to the detriment of Gaia.
So what does this mean in practice? I am still unsure whether the 'least amount of harm' refers to a matter of severity or the number of beings harmed. Is it worse to cause one animal a lot of pain or spread a little pain among many? Yet putting this debate to one side, we know that a vegan diet is not only the most sustainable, but it is possible for all humans to thrive off. What’s more is that, when coupled with reductions in food waste and more sustainable farming practices, our food systems could sustainably feed up to 10 billion people (University of Oxford, 2018). This means that it is possible for all humans to live with food security without degrading our life-support systems. There is hope yet!
When considered in tandem with the fact that all beings have an equal right to be, we realise not only is there no need to genetically modify other animals for human use, but it would be morally wrong to do so. Out of respect for all beings, we should always seek to minimise our impact, and this involves consuming products as low down in the food chain as possible. The fewer the steps in the food chain, the smaller the harm in both severity and number. Beings will be harmed, yes, unfortunately that is how the world works. Though the least we can do is show respect by acting as sustainably as possible. We must not kill without justification, and only do actions that support our own health and wellbeing. And so, morality tells us that we must try not to waste food, strive for a plant-based diet and we need to halt deforestation, which you can read more about here.
Meanwhile, it is important to recognise that food carries a cultural significance. Whilst veganism is great in principle, we should also be respectful of many communities who revolve around non-vegan lifestyles such as nomadic peoples and fishing communities in the Global South. In many ways, their low-input, traditional forms of food production are sustainable and founded on histories of providing essential nutrients, bringing people together and respecting what nature provides. Whilst each community is unique and deserves much more understanding than I have offered in this brief summary, this only acts to further the fact that we must respect each other's practices. For many in the West, veganism is the most sustainable option available. However as someone living in the West, I must be careful not to assume and push my own values and experiences onto other communities. Colonial histories remind us just how problematic this can be. Rather, we can all be open to learning, listening, and collaborating, whilst doing everything in our own means to reduce our own impact. And maybe, just maybe, we can inspire each other to do the same.
But what about genetic engineering? If a variety of GM crop is developed that requires fewer resources, wouldn't its production be the most sustainable and ethical? This brings us on to our final principle;
4. We do not know everything.
We are just one node in this giant web of beings upholding Gaia. Who gave us the right to manipulate others? We have no special place, nor any way of knowing the difference between right and wrong with certainty. I mean, that’s why we debate about these things, isn’t it? Humans just can’t comprehend objective truths. I say a vegan diet is the most sustainable, but at the end of the day, a paper could come out tomorrow and reveal that tofu has a dirty secret.
When trying to be as ethical as possible, all we can do is our best. And when the stakes are so high with something like genetic engineering, I think it is best to edge on the side of caution. And what about the respect we owe every being? We do not have the right to change their nature, just as I have no right to change yours. Out of respect for ourselves and this beautiful world we are a part of, let’s leave this messy masterpiece to be.
By Hannah Micuta.
Bibliography:
Briggs, H. 2020. Gene editing to produce 'super dad' livestock. The Guardian. [Online]. 15 September. [Accessed 25 September 2020]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54155152?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment&link_location=live-reporting-story
Ciccarelli, M., Giassetti, M.I., Miao, D., Oatley, M. J., Robbins, C., Lopez-Biladeau, B., Waqas, M.S., Tibary, A., Whitelaw, B., Lillico, S., Park, C., Park, K., Telugu, B., Fan, Z., Liu, Y., Regouski, M., Polejaeva, I.A., Oatley J.M. 2020. Donor-derived spermatogenesis following stem cell transplantation in sterile NANOS2 knockout males. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [no volume number]([no issue number]), p.1-10.
Gottardo, P., Gorjanc, G., Battagin, M., Gaynor, C.R., Jenko, J., Ros-Freixedes, R., Whitelaw, C.B.A, Mileham, A.J., Herring, W.O., Hickey, J.M. 2019. Schematic depicting the possible application of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation methodology in pig production. [Diagram]. In: A Strategy To Exploit Surrogate Sire Technology in Livestock Breeding Programs. G3: GENES, GENOMES, GENETICS. 9(1), p.204.
Grover, N. 2020. 'Surrogate sires' could create specially bred livestock, say scientists. The Guardian. [Online]. 14 September. [Accessed 25 September 2020]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/sep/14/surrogate-sires-could-create-specially-bred-livestock-say-scientists
Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D'Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B.l., Lassaletta, L., Vries, W.d., Vermeulen, S.J., Herrero, M., Carlson, K.M., Jonell, M., Troell, M., DeClerck, F., Gordon, L.J., Zurayk, R., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., Loken, B., Fanzo, J., Godfray, C.J., Tilman, D., Rockström J., Willett W. 2018. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature. 562(no issue), 519–525.
University of Oxford. 2018. Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable. [Online]. [Accessed 25 September 2020]. Available from: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-10-11-feeding-10-billion-people-2050-within-planetary-limits-may-be-achievable
Comments
Post a Comment