Can it be all that bad ? Ask the animals !
By Dr.Claude Pasquini
IVU News - August 1999
I offer you a few reflections on genetic engineering as it relates to the
"animal rights"- issue and our "World-Wide Millennium Pledge".
There is, of course, so much more to say about it, but I would like our readers
to tackle the topic in "Letters to the Editor" that we could eventually
publish and discuss on a scientific platform. - Dr. Claude Pasquini
In an E-mail to the IVU, the vegetarian and near-vegan VUNA/IVU-member Dr. Emanuel
Goldman, professor of Microbiology & Molecular Genetics, urges the promoters
of "The World-Wide Millennium Pledge" to delete the entire sentence
about genetic manipulation. The sentence he objects to reads: "We oppose
the introduction of animal genes into human beings and the genetic manipulation
of animals and plants". And indeed the mere fact that he so writes, "genes
obtained from animals can be genetically manipulated and by recombinant DNA-technology
expressed in bacteria, yeast, or plants" offers us what he calls "the
most realistic opportunity yet" to free humanity from having to kill or
exploit animals.
Thanks to DNA-recombination, we are able to obtain products from animals that
are beneficial to us and to them, including for example, genetically engineered
insulin, thyroid hormone or rennet, the latter being hailed by many vegetarians
as a significant step towards saving millions of calves that otherwise would
have to be killed just for the cheese producing industry.
From a vegan point of view, that sort of DNA-technology still exploits animals,
yet it also bears the potential to correct human and animal ailments without
ever having to rely again on the animal world for its raw material, the genes.
Genetically manipulating plants to make them more pesticide-resistant is definitely
not an ecologically meaningful way to produce healthy food. But genetically
interfering with our food to enhance their nutritional value without endangering
our health and to reduce or eliminate the dependence on pesticides and fertilizers
may very well be acceptable.
DNA-technology doesn't have to serve the vested interests of big agro-business;
it doesn't have to be an applied science for science's sake either, nor should
it be espoused just because it can be. It definitively shouldn't be a playground
for Frankenstein characters out to produce and use transgenic animals, all the
while disregarding the enormous risks of xenotransplantations from any species
to another, be it a part of the animal or plant kingdom or of the world of the
bacteria. DNA-technology could very well be, however, a means to prevent soil
depletion, to protect drinking water resources, to help fight world hunger and
to save open space for the benefit of humanity and wildlife.
Of course, the fears and apprehensions about genetic manipulation are justified.
And we must be extremely cautious about what we are doing and about who is doing
it for what purpose. After all, we are tinkering with evolutionary processes
prone to do foolish things with the building stones of life. Let us remember
that we have been dabbling in some sort of genetic manipulation all throughout
our agricultural history. If genetic engineering is here to stay, we might be
better off making sure that more and more members of the scientific community
will be of the Goldman-type, which is to say, realistically, ethically and ecologically
conscious vegetarian, near-vegan, and even better vegans.
The well-argued and very readable statement by Dr. Goldman can be found in the
IVU-ON-LINE NEWS, Number 3, February 1999.
Letters to Dr. Claude Pasquini concerning the above topic or Vegetarianism and
Science are most welcome.
Contact: devegabond@hotmail.com