The Ethics Behind Transgenic Art



 
 
 

Case
Professional Issues
Legal/ Policy Issues
Ethical Issues
Stakeholders
Possible Actions
Consequences
Individual Rights/Fairness
Common Good
Final & Actual Decision


 

Assuming that Alba was created only for the sake of Art - Is this ethical?

First of all, we must keep in mind that Kac's Art is not just the rabbit, but also, the public's response and the social integration of the rabbit.  As quoted from the Washington Post

He wanted to use her living being as a canvas, if you will, to generate debate about the future of genetic engineering.

So basically, this is the Case:
Is it ethical for a man to genetically manipulate a creature for the sake of art even if he wants to generate awareness on the subject of genetics?


 
Professional Issues?
(Issues affecting professionals involved)

Manipulating a creatures genes for a price.

Should a people be allowed to experiment on animals for whatever purpose (which has to be legal of course) as long as the price is right?
Who is responsible for the animal when it leaves the lab?

Are the scientist who created the transgenic creature still responsible for the animals well being?  What happens if the animal escapes from the new owner?  What are the consequences of having such an animal free?  What's to say the new owner isn't a very rich game hunter and let's the animal go, only to hunt it down for sport? - This is legal in certain areas, and with certain animals (including rabbits).  Having a transgenic animal as art is not so different as having one for sport.

 
Legal / Policy Issues?
(Basically, is it legal?)

Creating a Transgenic animal is perfectly LEGAL.

In research many animals are genetically altered.  With the specific case of GFP, many such animals are tested on.  For example, GFP is used in medicine to, if you will, "tag" certain genes or proteins.  (For more info. see the "Glowing Mice" section from the ABCNEWS.com's article on Alba or Jellyfish Protein Helps Track Costly Poultry Virus)
Should it be legal, though, for gene manipulation for non-scientific reasons? 

Art is clearly not a scientific reason and neither for that matter is sport.  Should these options be legal? 
Then again, why should it be illegal when no one is being violated and animals such as rabbits aren't on the endangered species list?  Since rabbits are abundant, do they need our protection from such experimentations?

 
Ethical Issues?
(Basically, is it ethical / "good"?)
  Rights of Alba or the transgenic creature in general
What rights does the animal have.  As far as can be seen, GFP doesn't hurt the animal, but this isn't known for sure.  The animal could in fact be suffering everytime it glows.
Is it ethical for individuals (or groups for that matter) to spend money on such experimentation which has no clear-cut benefit to society as opposed to spending it on something that would clearly benefit society.
Then again, a person has individual rights.  They may spend their money so far as they see fit without breaking any laws.  Buying a "glow under certain conditions" bunny is not against the law.

 
Stakeholders?
(Whoever is affected by a decision made for this case)

1.     Scientists.
There jobs depend on keeping GFP research open.  Also their responsibilities may be affected, since they might become the persons to decide whether or not to create these animals for buyers, and perhaps even being responsible for the animals well-being after sale.

2.     Artists.
Transgenic art along with several other art-technological inovations can be described as another part of progress.  Just as art once was "paintings" on a cave wall, as we have progressed so has art - to canvas and even now to the computer.  Should artists be denied the other step?

3.     Animals
They are the ones being experimented on.  What are their rights?  Can it be determined that these experiments definately do not inflict pain on the creatures?   Will this interspecie mix cause hybrid rabbit diseases (or for whichever animal is used)?  If one of these animals escapes and roams free, what are the consequences on  normal ones of its kind that it comes in contact with.  Can the transgenic animal breed with it and produce more transgenic animals that are perhaps aberrant in some other way as well.

4.     Everyone
What are the implications of transgenic art being "O.K."?  Allowing gene manipulations for such non-scientific purposes may result in glow-in-the-dark hair mousse, ink, cake frosting, beer and champagne.  Not likely you may say?  Well these products are actually already being developed (see the "Neon Beer?" section of ABCNews.com's article on Alba).  These examples, however, do not actually involve greening a living thing, and so are far more viable.  Other possible outcomes, however, do include having GFP pets, or considering our genes can be manipulated as well, why not GFP children, or just plain "designer" children for that matter.  ("Designer" children refers to manipulating genes to specify wanted attributes  such as blue eyes, black hair, brown skin, intelligence and so forth).
On the other hand, new types of creatures are always being "born" naturally, so why is it so wrong for humans to play a part in this process?  Besides this, as Kac argues (the "From Domestication To Selective Breeding" section on Kac's Home Page), humans have had a hand in the breeding of rabbits and other animals not to mention agriculture as well for a long time.  Is it so wrong to have a glow-green pet black cat?  (It would be really cool for Holloween.)


 
Possible Actions?
(Possible Choices that could be made for the case)

     Allow Transgenic Art

As far as can be seen, the rabbit is not being harmed, or any other GFP animal.  This could just be a part of progress in art.  Humans have helped to determine rabbit's and other creatures's breeding.

     Ban Transgenic Art

The possible consequences remain unknown - such as new diseases, and new transgenic cross-breeds (in the case of one getting free and mating).  Even if creating transenic animals does not hurt the animal, it's a waste of time and money if there is no benefit to society.

 
Consequences?
(Which possible action produces the most good and the least harm)

     Ban Transgenic Art

Artists have other mediums that they can use to get their message across to the world.  It's not vital that they use transgenic art, and so they won't be affected too horribly by this consequence.
This cuts down the possibility of some of the more questioned aspects of gene manipulation - new diseases, new animals.

 
 
Individual Rights/Fairness
(Which possible action best respects the rights of all stakeholders)

     Allow Transgenic Art

Transgenic art will be created at the discretion of the scientists.  The artist has the right to express himself as his bank book sees fit so long as he can find a scientist willing to creates the "artwork" for him and that he uses no animal on the endangered species list.

 
 
Common Good
(Which possible action advances personal/company/social values/virtues)

     Ban Transgenic Art

It advances the values of not abusing animals or wasting money for frivolous reasons such as novelty.  Also proliferates the idea of not playing around with scientific techniques when the consequences are unknown and could very well be detrimental.

 
 
Final Decision
(author's ethical desicion after weighing possibilities, i.e, my decision)

     Ban Transgenic Art

Actual Outcome
(What actually happened)
 

The idea of banning or allowing transgenic art was never broached, but the French scientists, however, did not give Alba to Kac.  Kac has since been rallying for support on his web page and trying to gain custody of Alba.
Back