PART II
12. FAWC has accepted the general principles from the Banner Committee that some harms should expressly not be done to animals and some harms, while allowable, require justification. This justification is usually expressed in terms of balancing the degree of harm done to the animals against the benefits either to animals or to humans which might result. Whilst the Committee was probably considering unacceptably painful or distressing procedures in the category that should expressly not be done, we took the view that this can also embrace other procedures which are intrinsically objectionable.
13. A procedure may be considered intrinsically objectionable for any one of the following reasons:
a) if it inflicts very severe or lasting pain on the animals
concerned;
b) if it involves an unacceptable violation of the integrity of a
living being;
c) if it is associated with the mixing of kinds of animals to an
extent which is unacceptable;
d) if it generates living beings whose sentience has been reduced
to the extent they may be considered to be mere instruments or
artefacts.
14. In considering these points our view, shared by the majority of respondents to our consultation exercise, was that animals were certainly deserving of respect as individuals as well as types and that they should not just be the means to humankind's ends. Furthermore, we shared with many of our respondents the concern that an attitude may be developing which condones the moulding of animals to humankind's uses, irrespective of their own nature and welfare. If "instrumentalisation of human beings", condemned in a recent Royal Society Report, is questionable, so may be the instrumentalisation of other creatures. It is not clear that a radical distinction between human and non-human is now defensible, either biologically or ethically, nor that any such disjunction is sufficient to warrant the treatment of other living creatures merely as means. We owe respect to other animals, and especially to those which we choose to domesticate.
15. The production of clones by nuclear transfer is intrinsically no different from the induction of twinning which has been applied in agriculture for many years. However, twins are not genetically identical clones unless they are derived from one split embryo. The difference is quantitative rather than qualitative, it being theoretically possible, through nuclear transfer, to produce large numbers of "twins" in a short period of time. This quantitative aspect is, however, one which we feel can be the subject of controls. The use of nuclear transfer to manipulate the genome is likewise intrinsically similar to selective breeding technologies used for many years. However, selection using nuclear transfer and gene targeting can theoretically be achieved more rapidly and more precisely, and thus likewise requires to be controlled. We also recognise, like the Banner Committee, that the fact that certain procedures have been widely accepted in the past does not of itself justify those, or any similar, procedures. Furthermore, there are certain techniques, such as transfer of genetic material between species which would raise profound ethical objections if not appropriately justified.
16. We found no aspect of cloning by nuclear transfer which we felt was intrinsically objectionable to the extent that it might be considered something that should not be done at all. Nevertheless, the issues of violation of integrity, unnaturalness, and the creation of "artefacts" offered extremes which, in the absence of suitable controls, might well result in significant insult to the nature and welfare of the animals involved. These therefore are harms which, while perhaps allowable, require justification as advocated by the Banner Committee.
17. The general principles as prescribed by the Banner
Committee should be accepted as a framework within which present
and future uses of animals should be assessed. These are:
"(a) Harms of a certain degree and kind ought under no
circumstances to be inflicted upon an animal.
(b) Any harm to an animal, even if not absolutely impermissible,
nonetheless requires justification and must be outweighed by the
good which is realistically sought in so treating it.
(c) Any harm which is justified by the second principle ought,
however, to be minimised as far as is reasonably possible."
18. Nevertheless, we appreciate that a perception exists of a cloned animal as a manufactured being which is offensive to some people, and that there is considerable public disquiet over the use of cloned animals in commercial agricultural practice. Some of this disquiet was expressed to us by farming organisations concerned about the public image of farming. We believe there is a need, as a matter of some urgency, for a two-way exchange of information on this and related technologies and were interested to learn that the Council of the Royal Society has recently taken a similar view. This should be arranged with the intent both to improve public awareness of the facts and issues, as well as to improve politicians' and scientists' understanding of the fundamental public concerns which undoubtedly exist.
19. A means of exchange of information on animal cloning, and possibly related technologies, should be put in place as a matter of some urgency. The intent should be both to improve public awareness of the facts and issues, as well as to improve politicians' and scientists' understanding of the fundamental public concerns which undoubtedly exist. Participants should include representatives from the relevant industries and academic groups, as well as politicians and the range of public interests.