Genome Editing in Livestock, Complicity, and the Technological Fix Objection

Gene editing in animals: What does the public want to know and what information do stakeholder organizations provide?

Organizations involved with gene editing may engage with the public to share information and address concerns about the technology. It is unclear, however, if the information shared aligns with what people want to know. We aimed to understand what members of the public want to know about gene editing in animals by soliciting their questions through an open-ended survey question and comparing them with questions posed in Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) webpages developed by gene editing stakeholder organizations. Participants (338 USA residents) asked the most questions about gene editing in general and animal welfare. In contrast, FAQ webpages focused on regulations. The questions survey participants asked demonstrate a range of knowledge and interests. The discrepancy between survey participant questions and the information provided in the FAQ webpages suggests that gene editing stakeholders might engage in more meaningful public engagement by soliciting actual questions from the public and opening up opportunities for real dialogue.

Public attitudes toward the use of technology to create new types of animals and animal products

Philosophers have used thought experiments to examine contentious examples of genetic modification. We hypothesised that these examples would prove useful in provoking responses from lay participants concerning technological interventions used to address welfare concerns. We asked 747 US and Canadian citizens to respond to two scenarios based on these thought experiments: genetically modifying chickens to produce blind progeny that are less likely to engage in feather-pecking (BC); and genetically modifying animals to create progeny that do not experience any subjective state (i.e. incapable of experiencing pain or fear; IA). For contrast, we assessed a third scenario that also resulted in the production of animal protein with no risk of suffering but did not involve genetically modifying animals: the development of cultured meat (CM). Participants indicated on a seven-point scale how acceptable they considered the technology (1 = very wrong to do; 7 = very right to do), and provided a text-based, open-ended explanation of their response. The creation of cultured meat was judged more acceptable than the creation of blind chickens and insentient animals. Qualitative responses indicated that some participants accepted the constraints imposed by the thought experiment, for example, by accepting perceived harms of the technology to achieve perceived benefits in reducing animal suffering. Others expressed discomfort with such trade-offs, advocating for other approaches to reducing harm. We conclude that people vary in their acceptance of interventions within existing systems, with some calling for transformational change.

Using animal history to inform current debates in gene editing farm animals: A systematic review

There is growing interest in gene editing farm animals. Some alterations could benefit animal welfare (e.g., improved heat tolerance in cattle with the “slick” gene), the environment (e.g., reducing methane emissions from cattle with induced pluripotent stem cells), and productivity (e.g., higher weight gains in cattle with the “double muscling” gene). Existing scholarship on the acceptability of such modifications has used myriad approaches to identify societal factors that shape the ethics and governance of this technology. We argue that integrating historical approaches—particularly from the relatively new and burgeoning field of animal history—offers a form of “anticipatory knowledge” that can help guide discussions on this topic. We conducted a systematic review of the animal history literature in English, German, and Spanish to identify the influence of political, scientific, economic, social, and cultural factors on the development and acceptance of such technologies. We identified analogous structures and fault lines in past debates about farm animals that provide insights for contemporary discussions about gene editing. Those analogous structures include the market power of meatpackers or the racialized precepts in livestock breeding, and fault lines, like the disconnect between states and citizens over the direction of food systems. Highlighting these similarities demonstrates how external forces have shaped—and will continue to shape—the acceptance or rejection of emerging biotechnologies as applied to farm animals.

The Complex and Diverse Genetic Architecture of the Absence of Horns (Polledness) in Domestic Ruminants, including Goats and Sheep

Horns are the most obvious common feature of Bovidae. The naturally occurring absence of horns in these species, also known as polledness, is of surprisingly heterogeneous nature, although they are Mendelian traits. This review compares in detail the molecular differences among the causes of inherited polledness in the domestic ruminant species of cattle, yak, sheep, and goat based on the causal gene variants that have been discovered in recent years. The genetic causes for the lack of horns in small ruminants seem not only to be more complex, e.g., in sheep, breed-specific characteristics are still unexplained, but in goats, there is also the associated disorder of intersexuality—polled intersex syndrome (PIS). In connection with animal welfare and the associated discussion about a legal ban on the dehorning of all farm animals, naturally hornless animals and the causal genetic variants are of increasing research interest in the age of genome editing. However, the low acceptance of genetic engineering in livestock, especially in European societies, limits its use in food-producing animals. Therefore, genotype-based targeted selection of naturally occurring variants is still a widely used method for spreading this desired trait within and across populations, at least in cattle and sheep.