Results

Displaying 1 - 9 of 9
Title Authorsort descending Citation Summary
GENETIC ENGINEERING OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS: HUMAN PREROGATIVE OR ANIMAL CRUELTY Michelle K. Albrecht 6 Animal L. 233 (2000) Selective breeding and genetic engineering of domestic animals represent two of science's most manipulative advancements of the last century. One of the many questions raised by these procedures is whether the suffering produced violates state anti-cruelty laws. California's animal anti-cruelty statute is one of the most comprehensive and progressive in the country. This article examines whether selective breeding and genetic engineering violate California's anti-cruelty statute, highlighting recent California case law interpreting these statutes and outlining the standard to determine when a violation has occurred. Furthermore, the article seeks to articulate policy suggestions to further the protection afforded these animals affected by science.
From Microbe to Man Mark O. Hatfield 1 Animal L. 5 (1995) This article discusses federal policy towards animal patenting, including the Senator's introduction of legislation to establish a National Ethics Advisory Board, and current issues in bioethics.
A “FISHEYE” LENS ON THE TECHNOLOGICAL DILEMMA: THE SPECTER OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS George Kimbrell & Paige Tomaselli 18 Animal L. 75 (2011)

One year ago, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed approval of the first genetically engineered (GE or transgenic) animal for food production—a salmon engineered to grow much faster than normal using genetic material from an ocean pout. Faced with concerns from scientists and the public that these “super” salmon will escape into the wild and be the final blow to wild salmon, proponents crafted a scheme that is half Michael Crichton, half Kurt Vonnegut: The engineered salmon eggs will begin life in a lab on a frozen Canadian island, then be airlifted to a guarded Panamanian fortress, where they will grow in inland tanks. After the fish reach maturity, the company will ship them back to the U.S. and sell them in grocery stores, likely without any labeling. Unfortunately, this is not a bad science fiction novel. How did we get to this juncture, the brink of this approval? This Essay is a snapshot of GE animals through the lens of the first one proposed for commercial approval.
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE PATENTING OF LIVING ORGANISMS Matthew McGovern 3 Animal L. 221 (1997) Mr. McGovern discusses the reasoning behind the leap from patentability of non-living things to the living things within the last twenty years. He concludes that neither the Supreme Court or Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has offered a convincing rationale for the inclusion of living things within 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND PATENTING OF LIVING ORGANISMS Matthew McGovern 3 Animal L. 221 (1997) Mr. McGovern discusses the reasoning behind the leap from patentability of non-living things to the living things within the last twenty years. He concludes that neither the Supreme Court or Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has offered a convincing rationale for the inclusion of living things within 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
Brief Summary of Genetic Engineering and Animals Andrew B. Perzigian Animal Legal and Historical Center

This paper provides a brief overview of the pros and cons of genetic engineering technology and its creation of and patenting of transgenic animal species.

Brief Summary of Genetic Engineering and Animals Andrew B. Perzigian Animal Legal and Historical Center

This is a very brief overview of the ethical and legal circumstances surrounding the genetic modification of animals.

Detailed Discussion of Genetic Engineering and Animal Rights: The Legal Terrain and Ethical Underpinnings Andrew B. Perzigian Animal Legal and Historical Center

This paper discusses the legal, environmental, and ethical dilemmas involved with genetic engineering technology and its creation of transgenic animal species. Currently, transgenic animal species are patentable subject matter in both the United States and in Europe and the use of such technology is largely left unregulated. This paper discusses the pros and cons that genetic engineering technology bring to the modern world in light of the relative absence of legal barriers facing genetic engineers.

Human Identity: The Question Presented by Human-Animal Hybridization Joseph Vining 1 Stan. J. Animal L. & Pol'y 50 (2008) What makes each of us, as individuals, human to one another, or, more generally, what makes an individual creature human? We have not often had to ask the question because of the species line based on reproductive capacity and incapacity, although “degrees of humanness” were explored in the various eugenic programs of the last century. Now the biotechnological possibility of fusing human and other forms of life is presenting the question in a new and serious way. If the traditional biological means of defining species are no longer reliable, what other criteria might determine what is “human” and what is “nonhuman”? The issue is not just how to conceive of an individual hybrid presented to us, but how to act toward the creature, at the most basic level. Drawing on animal law and theory as well as the history of human eugenics in law and policy, Vining identifies criteria that may one day be used to gauge relative humanness, qualitative and quantitative. He observes that ultimately the difficulty of deciding or agreeing upon what identifies us as human will make even more problematic the current treatment of creatures deemed purely “animal.” In the end he suggests that what the human distinctively brings to the sentient world is general responsibility itself, and that wider contemplation of the real possibility of human-animal hybridization may lead to new ways of thinking about animals, in law and beyond. Human Identity was presented recently as a talk to a longstanding interdisciplinary faculty seminar at the University of Michigan. It is presented largely in its original form here, with footnotes added.