Respect for Animal Autonomy in Bioethical Analysis: The Case of Automatic Milking Systems (AMS)

An analysis of the ethical impacts of the use of anAutomatic Milking System (AMS) is employed as a casestudy to illustrate the use of a form of bioethicalanalysis in technology assessment. The approach isbased on the Ethical Matrix, where `impacts' areassessed in terms of (lack of) respect for threeethical principles as applied to interest groups. Inthis case, only impacts on dairy cows are examined,and principally in terms of their behaviouralfreedom.In contrast to traditional milking systems, AMS, inprinciple, allow cows to present for milkingvoluntarily. So with AMS, it is claimed that dairymanagement relies on the autonomous interaction of thecow with her environment.One of the roles of bioethical analysis is to identifythe influence of rhetoric and symbolism in technologyassessment, e.g., with respect to the claimed`voluntariness' of cows' presentation. The AMS can beinstalled to allow cows three types of access, viz., i)free choice ii) rewarded access (RA) iii) obligatoryaccess (OA). Studies suggest the desire for milkremoval per se is not critical in the cow'sattendance at the AMS. Continued motivation to bemilked, required for the system to function,principally relies on RA and OA. Both RA and OA aresubject to numerous factors, such as: design of theAMS, location, etc. In turn, these can affect thecows' behavioural freedom and welfare.One of the aims of this approach is to illustrate theethical basis on which public policy is or can beformulated.     

What's the Moral of the GM Food Story?

This paper is an attempt to examine issues and problemsraised by agricultural biotechnology by drawing on the richnessof contemporary ideas in ethical theory and thereby contribute tothe project of establishing new approaches to these problems. Thefundamental argument is that many of the negative aspects ofagricultural biotechnology are generated at the level of theunderlying conceptual frameworks that shape the technology'sinternal modes of organization, rather than the unintendedeffects of the application of an inherently benevolent set oftechniques. If ``food ethics' is to address the adverse impacts ofagricultural biotechnology, it must ultimately challenge theseconceptual frames, which, I argue, emerge from Enlightenment,liberal, political, and economic theory.The translation of traditional bioethics (focusing on principlessuch as autonomy and rights, justice, and well being) into foodethics does not produce the critical tools that are ableadequately to challenge the harmful legacy of Enlightenmentthinking. What is needed are reorientations of ethics that arecapable of formulating concepts and approaches that to someextent break with the presuppositions that underpin biotechnologyat its foundation. This paper suggests that narrative andfeminist critiques of medical bioethics are a good place to startin this project.     

Ranking Genetically Modified Plants According to Familiarity

In public debate GMPs are oftenreferred to as being unnatural or a violationof nature. Some people have serious moralconcerns about departures from what is natural.Others are concerned about potential risks tothe environment arising from the combination ofhereditary material moving across naturalboundaries and the limits of scientificforesight of long-term consequences. To addresssome of these concerns we propose that anadditional element in risk assessment based onthe concept of familiarity should beintroduced. The objective is to facilitatetransparency about uncertainties inherent inthe risk assessment of the GMP. Familiarityconventionally involves data and experiencerelating to the plant species and the ecosystemin question. We would like to extend thisconcept to the molecular level of plantbreeding and suggest that GMP characteristicsshould be compared to a reference baselinedetermined by conventional breeding techniques.Three GMPs are ranked according to familiarityat the plant and ecosystem level and themolecular level. The approach may help tointegrate discussion of the scientificarguments and moral questions raised in thedebate about GMOs by providing an operationalscheme within which moral concerns are broughtwithin the framework of science-based riskassessment.