Comments on: An animal that wants to be eaten? http://nathan-lee.com/blog/2009/09/08/an-animal-that-wants-to-be-eaten/ Nathan musing, ranting and raving about the world. Sun, 13 May 2012 05:56:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jill http://nathan-lee.com/blog/2009/09/08/an-animal-that-wants-to-be-eaten/comment-page-1/#comment-978 Jill Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:55:25 +0000 http://nathan-lee.com/blog/?p=669#comment-978 There are people with a genetic abnormality that means that they feel no pain...I think they often end up dying young because they do things that cause themselves injuries that they don't know about or if they get something simple like appendicitis they won't know about it. So the animals will end up being potentially inferior stock due to be misshaped from repeated fractures, or worse still, be harbouring infections that the farmers won't know about as they'll behave normally. You would think that it'd be cheaper and easier to just be humane to animals, than engineer them not to care. I wouldn't say that chicken sheds are exactly humane. Don't know if you spent as much time in them as I did as a kid since you were at school by then but I used to spend a lot of time playing with the chickens whilst dad did electrical work. They'd get suffocated to death by each other quite frequently as little chicks. I think our geese had a far better existence. There are people with a genetic abnormality that means that they feel no pain…I think they often end up dying young because they do things that cause themselves injuries that they don’t know about or if they get something simple like appendicitis they won’t know about it. So the animals will end up being potentially inferior stock due to be misshaped from repeated fractures, or worse still, be harbouring infections that the farmers won’t know about as they’ll behave normally.

You would think that it’d be cheaper and easier to just be humane to animals, than engineer them not to care.

I wouldn’t say that chicken sheds are exactly humane. Don’t know if you spent as much time in them as I did as a kid since you were at school by then but I used to spend a lot of time playing with the chickens whilst dad did electrical work. They’d get suffocated to death by each other quite frequently as little chicks. I think our geese had a far better existence.

]]> By: Lisa http://nathan-lee.com/blog/2009/09/08/an-animal-that-wants-to-be-eaten/comment-page-1/#comment-977 Lisa Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:18:26 +0000 http://nathan-lee.com/blog/?p=669#comment-977 The Newscientist article is presenting a one-sided argument. The purpose in their opinion, for having GM animals that feel no pain is to minimise the suffering caused to ‘factory farmed’ animals. Shriver, a philosopher at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri is quoted "I'm offering a solution where you could still eat meat but avoid animal suffering." I personally, find this absolutely absurd because the process that is involved in genetically modifying these animals to feel no pain is actually subjecting these animals to pain and suffering. Isn’t genetically modifying animals a form of ‘factory farming’ or in the most literal sense laboratory farming? They suggest ‘knocking out’ pain in livestock but brain surgery is not feasible on an industrial scale. The process they are loosely referring to is one process of ‘transgenesis’ where the targeting of specific changes in individual genes or chromosomes within a single species – targeted removal of genes (knock-outs). Many gene-targeting experiments are designed to stop production of a protein by a particular gene – so the gene function is ‘knocked-out’ and a strain of ‘knock-out’ animals is produced. This relies upon ES (embryonic stem) technology. ES cells are taken from very early embryos and retain the ability to form most, if not all, of the specialised cell types of the adult. To make a mutation in a gene of interest – ‘gene targeting’ – scientists use a combination of molecular biological and tissue culture techniques to alter one of the two copies of the gene in ES cells to create a modified cell. The modified ES cell line is grown in culture, and then the cells are injected into a very early embryo so that it will contain a mixture of both unmodified cells and modified cells (chimaera). This embryo is re-implanted into a foster mother. During development, the modified ES cells may differentiate into sperm or egg cells and, if so, the DNA change could be passed onto the next generation of animals when the animal is bred. Thus a new strain of animals that carry a specific, targeted, change in their DNA can be bred. The relative inefficiency of the techniques involved in producing GM animals raises concerns. In particular with welfare implications to the animals caused by any discomfort involved in obtaining eggs from the animals and in the high death rates of fetuses during development. Furthermore, the Newscientist article makes reference to experiments where mice receive “electric shocks” and injections of “painful, noxious chemicals” to test their response to pain. Is this not subjecting animals to pain and suffering? How is this technique of genetically modifying animals “more humane”? As suggested by Shiver. I agree with you Nath, countries or even farming districts that don’t practice humane farming practices should evaluate their techniques to minimise harm to these animals. Genetically modifying these animals to feel no pain is clearly not the answer. The use of genetically modified animals report (2000) explains the GM techniques in more depth. The Newscientist article is presenting a one-sided argument. The purpose in their opinion, for having GM animals that feel no pain is to minimise the suffering caused to ‘factory farmed’ animals. Shriver, a philosopher at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri is quoted “I’m offering a solution where you could still eat meat but avoid animal suffering.” I personally, find this absolutely absurd because the process that is involved in genetically modifying these animals to feel no pain is actually subjecting these animals to pain and suffering. Isn’t genetically modifying animals a form of ‘factory farming’ or in the most literal sense laboratory farming?
They suggest ‘knocking out’ pain in livestock but brain surgery is not feasible on an industrial scale. The process they are loosely referring to is one process of ‘transgenesis’ where the targeting of specific changes in individual genes or chromosomes within a single species – targeted removal of genes (knock-outs). Many gene-targeting experiments are designed to stop production of a protein by a particular gene – so the gene function is ‘knocked-out’ and a strain of ‘knock-out’ animals is produced. This relies upon ES (embryonic stem) technology. ES cells are taken from very early embryos and retain the ability to form most, if not all, of the specialised cell types of the adult. To make a mutation in a gene of interest – ‘gene targeting’ – scientists use a combination of molecular biological and tissue culture techniques to alter one of the two copies of the gene in ES cells to create a modified cell. The modified ES cell line is grown in culture, and then the cells are injected into a very early embryo so that it will contain a mixture of both unmodified cells and modified cells (chimaera). This embryo is re-implanted into a foster mother. During development, the modified ES cells may differentiate into sperm or egg cells and, if so, the DNA change could be passed onto the next generation of animals when the animal is bred. Thus a new strain of animals that carry a specific, targeted, change in their DNA can be bred.

The relative inefficiency of the techniques involved in producing GM animals raises concerns. In particular with welfare implications to the animals caused by any discomfort involved in obtaining eggs from the animals and in the high death rates of fetuses during development. Furthermore, the Newscientist article makes reference to experiments where mice receive “electric shocks” and injections of “painful, noxious chemicals” to test their response to pain. Is this not subjecting animals to pain and suffering? How is this technique of genetically modifying animals “more humane”? As suggested by Shiver.

I agree with you Nath, countries or even farming districts that don’t practice humane farming practices should evaluate their techniques to minimise harm to these animals. Genetically modifying these animals to feel no pain is clearly not the answer. The use of genetically modified animals report (2000) explains the GM techniques in more depth.

]]>