[interphen] CONF: The Ethics of In-Vitro Flesh and Enhanced Animals (sponsored by the Wellcome Trust)
- From: Jan Deckers <jan.deckers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'interphen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <interphen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:08:55 +0000
Final call for participation, programme, and abstracts: conference on The
Ethics of In-Vitro Flesh and Enhanced Animals (sponsored by the Wellcome Trust)
When will this conference take place?
18-19 September 2014
Where will the conference be held?
Rothbury, Northumberland, England
The conference will take place at the Rothbury Golf Club, starting at 9.00 hrs
on Thursday and finishing at 17.00 hrs on Friday. For details, see
http://www.rothburygolfclub.com/
Who is organising this conference?
The academic organiser is Jan Deckers (Senior Lecturer in Health Care Ethics,
School of Medical Education, Newcastle University), who will be helped in the
practical organisation by Jacqueline McAloon (Ethics secretary, School of
Medical Education, Newcastle University). The School's Learning Technologies
for Medical Sciences team is responsible for the audio-visual recordings of the
event, which will be made publicly available after the event, in a similar
fashion to a similar conference on animal ethics, held at Newcastle University
in 2011 (see http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/).
Call for participation
Everyone who is willing to discuss the conference themes is invited to
participate. As places are limited, early booking is advisable. Speakers will
generally present papers in 30 mins, followed by 30 mins of discussion.
How do I register?
Registration is made by paying the fee of £ 30, using the following link:
http://webstore.ncl.ac.uk/browse/extra_info.asp?compid=1&modid=2&catid=36&prodid=301
Registration includes the conference dinner on Thursday night, as well as
lunches and refreshments on Thursday and Friday. Lunches will comprise a main
course, with an option to purchase dessert. For any specific dietary or access
requirements, please email Jacqueline.McAloon@xxxxxxxxx. Please note that, for
administrative reasons, it is not possible to register for part of the
conference. Please also email Jacqueline to inform her whether you would be
interested in participating in an informal, pre-conference meeting for drinks
and/or dinner on Wednesday evening.
What are the key questions?
1. What are the ethical issues associated with the creation of 'cultured flesh'
and flesh from animals with 'enhanced' properties, including reduced capacities
for sentience and increased nutritional benefits?
2. How do we assess the costs and benefits of these technological developments?
3. Are there any alternatives that could be developed to provide the benefits
that may be associated with these biomedical technologies, and if so, might
these be preferable?
Who are the speakers?
Bernice Bovenkerk, Philosophy Group, Wageningen University.
Amanda Cawston, Faculty of Philosophy and Downing College, University of
Cambridge.
Jan Deckers, School of Medical Education, Newcastle University.
Clemens Driessen, Cultural Geography, Environmental Sciences Group, Wageningen
University.
Arianna Ferrari, Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse,
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.
Linnea Laestadius, School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Clare McCausland, Human Rights & Animal Ethics Research Network, University of
Melbourne.
John Miller, School of English, University of Sheffield.
Lars Øystein Ursin, Department of Public Health and General Practice, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology.
Kay Peggs, School of Social, Historical and Literary Studies, University of
Portsmouth.
G. Owen Schaefer, Lincoln College, University of Oxford.
Barry Smart, School of Social, Historical and Literary Studies, University of
Portsmouth.
Cor van der Weele, Department of Communication, Philosophy and Technology,
Wageningen University.
What is the programme?
Session
Speakers
Title
Time
1
Jan Deckers
Welcome and introduction
Thursday 9.00-9.30
2
Cor van der Weele and Clemens Driessen
Workshop: Cultured meat and hidden moral concerns: on pathways of transition
9.30-11.00
Coffee
3
Linnea Laestadius
Public perceptions of the ethics of in-vitro flesh: What are the implications
for development and promotion?
11.30-12.30
Lunch
4
Bernice Bovenkerk
How to articulate objections to 'enhanced properties'?
13.30-14.30
Coffee
5
Clare McCausland
Moral attitudes towards nonsentient animals
15.00-16.00
6
Lars Øystein Ursin
The ontology of meat
16.00-17.00
Dinner
7
G. Owen Schaefer
Overcoming the 'yuck' factor: the ethical need for an in vitro meat marketing
campaign
Friday 9.30-10.30
Coffee
8
Kay Peggs and Barry Smart
Suffering existence: the 'enhancement' of nonhuman animals and the question of
ethics
11.00-12.00
9
Amanda Cawston
In vitro meat: a problem dressed up as a solution
12.00-13.00
Lunch
10
Arianna Ferrari
Saving animals through technology? Ethical and political reflections on
in-vitro meat
14.00-15.00
Coffee
11
John Miller
Being-with Sub-Organisms: Art, Affect and Cultured Flesh
15.30-16.30
12
Jan Deckers
Evaluation and look ahead
16.30-17.00
How do I get there?
Air
The nearest airport is Newcastle International (50 km). Edinburgh Airport is
116 km away. There is a regular metro service from the airport to Newcastle
city centre. You could either take the metro to the Regent Centre or to the
Haymarket Bus station (the latter takes you to the city centre).
The bus to Rothbury is the 14 service (heading for Thropton) or X14 service
(heading for Morpeth). Buses from the Haymarket depart at the following times
on Monday to Friday: 8.13; 9.18 (and then hourly until 16.18); 17.23; 18.28
(last bus). Please add minimum 10 mins if you meet the bus at the Regent
Centre. Travel times are just over one hour. The bus normally leaves from stand
Q at the Haymarket Bus station, but may leave from one of the adjacent stands.
Please note that there are no buses on Sundays. On Saturday, the earliest bus
leaves Rothbury at 7.26, to arrive in Newcastle Haymarket station at 8.41, and
there are hourly buses from 8.56 to 16.56.
Train
The nearest train stations are Morpeth and Alnmouth. The former has bus
connections to Rothbury from Morpeth Bus Station (travel times as above with
addition of min. 37 mins from departure times at the Haymarket bus station).
Car
Please note that the main road into Rothbury (B6344) heading north on the A697
is closed.
Alternative routes:
1/ if you come from Scots Gap, head for Rothbury. Upon entering the village do
not cross the bridge but continue on the road along the river. Turn right to
the Golf Club immediately after seeing the cemetery on your right -as you are
starting to drive yourself round the bend going left (nothing sinister
intended).
2/ if you come from the A697 heading north, look out for a dead monkey puzzle
tree on your right a couple of miles beyond the village of Longframlington.
Turn left at the monkey puzzle tree junction, where a signpost reads: National
Park, Coquetdale, Rothbury (road number B6341). Upon arrival in Rothbury, turn
left at the first junction, cross the bridge and turn right immediately after.
Turn right to the Golf Club immediately after seeing the cemetery on your right
-as you are starting to drive yourself round the bend going left (again,
nothing sinister intended).
3/ if you come from the A697 heading south from bonny Scotland, turn right at a
signpost which reads: National Park, Coquetdale, Rothbury (road number B6341).
Then follow instructions as under 2.
Where do I stay?
Whilst all delegates should arrange their own accommodation, the following
website may be helpful: http://www.theheartofnorthumberland.co.uk/Index.html
* The following suggestions are all within ca. 700 yards (630 m) of the venue:
Hotels and B&Bs:
The Orchard House, http://www.orchardhouserothbury.com/, email:
info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tel. 0044 1669 620684
The Queens Head, http://www.queensheadrothbury.com, email:
enqs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tel. 0044 1669 620470
Springfield Guest House, http://www.springfieldguesthouse.co.uk/index.htm,
email: enquiries@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tel. 0044 1669 621277
The Coquetvale Hotel, www.coquetvale.co.uk, email: stay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, tel.
0044 1669 622900
The Turks Head, http://www.turksheadrothbury.co.uk/, tel. 0044 1669 620434
Katerina's Guest House, http://www.katerinasguesthouse.co.uk/, email:
cath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or cathmillsrothbury@xxxxxxxxxxx
Self-catering accommodation:
Percy Boynton Cottage,
http://www.northumbrian-cottages.info/northumberland-country/rothbury-coquetdale-area/percy-boynton-cottage
Tomlinson's Café and Bunkhouse, www.tomlinsonsrothbury.co.uk, email:
info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tel. 0044 1669 621979
Sandyford House, http://www.sandyfordhouserothbury.co.uk/, email:
info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tel. 0044 1669 621979
The Acorns, East Oaktree House, https://www.facebook.com/theacornsrothbury,
tel. 0044 1669 620593 or 620574
Garden Cottage, http://www.northumbria-cottages.co.uk/property/garden-cottage#.
Carterside Cottages, http://www.cartersidecottages.co.uk, email:
stay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
* The following options are slightly further away from the venue, and located
close to the following landmarks:
Old Rothbury Hillfort: Cairn Rigg, Pennystane Lane.
Cragside: see http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cragside/places-to-stay/
Simonside Hills: Tosson Tower Farm Holidays, http://www.tossontowerfarm.com/
* For more detailed advice you are most welcome to contact jan.deckers@xxxxxxxxx
When do I leave?
Please note that, whilst the conference ends on Friday, there is a social
programme on Saturday for those who wish to extend their stay for fun and
informal discussion. Options for activities include: walking (e.g. ascent of
Simonside Hills via Lordenshaws); tennis at the Rothbury Lawn Tennis Club;
coffee at various coffee shops or art galleries. Feel free to contact Jan to
discuss.
Conference abstracts
1. Jan Deckers
Welcome and introduction
The consumption of animal products has received increasing bioethical scrutiny
for a number of reasons. These include rising levels of obesity, environmental
degradation, climate change, zoonotic disease, and moral concerns with the
treatment of animals. A novel technology that is being developed, partly to
address some of these concerns, is the production of 'in vitro flesh' or
'cultured flesh', which relies on the isolation of animals' stem cells and
their stimulation into growth in laboratories. This project has already led to
the creation of the world's first in vitro burger, eaten in London on 5 August
2013. Other methods to reduce some of these concerns rely on the modification
of farmed animals, either by means of conventional or new (genetic) breeding
technologies. For example, some animals have been created with reduced
capacities to experience pain, including blind chickens, and various novel
technologies are being used to create animals with particular benefits, for
example reduced levels of saturated fats, that could be beneficial for the
human beings who consume them. This introduction will sketch the potential
benefits and concerns of these technologies.
2. Cor van der Weele and Clemens Driessen:
Workshop: Cultured meat and hidden moral concerns: on pathways of transition
The goal of this workshop is to define and compare different pathways of
"protein transition".
In our introduction, we will report on focus group discussions on cultured
meat, which show that moral concerns about meat are widespread, also among
people who on the surface seem to be happy as meat eaters. Our findings
suggest that many of these people are ambivalent about meat consumption and
that they put their hopes for solutions on collective rather than individual
changes.
Such ambivalent concerns and hopes are typically not credited with much moral
interest. But what if we take them seriously? What difference might that make,
for example, for our views about pathways of protein transition?
As a next step, we propose to make a joint effort (with all participants) to
define and discuss our assumptions on pathways of change. A typology of
pathways might be the outcome of this workshop.
3. Linnea Laestadius
Public perceptions of the ethics of in-vitro flesh: What are the implications
for development and promotion?
While in-vitro flesh (IVF) is not yet commercially available, the public has
already begun to form opinions of IVF as a result of news stories and events
drawing attention to its development. As such, we can discern public
perceptions of the ethics of IVF prior to its commercial release. This affords
advocates of environmentally sustainable, healthy, and just diets with a unique
opportunity to reflect on the desirability of the development of IVF, as well
as potential modifications that could be made to improve its acceptance. This
presentation draws upon an analysis of public perceptions of IVF in 814 U.S.
news blog comments related to the August 2013 tasting of the world's first IVF
hamburger. Specifically, I address three primary questions: 1) How does the
public perceive the ethics of IVM development and consumption? 2) What do these
perceptions mean for the viability and desirability of developing IVF as a
solution to high levels of conventional animal flesh consumption? and 3) What
do these perceptions mean for strategies to promote IVF? Through these
questions, areas for future research are also highlighted.
4. Bernice Bovenkerk
How to articulate objections to 'enhanced properties'?
Responding to societal objections to the animal suffering resulting from meat
prodcution, scientists have proposed the creation of animals with reduced
sentience. Even if this could take away welfare problems, one could still ask
whether this is a desirable solution that would be accepted by society. Many
people object to interfering in animal lives, for example through genetic
engineering. In societal discussions, such objections to 'tampering' with
animal species figure largely, but remain unarticulated. In my view,
traditional approaches in animal ethics with their focus on individuals cannot
adequately articulate or justify with these objections. As the modification
takes place before the animal is born, utilitarian or deontological accounts
have difficulty pinpointing the problem. The objections seem to focus on our
interference with a species rather than individual animal. Moreover, they seem
to focus on our role as humans and what such interferences say about us as one
species between the species. I will argue that animal ethics needs a new new
perspective that focuses on 1) species as well as individual and 2) the
question what our actions mean for our relationships to other species and in
turn for our self-understanding as human beings (connecting to philosophical
anthropology).
5. Clare McCausland
Moral attitudes towards nonsentient animals
Sentience is a cornerstone of the two mainstream moral attitudes towards
nonhuman animals: utilitarianism and rights-based approaches. The former
considers that we have obligations to all and only those who have the capacity
to experience pain and pleasure and the latter assumes that only sentient
creatures have moral rights - indeed some animal rights scholars attribute
rights to all sentient beings. The development of nonsentient animals therefore
poses a challenge to these views. In this paper I consider the work of Adam
Shriver who argues that breeding mice with a genetically modified anterior
cingulate cortex may challenge utilitarian arguments against animal
exploitation and potentially legitimise factory farming. I suggest both that
his arguments may be applied equally well against a theory of animal rights,
but more importantly, that there are sound utilitarian reasons for thinking
that we ought not to revise our moral attitudes towards animals, whether
modified or not, too quickly.
6. Lars Øystein Ursin
The ontology of meat
The double separation of animals from humans and meat from animals has in the
20th century been accompanied by a growing concern with animal welfare. These
new views and valuations on animals and meat has taken place alongside an
exponential growth in the world's population and a steady growth in the meat
consumption per capita, that has led to an enormous growth in the world's
population of livestock. This has led to an unresolved ethical tension for
modern carnivores: Meat is nutritionally beneficial and tasteful, but comes
with an unpleasant ethical after-taste. The promise of cultured meat is to
remove such a gnawing moral doubt by means of technological innovation. Critics
of cultured meat argue that its promotion would be restricted to a mitigation
of some unpleasant symptoms of the flawed modernist way of relating to nature,
animals and food. It is deeply problematic to aim for an escape from our past
and traditions in hunting and farming animals for their meat. We should rather
be concerned with and proud of our place in nature as bodily beings in complex
interaction with other species, and reflect on the proper - limited - scope of
justice in nature. In this paper I will reflect on the ontology of meat in
light of the ethos of cultured meat.
7. G. Owen Schaefer
Overcoming the 'yuck' factor: the ethical need for an in vitro meat marketing
campaign
While the development of in vitro meat is in its infancy, there is some reason
to expect it to eventually become a marketable product. Ethical vegetarians
should rejoice at this prospect, as it would allow a wide swathe of the
population to consume their desired meat products without the degree of animal
death and suffering (not to mention environmental damage) associated with
factory farming. However, there is a major impediment to general market
uptake: general reluctance to eat lab-grown meat. A recent Pew poll found
that, in the US, only 20% of those surveyed would be willing to eat in vitro
meat. This implies it would be relegated to a niche market akin to current
meat substitute products. Those concerned with animal suffering and the
environment should hope for much greater market penetration. Ideally, every
McDonald's would use in vitro meat patties - but this requires much greater
public willingness to eat the lab-grown burgers. To this end, there is strong
ethical reason for animal welfare and environmental organizations to devote
resources to marketing and lobbying campaigns aimed at 'normalizing' in vitro
meat and inducing public interest in its consumption.
8. Kay Peggs and Barry Smart
Suffering existence: the 'enhancement' of nonhuman animals and the question of
ethics
A significant number of species experience moments of suffering in the form of
pain and distress, but for some species existence is virtually all bound up
with the prospect and reality of pain and suffering. In this paper we explore
the plight of domesticated nonhuman animals who are used as resources for food
and for experiments and we do so by drawing on the 'antinatalist' view that
'coming into existence is always a serious harm'. In particular we centre on
the genetic modification of nonhuman animal species who are 'enhanced' to 'not
suffer'. We centre on this because genetically modified nonhuman animals
exemplify the ways in which assumptions about nonhuman animals as commodities
are so deeply embedded in contemporary social life and because the acute and
growing public disquiet about the treatment and use of nonhuman animal subjects
has led to expressions that they should be treated ethically and that due
consideration should be given to their welfare. Such concern has given momentum
to the pursuit of technological solutions to what are ethical matters
concerning the treatment of nonhuman animals, to the genetic engineering of
nonhuman animals designed to better fit (in human terms) existing institutional
practices and be less sensitive or vulnerable to the pain and suffering to
which they are exposed.
9. Amanda Cawston
In vitro meat: a problem dressed up as a solution
The development of in vitro or synthetic meat promises a future of genuinely
cruelty free meat, offering a way out for those who are concerned about animal
welfare but crave those chicken nuggets. Critics argue that if one is
concerned about eating meat (e.g. because of concerns regarding animal welfare,
health, environmental issues, etc.), a ready solution already exists: simply
abstain from eating it. However, supporters of in vitro meat counter that
widespread abstention is at best a far-off goal and, in the meantime, in vitro
meat would prevent much non-human animal suffering and hence should be
supported on these pragmatic grounds - in vitro meat might not be the ideal
solution, but it is better than simply advocating wholesale vegetarianism. In
this paper, I take issue with this pragmatic argument for in vitro meat. While
I agree that there is a simplistic sense in which in vitro meat would be better
for non-human animals (because it reduces their suffering), in vitro meat as a
commodity is significantly ethically problematic. Particularly, the
development and celebration of in vitro meat risks co-opting the growing
awareness of the ethical problems of insatiable and unnecessary consumption: it
transforms these anti-consumerist concerns into support for a new product to
consume.
10. Arianna Ferrari
Saving animals through technology? Ethical and political reflections on
in-vitro meat
In-vitro meat has been occupying the imaginary of natural and social
scientists, ethicists as well as some animal welfare and animal rights scholars
for a good decade. Through the advancement of tissue engineering and stem-cell
research scientists have succeeded to create processed meat products using
muscle cells from cows. In-vitro meat holds the promise to save nonhuman
animals from suffering and death, to massively reduce the ecological footprint
of animal food production, and, at the same time, to allow humans to continue
enjoying the taste of meat. However, around this almost perfect "technological
fix" there are many ethical and political questions which remain largely
undiscussed, such as for example: how will nonhuman animals be kept and treated
in order to gain the necessary cells to build in-vitro tissues? Is in-vitro
meat really a way to overcome animal exploitation? What is the rationale behind
investing large resources for the development and commercialization of in-vitro
meat instead of distributing more information around plant-based food and
investing in ways of rendering it possible worldwide? My contribution aims to
disentangle the normative values in which the research and development of
in-vitro meat are embedded.
11. John Miller
Being-with Sub-Organisms: Art, Affect and Cultured Flesh.
As tissue culturing technologies continue to advance, it has become
increasingly clear that the world is now inhabited by a growing number of
entities with an ambiguous relationship to established taxonomic frames. Even
before in-vitro meat (IVM) reaches commercial availability, the biomass of
animal tissue living outside of conventional bodies has been estimated at
several million tons. Ethical debates surrounding IVM's emergence often focus
on its possible environmental and health benefits (reduced carbon emissions and
land-use, lower-fat 'meat' et cetera), or on the liberation of animals from
violent food production practices. Less attention has been paid, however, to
how we might categorise and relate to a new generation of 'sub-organisms'.
What does it mean to share the world with so much insentient flesh? Are the
'semi-living' themselves (and not just the animals from which they are derived)
worthy of ethical consideration? Since the late 1990s, the artists Oron Catts
and Ionat Zurr have been interrogating these (and related) questions in their
Tissue Culture and Art Project with installations including Tissue Culture and
Art(ificial) Womb (2000), Victimless Leather (2004) and NoArk (2007). Exploring
these 'tissue engineered sculptures' in relation to the philosophy of Martin
Heidegger and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, this paper investigates the role of
experimental art in imagining the new ethical terrain demanded by cultured
flesh.
Other related posts:
- » [interphen] CONF: The Ethics of In-Vitro Flesh and Enhanced Animals (sponsored by the Wellcome Trust) - Jan Deckers
