Pets Could Be Gene-Edited Under New English Law, Says RSPCA (theguardian.com) 39
Pets could be subjected to gene editing under a new UK government act, the RSPCA has warned. From a report: The animal charity has said that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act applies to all vertebrate animals, not only farmed animals, and that it could lead to cats and dogs being gene-edited to include extreme features. The law allows the creation and marketing of "precision-bred" or genome-edited plants and vertebrate animals in England. The government said it would allow farmers to grow crops that are drought- and disease-resistant, reduce the use of fertilisers and pesticides, and help breed animals that are protected from catching harmful diseases.
The UK environment secretary, Therese Coffey, described the act, which received royal assent on Thursday, as a "Brexit freedom," but the RSPCA said it could have dire consequences for animal welfare. David Bowles, the head of campaigns and public affairs at the RSPCA, criticised what he described as an "ill-judged policy." He said the charity had tried to get the government to include an exemption for pets, but was "sadly ignored." He added: "Gene editing could be a huge step backwards for animals. We do not believe this act should include animals, whether they are farm, pet or wildlife. Invasive procedures are needed to create each line of gene-edited mammals, there is no history of use for this powerful technology, and it can cause unintended changes to the genome, with unpredictable effects. The RSPCA has serious animal welfare and ethical concerns about this."
The UK environment secretary, Therese Coffey, described the act, which received royal assent on Thursday, as a "Brexit freedom," but the RSPCA said it could have dire consequences for animal welfare. David Bowles, the head of campaigns and public affairs at the RSPCA, criticised what he described as an "ill-judged policy." He said the charity had tried to get the government to include an exemption for pets, but was "sadly ignored." He added: "Gene editing could be a huge step backwards for animals. We do not believe this act should include animals, whether they are farm, pet or wildlife. Invasive procedures are needed to create each line of gene-edited mammals, there is no history of use for this powerful technology, and it can cause unintended changes to the genome, with unpredictable effects. The RSPCA has serious animal welfare and ethical concerns about this."
Re: (Score:1)
Not only pets, humans are vertebrate animals too! Designer babies, finally! I can’t wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long will this last? (Score:1)
And secondly, how long do you think it will be before they have some unplanned event from this and everyone in the world bans travel to and from their country. My guess is within 5 years.
Re: (Score:3)
What's been allowed is "precision breeding". The rule is that you can only make changes that could have been produced by natural breeding - introducing genes from other organisms, or completely synthetic genes, isn't allowed. So no fire-breathing dogs (or even glow-in-the-dark dogs, which we actually know how to create). Though this only applies to sale, you can still create a glow-in-the-dark dog in the lab if you can come up with a reason to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see more Myostatin inhibited dogs.
More of the bully whippets, but over-muscled golden retrievers
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Dog-King when? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
I, for one, look forward to our fire-breathing dog overlords. And the purple-haired cats. And the parrots that speak five languages, live forever, and have a taste for human blood.
Do you want Pinky and The Brain? (Score:1)
Do you want Pinky and The Brain? Because this is how you get Pinky and The Brain.
Or Khan Noonien Singh, but I digress. This, applied to humans, may end up with something like Khan one day.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you want Pinky and The Brain?
Yes
Because this is how you get Pinky and The Brain.
Cool
Re: Oh gees... (Score:3)
Indeed that's a government's task to decide on. However "too much" or "too little" government it is.
Not sure how you snuck in the "too much" in there. It sure is someone's responsibility, and heaven forbid that would up to anyone let alone corporations to decide on their own. So yes, that's a government's task, regardless of what the outcome of the decision is and regardless how "big" or "small" that government is.
3-eyed dogs? (Score:1)
Guinea pigs will be the guinea pigs for humans.
Can't wait for genetically modified dogs (Score:4, Interesting)
The breeding of dogs has produced some pretty cool breeds, but genetic modification will take that to another level. Imagine a chihuahua that isn't yappy, maybe a pug that doesn't fart, a pit bull that doesn't bite children. More seriously, imagine being able to create healthier versions of popular breeds that have become inbred over the years like French Bulldogs. Or non-shedding variants to help with allergies.
GMO crops lost the hearts and minds battle because they were focused on making farmers' jobs easier and cereal grains cheaper and easier to bring to market. Americans don't care if their flour is $2 for 5 lbs or $2.20 for 5 lbs. It's easy for FUD about GMOs to spread when people don't perceive themselves benefitting from them. Imagine if the first big application of GMOs were cherries the size of peaches or bananas that don't go from green to brown overnight. Everyone would like that and use it and only crackpots would be anti-GMO.
Re: Can't wait for genetically modified dogs (Score:3)
GMO crops lost the battle cos they were nothing like the promised "drought- and disease-resistant", the only thing they were resistant to was more Roundup, resulting in more poison on your plate while establishing a monopoly for Monsanto on the seeds market.
In Mexico, cradle of corn and who's banned GMO, no GMO-free is to be found due to cross-pollination with corn from the US. GMO has polluted all of it.
Progress, huh? For those invested in Monsanto, indeed. But the rest of us lost.
Are you Roundup-Ready yet
Re: (Score:1)
As reading the news, my first thought was "short-haired poodles". A poodle is 10% of an affectionate, smart and highly trainable creature, and 90% hairy mess. If only we could have the 10% without the 90%...
Thank goodness! (Score:2)
Dogs have been heavily inbred and this provides an opportunity to fix many of the genetic defects that have resulted from this.
Re: (Score:2)
Dogs have been heavily inbred and this provides an opportunity to fix many of the genetic defects that have resulted from this.
Absolutely. Think of German Shepherds not predisposed to hip dysplasia, or Bulldogs without brachycephaly, or Setters less likely to experience cardiomyopathy.
My best feline friend died of complications from FIV. It would be wonderful if we could use gene-editing to breed FIV and FLV into extinction over time. And as a bonus it would save certain Chinese scientists from trying to create HIV resistant human children before the science is ready for prime time.
Re: (Score:2)
You highlight here why I oppose banning animal testing. I think we should always be considerate of other living things, especially those of higher intelligence and therefore awareness of their experiences.
But there are many things which are beneficial to us and would also be beneficial to animals. Animals simply carry a lower ethical barrier than humans and research on them also dodges most religious conflicts. The result is process that can benefit animals and also is a major head start in toeing over an e
I'm Serial! (Score:3)
This is how ManBearPig came to be. I'm serial!
Going to happen anyway somewhere (Score:2)
I think this is a reasonable move. Dogs are relatively expendable and farm animals totally are, so let's see what the ramifications of gene editing are on them. Iron out the kinks, and pretty soon we'll have a race of humans who can tolerate the kind of extreme climate we'll have as a result of global warming by the end of the century.
RSPCA flack cries, "Wolf!" (Score:5, Insightful)
David Bowles, the RSPCA's mouthpiece, horripilates, "We do not believe this act should include animals, whether they are farm, pet or wildlife. Invasive procedures are needed to create each line of gene-edited mammals, there is no history of use for this powerful technology, and it can cause unintended changes to the genome, with unpredictable effects."
"Invasive procedures" (i.e. gene editing) is a deliberate misrepresentation. Invasive to individual cells? Okay, I'll buy that. But his invidious phrasing is meant to rile the pearl-clutchers with mental images of fiendishly cackling mad scientists going full Mengele on helpless, baby critters.
Even more dishonest is his accusation that there is "no history of use for this powerful technology." How, exactly, do you establish a "history of use" without actually using "this powerful technology?" You don't, because you can't. It's exactly like saying "there is no history of use of heavier-than-air flight technology in 1903," so the Wright Flyer and all subsequent iterations of "this powerful technology" should be a priori outlawed.
As for "this technology" being capable of causing "unintended changes to the genome, with unpredictable effects," that's what laboratory experiments and field trials are for. But, of course, Bowles' hand-waving is meant to panic the technologically ignorant, not to inform them.
The RSPCA's Luddism has inflicted all kinds of damage on British farmers over the years, and this press release is intended to do additional, preemptive harm in the dubious service of a slippery slope argument that, because the policy does not specifically bar the use of gene editing on the cats, dogs, and budgies that Brits are mad for, it will inevitably result in the creation of horrific, mutant monsters, available at your local pet store tomorrow.
Won't somebody please think of the puppies ... ?
Re: (Score:2)
David Bowles, the RSPCA's mouthpiece, horripilates, "...there is no history of use for this powerful technology, and it can cause unintended changes to the genome, with unpredictable effects."
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, and also take issue with his ... hmm, ignorance or lies.
One only has to take a brief look [slashdot.org] at some previous stories [slashdot.org] that have featured on /. to realise that we've been gene editing animals for quite some time now. Other edits include having animals (e.g. goats and cows) produce particular proteins and drugs in their milk, exhibit fluorescence, or 'mimic' genetic disorders.
Are there ethical considerations or concerns? For sure, absolutely. But lying about the tec
If I had my way ... (Score:2)
Bring them back.
Re: (Score:2)
The history he refers to is stuff like dog breeding, that resulting in dogs which can't even breath property because their faces are so screwed up. Pets bread to look a certain way ended up with disabilities.
Most pets don't care about not having children, and are often neutered. So there isn't really any need for gene editing to treat hereditary conditions. The tech will only be used for cosmetic purposes, and in the past that has not led anywhere good.
Wonderful hopes for brachycephalic dog breeds! (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Mother nature works best here (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
unintended changes ...with unpredictable effects (Score:2)
Invasive procedures ... can cause unintended changes to the genome, with unpredictable effects.
That'll look good on the tombstone for humanity.
all vertebrate animals (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
all vertebrate animals
I guess most government types are safe; when's the last time one had a backbone?
Normal (Score:2)
The nobility needs to breed downstairs servant people, since Brexit no lower class drugdes apply, not even Irish.
Patentable (Score:1)