Bringing in the controversy : re-politicizing the de-politicized strategy of ethics committees

Human/animal relations are potentially controversial and biotechnologically produced animals and animal-like creatures – bio-objects such as transgenics, clones, cybrids and other hybrids – have often created lively political debate since they challenge established social and moral norms. Ethical issues regarding the human/animal relations in biotechnological developments have at times been widely debated in many European countries and beyond. However, the general trend is a move away from parliamentary and public debate towards institutionalized ethics and technified expert panels. We explore by using the conceptual lens of bio-objectification what effects such a move can be said to have. In the bio-objectification process, unstable bio-object becomes stabilized and receives a single “bio-identity” by closing the debate. However, we argue that there are other possible routes bio-objectification processes can take, routes that allow for more open-ended cases. By comparing our observations and analyses of deliberations in three different European countries we will explore how the bio-objectification process works in the context of animal ethics committees. From this comparison we found an interesting common feature: When animal biotechnology is discussed in the ethics committees, technical and pragmatic matters are often foregrounded. We noticed that there is a common silence around ethics and a striking consensus culture. The present paper, seeks to understand how the bio-objectification process works so as to silence complexity through consensus as well as to discuss how the ethical issues involved in animal biotechnology could become re-politicized, and thereby made more pluralistic, through an “ethos of controversies”

TRV-induced silencing of the anthocyanidin and proanthocyanidin biosynthetic genes <i>ANS</i> and <i>ANR</i>.

<p>a–d, Plants infiltrated with the vector control (CK), pYL156:<i>ANS</i> and pYL156:<i>ANR</i> showed different phenotypes in systemic leaves (a–c) and stems (d). e–g, DMACA stained leaves. h, Relative transcript levels of <i>ANS</i> and <i>ANR</i> in systemic leaves of plants infiltrated with pYL156:<i>ANS</i> and pYL156:<i>ANR</i>. The CK value was set at 100%. Error bars represent standard deviations (n = 3 biological replicates). White arrows indicate pink leaf veins (c) and stem (d).</p

Agrobacterium-mediated TRV VIGS of two marker genes, <i>GaPDS</i> and <i>GaCLA1</i>, in <i>G</i><i>. barbadense</i>.

<p>A, Phenotypes of plants inoculated with pYL156:<i>CLA1</i> or pYL156:<i>PDS</i> vectors. The pYL156 vector was used as a vector control. B, Three cotton cultivars exhibited the photobleaching phenotype triggered by <i>GaPDS</i> or <i>GaCLA1</i> gene silencing to differing extents. C, Relative transcript levels of <i>PDS</i> and <i>CLA1</i> in systemic leaves of plants infiltrated with pYL156:<i>PDS</i> or pYL156:<i>CLA1</i>. The CK value was set at 100%. D, Total chlorophyll content in photobleached leaves. Error bars represent standard deviations (n = 3 biological replicates) in (C) and (D).</p