IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v41y2024i3d10.1007_s10460-024-10548-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Artifishial: naturalness and the CRISPR-salmon

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Winther

    (Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), NTNU Dragvoll)

Abstract

One of the reasons why GMOs have met public resistance in the past is that they are perceived as “unnatural”. The basis for this claim has, in part, to do with crossing species boundaries, which is considered morally objectionable. The emergence of CRISPR is sometimes argued to be an ethical game-changer in this regard since it does not require the insertion of foreign genes. Based on an empirical bioethics study including individual interviews and focus groups with laypeople and other stakeholders, this article analyses the normative role of appeals to naturalness in discussions about the moral acceptability of using CRISPR in salmon farming. It discusses two dimensions of naturalness found in the material– living by species-specific nature and being unaffected by humans– and argues that these dimensions put down criteria for the application of CRISPR that lead to a conflict between our moral duties towards the farmed salmon and those we hold towards the wild salmon as a threatened species. It also points to a paradox which is likely to gain traction with further climate change and biodiversity loss, namely that while nature, understood as that which is unaffected by humans, is presented as an ideal, conserving nature in its pristine state may rely on technology and human intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Winther, 2024. "Artifishial: naturalness and the CRISPR-salmon," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(3), pages 1211-1222, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:41:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10460-024-10548-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-024-10548-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-024-10548-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-024-10548-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henrik Mielby & Peter Sandøe & Jesper Lassen, 2013. "Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(3), pages 471-480, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fan, Xiaoli & Muringai, Violet, 2018. "Effect of Information on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Potatoes in Canada," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274073, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Serena Mandolesi & Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya & Simona Naspetti & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli, 2022. "Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    4. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    5. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Giovanni Mian & Federico Nassivera & Sandro Sillani & Luca Iseppi, 2022. "Grapevine Resistant Cultivars: A Story Review and the Importance on the Related Wine Consumption Inclination," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Petit, Joshua D. & Needham, Mark D. & Howe, Glenn T., 2021. "Cognitive and demographic drivers of attitudes toward using genetic engineering to restore American chestnut trees," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    8. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, September.
    9. De Marchi, E. & Cavaliere, A. & Banterle, A., 2018. "Consumer choice behavior for cisgenic food: exploring attribute processing strategies and the role of time preference," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277393, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Raul F. Medina & Jennifer Kuzma, 2023. "Engineered and natural gene drives: mechanistically the same, yet not same in kind," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-2, December.
    11. Elisa De Marchi & Alessia Cavaliere & Alessandro Banterle, 2021. "Consumers' Choice Behavior for Cisgenic Food: Exploring the Role of Time Preferences," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 866-891, June.
    12. Gesa Busch & Erin Ryan & Marina A. G. Keyserlingk & Daniel M. Weary, 2022. "Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 151-164, March.
    13. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:41:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10460-024-10548-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.