Taking Responsibility for Cloning: Discourses of Care and Knowledge in Biotechnological Approaches to Nonhuman Life

  • Jessica L. W. Carey


This article examines the practice of animal cloning in relation to discourses of care and responsibility, in particular a common cultural interpretation of care theorized by Michel Foucault. This interpretation figures care as a “pastoral” relation premised in essential differences between carers and objects of care, and its interspecies implications are increasingly drawing the attention of theorists in animal studies. This article argues that, perhaps despite appearances, animal welfare in the form of pastoral care and abstract conceptualizations of animals that are dominant in discourses of animal biotechnology are not mutually exclusive, but rather in practice may be operating in conjunction with each other, discursively working together to naturalize ethics of biotechnology and animal welfare that reinforce rather than question human dominance and superiority. Specifically, mapping the normative framework of pastoral care onto the existing scientific orientation to acquiring knowledge of animal bodies produces a definition of care that is presumed to be both finite and perfectible. Ultimately, critical analysis of biotechnological manifestations of care and responsibility enables both a theorization of the industry’s performance of responsibility independently of its care-related claims about its own practices, and the elucidation of an alternative framework for assessing interspecies ethics that maintains a critical distance from the supposed “naturalness” or “unnaturalness” of interspecies relationships such as cloning.


Biotechnology Cloning Animal ethics Ethics of care Biopolitics Foucault 


  1. American Anti-Vivisection Society. (2013). Animal cloning. Accessed December 1, 2013 from
  2. Brunk, C. G., Hartley, S., & Rodgers, L. C. (2012). Introduction: Focusing on the values in debates about animal biotechnology. In C. G. Brunk & S. Hartley (Eds.), Designer animals: Mapping the issues in animal biotechnology (pp. 3–22). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  3. Calarco, M. (2009). Toward an agnostic animal ethics. In P. Cavalieri, et al. (Eds.), The death of the animal: A dialogue (pp. 73–84). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dubreuil, L. (2006). Leaving politics: Bios, zoe, life. Diacritics, 36(2), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 197778. (Ed. M. Senellart & G. Burchell, Trans). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Franklin, S. (2007). Dolly mixtures: The remaking of genealogy. Durham and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gjerris, M. (2012). Animal biotechnology: The ethical landscape. In C. G. Brunk & S. Hartley (Eds.), Designer animals: Mapping the issues in animal biotechnology (pp. 23–46). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gruen, L. (2011). Ethics and animals: An introduction. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hou, P., Li, Y., Zhang, X., Liu, C., Guan, J., Li, H., et al. (2013). Pluripotent stem cells induced from mouse somatic cells by small-molecule compounds. Science, 341(6146), 651–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Oliver, K. (2009). Animal lessons: How they teach us to be human. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Pandian, A. (2012). Pastoral power in the postcolony: On the biopolitics of the criminal animal in South India. In A. Gross & A. Vallely (Eds.), Animals and the human imagination: A companion to animal studies (pp. 79–112). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Pollard, I. (2009). Bioscience ethics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Röcklinsberg, H., Gamborg, C., & Gjerris, M. (2014). A case for integrity: Gains from including more than animal welfare in animal ethics committee deliberations. Laboratory Animals, 48(1), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rollin, B. E. (2006). Science and ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shriver, A. (2009). Knocking out pain in livestock: Can technology succeed where morality has failed? Neuroethics, 2(3), 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shukin, N. (2011). Tense animals: On other species of pastoral power. The New Centennial Review, 11(2), 143–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Soldner, F., Hockemayer, D., Beard, C., Gao, Q., Bell, G. W., Cook, E. G., et al. (2009). Parkinson’s disease patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells free of viral reprogramming factors. Cell, 136(5), 964–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spector, R. (2010). Franken food: Livestock cloning and the quest for industrial perfection. In D. Imhoff (Ed.), The CAFO reader (pp. 262–272). Berkeley and Los Angeles: Foundation for Deep Ecology and Watershed Media, dist. by University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Streiffer, R., & Basl, J. (2011). Ethical issues in the application of biotechnology to animals in agriculture. In T. L. Beauchamp & R. G. Frey (Eds.), The oxford handbook of animal ethics (pp. 826–854). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Twine, R. (2010). Animals as biotechnology: Ethics, sustainability, and critical animal studies. London and Washington, D.C.: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  21. Vajta, G., & Gjerris, M. (2006). Science and technology of farm animal cloning: State of the art. Animal Reproduction Science, 92, 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weitzenfeld, A., & Joy, M. (2014). An overview of anthropocentrism, humanism, and speciesism in critical animal theory. In A. Nocella, et al. (Eds.), Defining critical animal studies: An intersectional social justice approach for liberation (pp. 3–27). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  23. Wilmut, I., & Highfield, R. (2006). After Dolly: The uses and misuses of human cloning. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cultural Studies ProgramWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations