The Legal Governance of Animal Biotechnologies

  • Nils HoppeEmail author


This chapter seeks to give an overview of governance approaches to animal biotechnologies. It will identify common themes and trends. The law is in most cases a domestic affair and it would be outside the remit of this chapter if it sought to analyse the legal situation in any number of states. The German and the European regulatory frameworks will be used by way of an illustration how institutions and normative concepts are connected and interact, but this will be put in the greater context of understanding regulation. The aim of this chapter is, therefore, to give the reader an overview over the structure of the governance landscape, the issues and challenges and the approaches to deal with these. Nevertheless, the difficulties in encompassing the reality of how we use animals, and need to use animals, and our moral perception of animals are a common theme which we need to be aware of to understand how the regulation described in this chapter functions and how norms and institutions interact. The chapter will initially outline the different frameworks and institutions which play a role in the legal governance of animal biotechnologies. Afterwards, it will look at how governance works in this field, before discussing how the law approaches animal biotechnologies. Finally, the chapter will take a look at issue after the market introduction of an animal biotechnology before drawing some conclusions.


Law Governance Animal experimentation Biotechnology 



I am grateful for the kind assistance of Yvonne Stöber, Dennis Peters and Nikita Bangalore in preparing this manuscript.


  1. Brom FWA, Schroten E (1993) Ethical questions around animal biotechnology. The Dutch approach. Livest Prod Sci 36(1):99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coles D, Frewer LJ, Goddard E (2015) Ethical issues and potential stakeholder priorities associated with the application of genomic technologies applied to animal production systems. J Agric Environ Ethics 28(2):231–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Diamond J (2002) Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication. Nature 418(6898):700–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Faulkner A, Poort L (2017) Stretching and challenging the boundaries of law: varieties of knowledge in biotechnologies regulation. Minerva:1–20Google Scholar
  5. Food and Drugs Administration (FDA). Animal Health and Consumer Protection (2006) Accessed 30 Aug 2017
  6. Forsberg EM et al (2017) Patent ethics: the misalignment of views between the patent system and the wider society. Sci Eng Ethics:1–26Google Scholar
  7. Kellert SR, Westervelt MO (1983) Historical trends in American animal use and perception. Int J Study Anim Probl 4(3):133–146Google Scholar
  8. Liddell K (2012) Immorality and patents: the exclusion of inventions contrary to ordre public and morality. In: Lever A (ed) New frontiers in the philosophy of intellectual property. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Mohr BJ et al (2016) The governance of animal care and use for scientific purposes in Africa and the Middle East. ILAR J 57(3):333–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Morin E (1997) Of mice and men: the ethics of patenting animals. Health Law J 147:5Google Scholar
  11. O'Connor KW (1992) Patenting animals and other living things. South Calif Law Rev 65:597Google Scholar
  12. Raines LJ (1990) Public policy aspects of patenting transgenic animals. Theriogenology 33(1):129–140CrossRefGoogle 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. Lab Anim 48(1):61–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Salter B, Harvey A (2014) Creating problems in the governance of science: bioethics and human/animal chimeras. Sci Public Policy 41(5):685–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Twine R (2010) Animals as biotechnology: ethics, sustainability and critical animal studies. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal Biotechnology (2017) Accessed 30 Aug 2017
  18. Wong JC (2017) Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke. The Guardian. Accessed 30 Aug 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CELLS—Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life SciencesLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations