Animal Enhancement: Technovisionary Paternalism and the Colonisation of Nature

  • Arianna Ferrari
Part of the Health, Technology and Society book series (HTE)


This chapter reconstructs the debate around animal enhancement and describes what is currently being done in experimental research. It then goes on to show how visions of animal enhancement are currently discussed by their transhumanist advocates. These discussions use the positive rhetorical force of an expression like énhancement’, bypass the practical aspects of what supporting ‘animal enhancement technologies’ concretely means — thus the problem of animal experiments — and rely on general arguments that stress the need to eliminate all the negative sides of ‘nature’. Suggesting a strong form of human-centred paternalism, the animal enhancement project presents ‘nature’ as a last frontier which can be colonised by the human technological enterprise.


Nonhuman Animal Human Enhancement Moral Enhancement Enhancement Technology Tail Docking 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Birch K. (2008) ‘Neoliberalising bioethics: bias, enhancement and economistic ethics’, Genomics, Society and Policy, 4 (2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  2. Bostrom N. and Savulescu J. (2009) ‘Human enhancement ethics: the state of the debate’, in Bostrom N. and Savulescu J. (eds), Human Enhancement ( Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press ), pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  3. Chan S. (2009) ‘Should we enhance animals?’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 678–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Church S.L. (2006) ‘Nuclear transfer saddles up’, Nature Biotechnology, 24, 605–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coenen C. (2010) ‘Deliberating Visions: The Case of Human Enhancement in the Discourse on Nanotechnology and Convergence’, in: Kaiser M., Kurath M., Maasen S. and Rehmann-Sutter C. (eds) Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime ( Dordrecht: Springer ), pp. 73–87.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper M. (2008) Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era ( Washington: University of Washington Press).Google Scholar
  7. Donovan D.M. (2005) ‘Engineering disease resistant cattle’, Transgenic Research, 14 (5), 563–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dvorsky G. (2006) ‘All together now: developmental and ethical considerations for biologically uplifting nonhuman animals’, Journal of Personal Cyberconsciousness, 1 (4),
  9. European Parliament STOA (2009) Human Enhancement Study, IPOL-JOIN_ET(20 09) 417483_EN.pdf.Google Scholar
  10. Ferrari A. (2006) ‘Genetically modified laboratory animals in the name of the 3Rs?’, ALTEX, 23 (4), 294–307.Google Scholar
  11. Ferrari A. (2008) Genmaus and Co. Gentechnisch veränderte Tiere in der Biomedizin ( Erlangen: Harald Fischer Verlag).Google Scholar
  12. Ferrari A. (2010) ‘The control nano-freak: multifaceted strategies for taming nature’, in Kjolberg K. and Wickson F. (eds), Nano Meets Macro Social Perspectives on Nano-scaled Sciences and Technologies ( Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing ), pp. 307–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferrari A. (2012a) ‘Animal enhancement: Künftiger Alptraum für Nutztiere?’, animal_enhancement/.Google Scholar
  14. Ferrari A. (2012b) ‘Animal disenhancement for animal welfare: the apparent philosophical conundrums and the real exploitation of animals. A response to Thompson and Palmer’, Nanoethics, 6, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrari A. (2013) ‘Zwischen Tierschutz und Ausbeutung: Animal Enhancement als Herrschaftsprojekt’, in Rippe K.-P. and Thurnherr U. (Hrsg.), Tierisch Menschlich. Beiträge zur Tierphilosophie und Tierethik ( Erlangen: Harald Fischer ), pp. 97–114.Google Scholar
  16. Ferrari A., Coenen C., Grunwald A. and Sauter A. (2010) Animal Enhancement. Neue technische Möglichkeiten und ethische Fragen ( Bern: Bundesamt für Bauten und Logistik BBL ), Scholar
  17. Forsberg C.W. et al. (2003) ‘The Enviropig physiology, performance, and contribution to nutrient management, advances in a regulated environment: the leading edge of change in the pork industry’, Journal of Animal Science, 81 (14 Suppl. 2), E68–77.Google Scholar
  18. Fox M. (2010) ‘Taking dogs seriously?’, Law, Culture and the Humanities, 6 (1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galli C. et al. (2003) ‘Pregnancy: a cloned horse born to its dam twin’, Nature, 424, 635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galli C. et al. (2008) ‘Somatic cell nuclear transfer in horses’, Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 43 (Suppl. s2), 331–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golovan S.P., Meidinger R.G., Ajakaiye A., Cottrill M., Wiederkehr M.Z., Barney D.J., Plante C., Pollard J.W., Fan M.Z., Hayes M.A., Laursen J., Hjorth J.P., Hacker R.R., Phillips J.P. and Forsberg C.W. (2001) ‘Pigs expressing salivary phytase produce low-phosphorus manure’, Nat. Biotechnol., 19, 741–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gottlieb S. and Wheeler M.B. (2008) Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Health: Compelling Benefits for Health Care, Nutrition, the Environment, and Animal Welfare (Washington DC: Biotechnology Industry Organization), ge_animal_benefits.pdf.Google Scholar
  23. Gruen L. (2011) Ethics and Animals: An Introduction ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harris J. (2007) Enhancing Evolution ( Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  25. Harvey D. (2007) A Brief History of Neoliberalism ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  26. Henschke A. (2012) ‘Making sense of animal disenhancement’, Nanoethics, 6 (1), 41–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hubrecht R. (1995) ‘The welfare of dogs in human care’, in Serpell J. (ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interventions with People ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ), pp. 179–98.Google Scholar
  28. Hughes J. (2004) Citizen Cyborg. Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future ( Cambridge: Westview Press).Google Scholar
  29. Kimmelmann B. (1983) ‘The American Breeders’ Association: Genetics and Eugenics in an Agricultural Context, 1903–1913’, Social Studies of Science, 13, 163–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kues W.A. and Niemann H. (2011) ‘Advances in farm animal transgenesis’, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 102, 146–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lebedev M.A. and Nicolelis M.A. (2006) ‘Brain-machine interfaces: past, present and future’, Trends in Neuroscience, 29 (9), 536–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lehrer J. (2009) ‘Neuroscience: small, furry… and smart’, Nature, 461 (7266), 862–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lenk C. (2002) Therapie und Enhancement. Ziele und Grenzen der modernen Medizin ( Berlin: Springer).Google Scholar
  34. Liao S.M., Sandberg A., Roache R. (2012) ‘Human Engineering and Climate Change’, Ethics, Policy and Environment, 15(2). 206–221. DOI: 10.1080/21550085.2012.685574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lush J.L. (1937) Animal breeding plans ( Ames: Iowa State College Press).Google Scholar
  36. Lyons L.A. (2010) ‘Feline genetics: clinical applications and genetic testing’, Topics in Companion Animal Medicine, 25 (4), 203–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Macchiarini F. et al. (2005) ‘Humanized mice: are we there yet?’, Journal of Experimental Medicine, 21, 202(10), 1307–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maga E.A., Shoemaker C.F., Rowe J.D. et al. (2006) ‘Production and processing of milk from transgenic goats expressing human lysozyme in the mammary gland’, Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 518–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mamiya T., Yamada K., Miyamoto Y. et al. (2003) ‘Neuronal mechanism of nociceptin-induced modulation of learning and memory: involvement of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors’, Molecular Psychiatry, 8 (8), 752–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyers-Wallen V.N. (2003) ‘Ethics and genetic selection in purebred dogs’, Reproduction of Domestic Animals, 38, 73–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Palmer C. (2011) ‘Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: a response to Thompson’, Nanoethics, 5, 43–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Panarace M. et al. (2007) ‘How healthy are clones and their progeny: 5 years of field experience’, Theriogenology, 67, 142–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pearce D. (2007) ‘The abolitionist project. Text adapted from invited talks given at the Future of Humanity Institute (Oxford University) and the Charity International Happiness Conference’, Scholar
  44. Pearce D. (2011) ‘Transhumanism 2011. Interview with David Pearce’, Manniska Plus, Scholar
  45. Persson I., Savulescu J. (2012) Unfit for the Future. The Need for Moral Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. President’s Council on Bioethics (2003) Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness ( Washington DC: The President’s Council on Bioethics ), Scholar
  47. Rathbone M. and Brayden D. (2009) ‘Controlled release drug delivery in farmed animals: commercial challenges and academic opportunities’, Current Drug Delivery, 6 (4), 383–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raven P.G. (2011) Uplift ethics and transhuman hubris, Scholar
  49. Roco M. and Bainbridge W. (eds) (2002) Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Technology, NSF/DOC-sponsored report (Arlington: World Technology Evaluation Center), Scholar
  50. Rollin, B.E. (1995) The Frankenstein Syndrome. Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Savulescu J. (2011) ‘Genetically modified animals: should there be limits to engineering the animal kingdom?’, in Beauchamp T. and Frey R. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ), pp. 641–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schaffer M. (2009) One Nation under Dog ( New York: Henry Holt and Co.).Google Scholar
  53. Schultz-Bergin M. (2014) ‘Making better sense of animal disenhancement: A reply to Henschke’, Nanoethics, 8, 101–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Singer (2011) Practical Ethics, 3rd edn ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Steinfield H. et al. (eds) (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options ( Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation ), Scholar
  56. Talwar S.K. et al. (2002) ‘Behavioural neuroscience: rat navigation guided by remote control’, Nature, 417, 37–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tang Y., Shimizu E., Dube G.R. et al. (1999) ‘Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice’, Nature, 401 (6748), 63–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thompson P. (2008) ‘The opposite of enhancement: nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem’, Nanoethics, 2, 305–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wall R.J., Powell A.M., Paape M.J. et al. (2005) ‘Genetically enhanced cows resist intramammary Staphylococcus aureus infection’, Nature Biotechnology, 23, 445–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wolbring G. (2008) ‘Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement?’, 21, Innovation; The European Journal of Social Science Research, 1, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolbring G. (2009) ‘Die Konvergenz der Governance von Wissenschaft und Technik mit der Governance des “Ableism”’, Technikfolgenabschätzung–Theorie und Praxis, 2 (18), 29–35.Google Scholar
  62. Wolbring G. (2010) ‘Human enhancement through the ableism lens’, Dilemata, 3, Scholar
  63. Young L. (2009) ‘Pet economy: meet the fur babies’,, 5 November, Scholar

Copyright information

© Arianna Ferrari 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arianna Ferrari

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations