Skip to main content

Biodiversity and Biotechnology

  • Chapter
Altering Nature

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((PHME,volume 98))

  • 650 Accesses

The title of this chapter brings together two of the most critical issues raised by the relation of human beings to the natural world. At first, the rationale for bringing them together may be unclear. The threats human activities pose to biodiversity are among the most urgent concerns of environmentalists, but of course, biotechnology accounts for only a narrow range of these threats. Similarly, of the urgent ethical questions posed by biotechnology only a few are directly relevant to biodiversity. Nevertheless there is significant overlap between ethical concerns connected with biodiversity and those connected with biotechnology. This overlap appears, for example, in efforts to enlist biotechnology in the preservation of biodiversity, but the most poignant concerns arise with the prospect of impact on biodiversity from transgenic organisms. Opponents of genetically modified organisms regularly point to the potential effects of these organisms on biodiversity as a reason for prohibiting or strictly regulating research on and application of transgenics. This chapter attempts to evaluate these claims by a careful consideration of the issues they raise in the context of current scientific research.

The chapter is structured by an analysis of the factual and normative issues at stake. In order to evaluate the claims regarding transgenic research and biodiversity we must ask two preliminary questions. The first preliminary question is factual; it has to do with the potential impact of genetically engineered organisms on biodiversity. There is widespread concern about the effects such organisms may have on biodiversity, but what do we know about the likelihood of such effects? Uncertainty about these effects themselves and about the future direction of biotechnology makes this a difficult question, but we nevertheless attempt to answer it in Section 7.1.2 below in relation to the most likely foreseeable developments in transgenics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Andow, D.A., and A. Hilbeck (2004). “Science-based risk assessment for nontarget effects of transgenic crops”, BioScience 54, 637–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augustine. City of God Against the Pagans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, C. (1991). Tikanga Whakaaro—Key Concepts in Maori Culture. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, C. (2001). “Ghost stories from the ice age”, Natural History, 110(9): 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botkin, D.B. (2001). “The Naturalness of Biological Invasions”, Western North American Naturalist 61, 261–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, D. (1998). “Cloning Human Beings: An Assessment of the Ethical Issues Pro and Con”, in M. Nussbaum and C. Sunstein (eds.), Clones and Clones. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bye, R.A. (1981). “Quelites: Ethnoecology of Edible Greens—Past, Present and Future”, Journal of Ethnobiology 1, 109–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bye, R.A. (1993). “The Role of Humans in the Diversification of Plants in Mexico”, in Ramamoorthy, T.P., R. Bye, A. Lot, and J. Fa (eds.), Biological Diversity of Mexico: Origins and Distribution. New York: Oxford University Press, 707–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callicott, B. (1998). “The Land Ethic Dynamized”, Reflections, Special Issue No. 3. Available online: http://www.orst.edu/dept/philosophy/pese/reflections/Reflections 98/callicott.

  • Chapin, F.S. III, B.H. Walker, R.J. Hobbs, D.U. Hooper, J.H. Lawton, O.E. Sala, and D. Tilman (1997). “Biotic Control Over the Functioning of Ecosystems”, Science 277, 500–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A.N., and J.T. Carlton (1998). “Accelerating Invasion Rate in a Highly Invaded Estuary”, Science 279, 555–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P.R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P.A. Matson, H.A. Mooney, S. Postel, S.H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G.M. Woodwell (1997). “Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems”, Issues in Ecology 2. Washington, DC: Ecological Society of America, ISSN 1092–8987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derr, M. (2001). “Alien Species Often Fit in Fine, Some Scientists Contend”, New York Times, D4, Sept. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J. (2004). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky (1982). Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, T. (2001). The Eternal Frontier. Melbourne: Text Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, T. (2002). The Future Eaters: An Ecological History of the Australasian Lands and People. New York: Grove Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, G. (2002). Genes: A Philosophical Inquiry. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, J.L., and D.L. Hawksworth (1995). “Biodiversity - measurement and estimation – preface”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 345, 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, J.L., and D.L. Hawksworth (1995). “Preface. Biodiversity: Measurement and Estimation”, in Hawskworth, D.L. (ed.), Biodiversity Measurement and Estimation. Oxford: The Royal Society, Alden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hites, R.A., J.A. Foran, D.O. Carpenter, et al. (2004). “Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon”, Science 303, 226–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kass, L. (1997). “The Wisdom of Repugnance”, The New Republic, June 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keown, D. (1995). Buddhism and Bioethics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, U. (2000). “Belief-views on Nature: Western Environmental Ethics and Maori World-views”, Archives of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, L.A., R. Frutos, H.K. Kaya, and P. Vail (2001). “Insect Pathogens as Biological Control Agents: Do They Have a Future?” Biological Control 21, 230–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. (1949). “The Land Ethic”, in A. Leopold (ed.), A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press, 201–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, D.M. (1993). “Biological Invasions: Lessons for Ecology”, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8, 133–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, D.M., and K. Shrader-Frechette (2003). “Nonindigenous Species: Ecological Explanation, Environmental Ethics, and Public Policy”, Conservation Biology 17, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J.P. Grime, A. Hector, and D.U. Hooper (2001). “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Current Knowledge and Future Challenge”, Science 294, 804–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, A.O. (1936). The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maimonides, Moses (Moshe ben Maimon). Guide of the Perplexed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, C.C., and Mark L. Plummer (2002). “Forest Biotech Edges Out of the Lab”, Science 295, 1626–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenny, G. (2001). “Religion, Biotechnology, and the Integrity of Nature”, in M. Hanson (ed.), Claiming Power Over Life. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 169–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, M., and J. Fütterer (2001). “Suspect Evidence of Transgenic Contamination”, Nature 416, 600–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naeem, S., and J.P. Wright (2003). “Disentangling Biodiversity Effects on Ecosystem Functioning: Deriving Solutions to a Seemingly Insurmountable Problem”, Ecology Letters 6, 567–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (1986). Genetic Science for Human Benefit. National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (2001). Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nations, J.D., and R.B. Nigh (1980). “The Evolutionary Potential of Lacandon Maya Sustained-yield Tropical Forest Agriculture”, Journal of Anthropological Research 36, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarrete, S.A., and B.A. Menge (1996). “Keystone Predation: Interactive Effects of Two Predators on their Main Prey”, Ecological Monographs 66, 409–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D., and S. Lindee (1995). The DNA Mystique: The Gene as Cultural Icon. New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B.G. (1987). Why Preserve Natural Variety? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003). Consensus Document on the Biology of Zea mays subsp. mays (Maize). OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications, Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology No. 27. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortman, E.E. (2001). “Letter to the Editor: Transgenic Insecticidal Corn: The Agronomic and Ecological Rationale for its Use”, BioScience 51, 900–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, G. (1995). Nga Uruora: Ecology and History in a New Zealand Landscape. Wellington: Victoria University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, J. (1994). “Maori Environmental Virtues”, Environmental Ethics 16(4), 397–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, S.T.A., V.T. Parker, and P.L. Fiedler (1992). “The New Paradigm in Ecology: Implications for Conservation Biology Above the Species Level”, in P.L. Fiedler and S.K. Jain (eds.), Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation Preservation and Management. New York: Chapman & Hall, 65–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quist, D., and I.H. Chapela (2001). “Transgenic DNA Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico”, Nature 414, 541–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, D.H., and R. Frankham (2003). “Correlation Between Fitness and Genetic Diversity”, Conservation Biology 17, 230–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H. (1985). “Duties to Endangered Species”, BioScience 35, 718–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H. (1988). Environmental Ethics: Values in and Duties to the Natural World. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, M.L. (2001). “The Four Questions: What Does the Introduction of Exotic Species do to Diversity?” Evolutionary Ecology Research 3, 361–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (New Zealand) (2002). “Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification”. Available online: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/organisms/royal-commission-gm/index.html

  • Sagoff, M. (1999). “What’s Wrong with Exotic Species?” Available online: http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPP/fall1999/exotic_species.htm

  • Schmithausen, L. (1997). “The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ecological Ethics”, Journal of Buddhist Ethics 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science and Environmental Health Network (1998). “The Wingspread Consensus Statement on the Precautionary Principle”. Available online: http://www.sehn.org/wing.html

  • Serratos-Hernández, J.-A., F. Islas-Gutiérrez, E. Buendía-Rodríguez, and J. Berthaud (2004). “Gene Flow Scenarios with Transgenic Maize in Mexico”, Environmental Biosafety Research 3, 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sessions, W. (1991). “Deep Ecology and Global Ecosystem Protection”, in M. Oelschlaeger (ed.), The Wilderness Condition. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (1995). “Evaluating the Expertise of Experts”, Risk 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (1998). “Ecological Sense and Environmental Nonsense”, Reflections, Special Issue No. 3. Available online: http://www.orst.edu/dept/philosophy/pese/reflections/Reflections 98/shrader.

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (2004). “Risk and Reason”, Ethics 114, 376–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slobodkin, L.B. (2001). “The Good, the Bad and the Reified”, Evolutionary Ecology Research 3, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovik, P. (1999). “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-assessment Battlefield”, Risk Analysis 19, 689–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1986). “Philosophical Problems for Environmentalism”, in B. Norton (ed.), The Preservation of Species. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 173–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2002). Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symstad, A.J., D. Tilman, J. Willson, and J. Knops (1998). “Species Loss and Ecosystem Functioning: Effects of Species Identity and Community Composition”, Oikos 81, 389–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taube, K. (1996). “The Olmec Maize God: The Face of Corn in Formative Mesoamerica”, RES Anthropology and Aesthetics 29/30: 39–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. (1986). Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the Natural World. London: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Methodist Church (1992). “Genetic Science Task Force Report to the 1992 General Conference”, Church and Society 18, 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieyra-Odilón, L., and H. Vibrans (2001). “Weeds as Crops: The Value of Maize Field Weeds in the Valley of Toluca, Mexico”, Economic Botany 55, 426–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitham, T.G., W.P. Young, G.D. Martinsen, C.A. Gehring, J.A. Schweitzer, S.M. Shuster, G.M. Wimp, D.D. Fischer, J.K.Bailey, R.L. Lindroth, S. Woolbright, and C.R. Kuske (2003). “Community and Ecosystem Genetics: A Consequence of the Extended Phenotype”, Ecology 84, 559–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, M. (1996). Biological Invasions. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodsen, M.M. (2001). “If Oak Malady Moves East, Many Trees Could Die”, New York Times, F3, Sept. 4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Agar, N., Lodge, D.M., McKenny, G.P., Wolfenbarger, L. (2008). Biodiversity and Biotechnology. In: Lustig, B.A., Brody, B.A., McKenny, G.P. (eds) Altering Nature. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 98. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6923-9_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics