With the ongoing climate crisis, there is much talk about formalizing environmental rights for citizens. About 110 countries have legal documentation to guarantee the right to a healthy environment for its citizens. Canada, however, has not yet done such an action.  Hence, the question is asked: should Canada guarantee environmental rights to Canadians? If so, why? In this short blog post, I will support the right of living in a healthy and stable environment which should be protected by civil law.

Firstly, studies have shown that countries that guarantee their citizens a right to a healthy environment are quick to reduce their greenhouse gases and air pollution. Moreover, they provide better and quicker access to safe drinking water and sanitation.  As a country that is increasing its greenhouse gas emissions and has Indigenous communities that still don’t have access to clean drinking water, we need a swifter response on tackling these issues. The climate crisis is real, and its effects are no longer just seen in developing nations. Additionally, protecting the environment by setting higher industry standards is ultimately protecting not only human health but also the economy. Robust environmental protection inspires innovation and reduces health care costs for citizens and governments. Hence, there are multiple benefits in establishing environmental legislation.

Second, failing to establish the right to a healthy environment is a major injustice against Indigenous populations. This is not just because their communities have limited to no access to clean drinking water. Rather, it is mainly because many Indigenous communities have a religious connection to the land and water. Hence, deteriorated environments affect the mental and physical health of Indigenous peoples, but it also infringes upon their religious right to uphold their religious duties. Additionally, in order to proceed with reconciliation, this religious right should be protected by consulting Indigenous populations to incorporate Indigenous law into the legal system. One of my professors was from New Zealand and he states that the Māori people of New Zealand played a vital role in academic, political, and social systems. This is a sign of respect and humanity. Canada has continued to ignore Indigenous issues but does have aims to advance reconciliation. Protecting the right to a healthy environment will surely achieve this advancement.

An argument one can bring forward against the right to a healthy environment is that Canadian provinces such as the Yukon or Ontario already have environmental legislations present. Do we still need to have this right embedded in our constitution? The answer is still affirmative. The laws established by the provinces are weak politically and symbolically. Hence, we need to have a stronger legislative force to establish this right such as the federal government. We can see this example when the United Conservative Party came into power in Alberta and removed the New Democratic Party’s carbon tax. However, the Trudeau government slapped it back on to Alberta when issuing the federal carbon tax. Additionally, besides the strength behind constitutional power,  the constitution of a country reflects its citizens cherished ideals and morals. Hence, it is not only politically important but also symbolically. Having this right in our constitution gives Canadians the full power to hold governments and industries responsible if they ever infringe upon our right to a healthy and clean environment.

Wouldn’t it be just a magical scientific phenomenon to bring back extinct species from the past decade, century, or millennia? With deep de-extinction, this may be possible. Deep de-extinction is bringing back extinct species by rebuilding close prototypes of the extinct species genome from preserved DNA or from genetic information from close living relatives (Sandler 355). Basically, it’s Jurassic Park in real life. Obviously, before we move forward with this new radical and powerful scientific technology, it needs to be ethically evaluated. There is support for this technology from ethicists and also disapproval. I will look into some of these supports and disapprovals with specific regards to the deep de-extinction of mammoths.

First of all, having mammoths back in the world will create value. It may not create lost value because Homo Sapiens and woolly mammoths were not present at the same time. However, it would bring scientific and technological value by advancements in genetic and synthetic biology (Sandler 356). Additionally, even if put these mammoths in the zoo, many people will be pleased to see this wondrous creature that they have only seen in its skeleton, or drawings, or animated movies (Sandler 356). Think about it in terms of species from today. Even if you have never seen a panda upfront, aren’t you happier with the thought that they are not extinct yet? Let’s look at the other way around. Brazil’s Spix macaw are now extinct in the wild and this has created much sadness around the (Twitter) world. Hence, outside of scientific progression, it would be wondrous to see a mammoth during our lifetime.

Should Wholly Mammoths be Brought Back?

Regardless of value, we still need to consider other reasoning for why we should use deep de-extinction with mammoths. Some ethicists claim that we need to bring back species that faced artificial (human-led) extinction (Sandler 355). What about species that did not face artificial extinction? It is widely debated on how exactly the mammoth went extinct, however, many claim that it was due to natural climate change. Around 10,500 years ago, global warming led to the loss of the wholly mammoth habitat, which left isolated populations in islands. These isolated populations faced reduced fertility and diabetes due to mutations and weak genetic variation. Thus, the question is asked: are humans responsible for bringing back mammoths that faced natural extinction? Should humans bring them back? After all, one can claim that mammoth extinction is “meant to be”. This may sound cosmic, but maybe there is a reason why the mammoths species died out before the rise of the Homo Sapiens.

There are also other aspects to consider if the mammoths are brought back. Do we have the expertise, habitat, and technology to create a safe and healthy environment for them? Do we have to create an ecological context for the mammoths (Sandler 356)? Should we not use those recourses to perhaps preserve the species that are going extinct currently? Again, very cosmic, but maybe there is a reason a species exists at the same time as we do. Thus, we may have a more pertinent duty to preserve the current endangered species rather than invest our resources in bringing back another species from thousands of years ago.

Questions for the comments: Are there other reasons that can be found in approval or disapproval of the deep de-extinction of mammoths? Are there consequences such as ecological, economic, and social burdens that will surface with the revival of mammoths through deep de-extinction?

Sources:

SANDLER, R. (2014), The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species. Conservation Biology, 28: 354-360. https://doi-org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.1111/cobi.12198

In this short blog post, I will analyze if gene drive testing and implementation should occur in order to combat mosquito-borne diseases. First off, it is pertinent to briefly discuss what gene drives are and how they work. Gene drive technology uses a CRISPR editing system (Pugh 2016). One parent chromosome having the CRISPR system edits out the targeted DNA in the other parent chromosome and replaces it’s with the modified gene drive to make it a dominant trait in the offspring (Scudellari 2019). This technology spreads genetic modification in a species at a much higher rate of inheritance than normal (Scudellari 2019). Gene drives are being made to spread infertility in female mosquitos to drive them to extinction or to resist the genus that causes malaria (Pugh 2016). There are also gene drive technologies available that kill the mosquito as soon as a virus is detected in the mosquito’s body (Scudellari 2019). All these methods are to combat mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue, Zika, etc.

Why are Scientists Condemning Gene Drives?

One reason scientists are hesitant to establish gene drives is that it is a radically innovative technology that may have consequences unaware to humans (Goodall et al 2016). Playing around with genetics may pose serious risks and using that technology to end a species can “intervene in evolution” or “dramatically modify ecosystems” (Goodall et al 2016). This is a great power to hold and as we all know “With great power comes great responsibility” (Marvel). Currently, there are no methods to regulate, evaluate, or govern this technology (Goodall et al 2016). Scientists argue that they cannot coherently assess all the risks associated with gene drives because, ostensibly, there are “obvious dangers” in releasing “genocidal genes” to ecosystems and there are also moral implications as well (Goodall et al 2016).

To Pursue or Not to Pursue?

A trial is needed to test this gene drive in order to fully be aware of the potential effects. To take this leap of faith, it is essential for humans to believe that expected benefits may outweigh the risks. Currently, it is the opposite thinking that demoralizes gene drives: the negative consequences unaware to humans; What may happen to an ecosystem with this genocidal gene drive? Pugh (2016) argues that in assessing the consequences of gene drives we should also consider its likelihood of occurring. How likely is it that a gene drive may severely disrupt an ecosystem? How about looking it the other way around? Perhaps in a more positive manner. The potential benefit of gene drives in mosquitos is the eradication of diseases that incessantly causes human suffering and deaths (Pugh 2016). If human lives are more or equal to mosquito lives, shouldn’t we consider the likelihood of benefit that gene drives may pose to humans in the ecosystems? Every new technology will have intrinsic and extrinsic risks that are unforeseeable (Pugh 2016).  Facebook, for example, was created on the basis of staying connected. Now, it manipulates national elections. Did anyone ever see that coming? I’m pretty sure 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg didn’t even see that coming. In the case of gene drives, we have mature and credible scientists working on this technology and assessing its risks to save human suffering, economic loss, and human loss.

A Complication

Although I have given gene drives the green light to eradicate mosquito-borne diseases, there are still some issues that may come forward with testing. Which human communities will the guinea pig environments to test gene drive technology? Most mosquito-borne diseases are apparent in Africa such as malaria, dengue, Zika, etc. (Scudellari 2019). How will Africans react to tests occurring in their communities? Will the use of African scientists working in these communities (as opposed to other ethnicities) be sufficient in gaining trust from the community? Hence, which community should be tested on poses another branch of moral implications associated with gene drives.

Sources:

Pugh, J. (2016). Driven to extinction? The ethics of eradicating mosquitoes with gene-drive technologies. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(9), 578-581. doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103462

Scudellari, M. (2019, July 09). Self-destructing mosquitoes and sterilized rodents: The promise of gene drives. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02087-5

Goodall et al. (2016, October 11). A Call for Conservation with a Conscience: No Place for Gene Drives in Conservation. Retrieved from http://www.synbiowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/letter_vs_genedrives.pdf

 

 

 

 

AquaBounty has been selling genetically modified salmon since 2017.¹ This salmon grows faster and requires less food which puts them in the market sooner.¹ Moreover, they are not harmful to the environment as escapee salmons are sterile and incapable to survive in saltwater, rendering them harmless to the natural ecosystems.¹  Lastly, these modified salmon pose no greater risk to human health than regular salmon.¹  With all these benefits, one may have no problem with genetically modified salmon as they are quite similar to regular salmon. Due to this reason, AquaBounty is not required to label the salmon as genetically modified; it is solely up to the retailer’s discretion.¹ What is the ethicality behind this? In this short blog post, I will analyze whether AquaBounty’s genetically modified salmon should be labeled or not under some aspects of Comstock’s Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods (2010).

Advocates for Mandatory Labelling

Biasedly, I would prefer AquaBounty to place a mandatory label on their genetically modified salmon. Just like all ingredients, vitamins, and fats are labeled under the nutritional value sticker, I would like to know how the salmon was grown. This is regardless of whether it is good, bad, or neutral for my health. It is my body and I would like to make choices in knowing what’s going inside of it. Moreover, I would like to know if the production of the salmon results in social inequalities? Are the workers being treated fairly? Are there individuals’ beings financially marginalized due to this new way of salmon farming? This background knowledge and transparency about my food provide me autonomy as I choose to decide what I want to eat.

I support my mandatory labeling argument with the three secular ethical traditions that Comstock uses: the rights theory, Utilitarian theory, and virtue theory.² Comstock states that if these three traditions favour the same solution then that outcome is “morally justifiable” (4).² Here is a brief description of the theories and how they support my argument:

Rights Theory

This theory states to always act in a manner that results in treating humans as autonomous individuals.² As mentioned previously, by labeling the fish as genetically modified, one gains autonomy as they are now aware of what is going inside their body. It results in better decision making and doesn’t make it seem like we are guinea pigs being tested on.

Utilitarian Theory

This theory states to act in a way that maximizes aggregate benefits and reduces aggregate harm.² This theory is somewhat biased as benefits for some, may be harms for others. Again, since I am the author of this post, I will state the autonomy of an individual through knowledge is a benefit. Thus, labeling the genetically modified salmon increases the aggregate benefit. For AquaBounty, however, if labeling ends up in fewer profits than it may not satisfy the utilitarian theory.

Virtue Theory

This theory states to act in a manner that is fair, just, and good.² Isn’t it fair to be told about what you are consuming with full transparency? Ignorance is not bliss. One should know if the products they consume are good, bad, or neutral for their health.

Anti-Labelers

To be a professional academic, I will consider (or hypothesize) the argument of those who would not prefer mandatory labeling of the AquaBounty salmon. Comstock talks about the stigma around agriculture biotechnology (ag biotech).  The biases are that engaging in ag biotech is as if we are playing God, inventing world-changing technology, illegitimately crossing species boundaries, and commodifying life (6).²  I will not rebut these claims since Comstock does a wonderful job himself in doing so. I will, however, raise the concern of how tainting food is a “powerful and extraordinary social act” (10).² It determines consumer behavior as people believe anything associated with foods no matter how untrustworthy the source is.²  Perhaps this is why AquaBounty is less likely to take the risk of labeling their salmon as genetically modified. They are afraid to take the risk of how untrustworthy news around GMOs (genetically modified organisms) may affect their profits. After all, they have been trying to get into the Canadian market for decades.¹ According to the experiment that Comstock describes, a group presented with favorable information about how a food affects human health (regardless of source credibility) results in a higher price of the food.² Conversely, if a group was presented with unfavorable information, the price decreased.² But, if both favorable and unfavorable information is presented about how the food affects human health, the price still decreases.² Generalizing from this experiment, even if AquaBounty does some strong marketing in proving that the genetically modified salmon is not harmful, other less credible sources may still have the power to reduce or completely annihilate the business’s profits.

Is the reduction of AquaBounty’s profits justifiable for not labeling the salmon as genetically modified? If the company goes out of business due to labeling, will there be less salmon for Canadians? Will this cause a chain reaction in higher salmon prices and strenuous work environments for Canadian farmers? Will then the salmon farmers suicide due to increased pressure? If labeling the salmon will result in such extreme ramifications, then I could consider in not labeling the salmon as genetically modified. As for now, being ignorant of the answers to these questions, I will state that it is ethical for AquaBounty to label their salmon as genetically modified for consumer autonomy.

Samar Kauser

Citations

1. Shakeri, Sima. “Genetically Modified Salmon Now Sold In Canada, But You May Not Even Know It.” HuffPost Canada. August 09, 2017. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/08/aquabounty-has-sold-4-5-tonnes-of-genetically-modified-atlantic_a_23070751/?guccounter=1.
2. Comstock G. (2010) Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods. In: Gottwald FT., Ingensiep H., Meinhardt M. (eds) Food Ethics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5765-8_4

 

In this short blog post, I will analyze the endangered Algonquin wolves in Ontario due to changes in the Endangered Species Act under the lens of Rolston’s “Duties to Endangered Species” article.

It seems as though the government of Ontario and its citizens have little to no care for the Algonquin wolves. Bill 108 passed by the conservative government elongated the time frame to create recommendations on how to protect the wolves and compromised their habitat protection (Rutledge). It also allowed the environment minister to bypass legal protection calling for the Algonquin wolves whenever convenient (Rutledge). With relaxed hunting laws and little strategies to preserve this species, Algonquin wolves are endangered since less than a thousand mature wolves remain (Rutledge).

The Ontario government’s Bill 108 largely ignores the scientific community (Rutledge). In her article, Rutledge goes on to mention that, just like decisions made about COVID-19, saving Algonquin wolves should rely on independent research. This means all voices should be heard, but science should prevail (Rutledge). However, I believe when it comes to saving species, scientific knowledge isn’t enough. We need biological ethics to preserve species (Rolston, 718). If we establish these biological ethics, hopefully, we won’t even need to tire scientists in providing research to government officials or the public. Biological ethics will be an especially useful argument against governments that reject scientific data.

Simply said, humans regard other species as ‘stock’ (Rolston, 718).  Humans often protect valuable species or artifacts not because we have duties to the species, but because we have duties to “ourselves [and to the] duties of prudence and education” (Rolston, 719). At the end of the day, humans treat species as either resource of consumption, study material, or entertainment (Rolston, 720). In this case, Algonquin wolf hunting is merely for entertainment since nobody eats the wolves (Rutledge). However, Ontarians need to realize that the extinction of the wolves is not just going to affect their loss of entertainment, but it will result in the murder and insensitivity of forms of life and its systems (Rolston, 720). We need this “principled responsibility to the biospheric Earth” to instill change in our behavior (Rolston, 720). If scientific knowledge about the effects of killing Algonquin wolves is insufficient, then wolves still shouldn’t be killed because of biological ethics. This thinking is lacking in the government of Ontario as they allow the merciless hunting and trapping of Algonquin wolves in the wide unprotected lands (Rutledge). Most protected areas are patchy and are separated by large amounts of unprotected lands where wolves are bound to travel to (Rutledge). In that travel process, many are killed (Rutledge). Based on these relaxed laws, I would say that the patchy protected areas are merely a façade to trick citizens into thinking the government is playing an active role in preserving the Algonquin wolves.

Rutledge says wolves “nurture our spirit’ and improve our well-boing by “just being there” as humans admire “untamed and untouched wilderness”. This view might be slightly anthropogenic as it states that Algonquin wolves shouldn’t be hunted because of the intrinsic values they provide to humans. However, species need to be objectively present in the system (Rolston, 721). There reproduction and changes in gene poll provide evidence of their existence (Rolston, 721). Consequently, their existence alone provides us comfort (Rutledge). This may form a reciprocal contract between Algonquin wolves and humans in which humans don’t hunt the wolves and the wolves exist to provide us with well-being. However, people argue that contracts can be only with “reflective rational agents” (Rolston, 722). Regardless, even if wolves are not rational agents, can’t speak, and are powerless, we have a duty to protect them (Rolston, 722). Thus, even if we can’t form reciprocal contracts with species, we need to avoid harming them (Rolston, 722). We need to instill these biological ethics to shift away from the anthropogenic thinking of humans valuing everything “relative to [their] utility” (Rolston, 726). If we establish this thinking, we may not even need scientific research to stop the hunting and extinction of Algonquin wolves in Ontario.

Samar

Sources:

Rutledge, Linda. “The Erosion of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act Threatens Iconic Algonquin Wolf.” The Conversation, 9 Aug. 2020, theconversation.com/the-erosion-of-ontarios-endangered-species-act-threatens-iconic-algonquin-wolf-142805.

Rolston, Holmes III. “Duties to Endangered Species,” BioScience 35(1985):718-726.　 Special issue on biological conservation. Reprinted variously.