For farmed animals, gene editing could alleviate suffering (hornless cows, disease resistance) or greatly exacerbate it (faster growth). This essay probes the tension between industry and advocacy, as well as the shifting regulatory landscape. There is a crucial window to determine if gene editing becomes a tool for welfare or for intensifying factory farming.

This excerpt outlines a clear argument for genetic welfare enhancements in farmed animals. If you have doubts or worries about genetic interventions, try to pinpoint which of the premises you take issue with – or perhaps identify if any key considerations have been left out.

This passage introduces Rollin’s principle for the conservation of welfare: “any animals that are genetically engineered for human use should be no worse off, in terms of suffering, after the new traits are introduced into the genome than the parent stock was prior to the insertion of the new genetic material”.

This passage argues that many proposed genetic “solutions” (like disease resistance or hornless cattle) merely treat the symptoms of intensive confinement rather than addressing the root cause. It contends that these technological fixes are often unnecessary, as less-intensive farming systems or existing non-genetic alternatives (like conventional breeding) could achieve similar welfare goals without the risks (or significant costs) of genetic engineering.

Some advocates worry that genetic welfare enhancements may even be counterproductive to farmed animal welfare. This excerpt compares genetic welfare enhancements against promising non-genetic approaches to improving farmed animal welfare – above all, alt proteins and cultivated meat.

The prevailing question posed by genetic welfare enhancement today is: Do we have the right to do this? Tomorrow, the question may be: What right have we to withhold this?

In this EA Forum post, Ruth Seleo of the Compassionate Future Initiative argues that we may have a responsibility to use technology to reduce suffering, while also noting the influence of environmental factors on suffering.

Philosopher David Pearce advocates for suffering abolition: the use of biotechnology to fully eliminate involuntary pain and suffering in all sentient beings. In this talk, Pearce explores ambitious applications of genetic modification to reduce suffering. These include regulating population sizes and herbivorising predators to reduce wild animal suffering, as well as “hedonic uplift”: raising our affective baselines so that our “lowest lows” are on par with our “highest highs”.

For more on Pearce’s ideas, see his manifesto, the Hedonistic Imperative.

This initiative supports the use of CRISPR-based gene drives to eliminate an economically devastating parasite that also causes severe suffering to affected livestock.

The Far Out Initiative was a public benefit corporation conducting research into the biological foundations of pain.

To read more about the Far Out Initiative’s work, see Alexander (2024).

This explainer animation provides an accessible intro to CRISPR technology & its implications.

Changes caused by somatic gene editing are not passed on to offspring, while changes caused by germline gene editing are heritable. This short National Geographic article introduces the crucial distinction between somatic and germline gene editing, surveying reasons for and against germline gene editing.

Gene drives are a powerful new tool which can nearly guarantee traits being passed on, enabling traits to be spread rapidly throughout an entire population.

This comprehensive review compiles motivations and concerns regarding genetic editing in animals.

A deep dive into the myriad ethical complexities presented by CRISPR gene editing of animals.

Covers major genetic engineering techniques and risks.

Report by a researcher at the American Anti-Vivisection Society.

This paper introduces the concept of disenhancement and explores its ethical implications.

In this article, Bob Fischer of Rethink Priorities argues that neural disenhancement of animals may be permissible insofar as it implies less total suffering.

This article argues that gene editing should be applied to reduce lab animals’ capacity for suffering.

This article defends genetic disenhancement in the case of pigs raised for organ donation to humans – so long as no viable non-animal alternatives are available.

This article argues that even if disenhancement leads to suffering reduction and welfare improvements, it still violates animals’ integrity and dignity.

W. M. S. Russell and R. L. Burch’s 3Rs framework is a seminal foundation for animals research ethics: Replace (prefer non-animal methods), Reduce (minimise animal use), and Refine (employ methods which minimise suffering and improve welfare for animals used).

This article finds that the 3Rs framework fails to account for various other harms caused by disenhancement.

This article also provides a critical perspective on disenhancement, instead calling for non-genetic welfare enhancements.

This article likens animal disenhancement to lobotomisation in humans. While lobotomies were previously hailed for their benefits with respect to suffering reduction, they are now regarded as a medically unethical practice.

The science of pain insensitivity conditions in humans (e.g. pain asymbolia) may inform genetic interventions to reduce suffering in animals.

This paper suggests that while genetic engineering technology can be seen as the ultimate expression of human control over nature, it also fundamentally challenges our anthropocentric biases by revealing the deep biological continuities between humans and other animals.

This blog post weaves together congenital insensitivity to pain with David Pearce’s hedonistic imperative and the frontiers of pain genetics.

In this interview, David Pearce envisions a future where biotechnology is used to overcome suffering.

This book chapter provides a critical introduction to the suffering abolition project.

In this blog post, Magnus Vinding expands on his analysis of the abolitionist project, cataloguing key motivations – and concerns.

In this short essay, suffering-focused thinker Brian Tomasik offers critiques of Pearce’s hedonistic imperative.