Practical moral codes in the transgenic organism debate

In one study funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, people from North Dakota were interviewed to discover which moral principles they use in evaluating the morality of transgenic organisms and their introduction into markets. It was found that although the moral codes the human subje...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of agricultural & environmental ethics 2004-01, Vol.17 (6), p.517-544
Main Authors: Cooley, D.R, Goreham, G, Youngs, G.A. Jr
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Advisory Committees
Agriculture
Attitudes
Bioethics
Codes
Codes of Ethics
Consequentialism
Conservation of Natural Resources
Decision making
Environment
Environmental ethics
Ethical Analysis
Ethical Theory
ethics
Genetic engineering
Good & evil
Human subjects
Humans
Interviews as Topic
Morality
Morals
North Dakota
Organisms
Organisms, Genetically Modified
Personal Autonomy
Polls & surveys
precautionary principle
Principle-Based Ethics
Principles
Public Opinion
risk assessment
Studies
Transgenic animals
transgenic plants
United States
United States Department of Agriculture
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In one study funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, people from North Dakota were interviewed to discover which moral principles they use in evaluating the morality of transgenic organisms and their introduction into markets. It was found that although the moral codes the human subjects employed were very similar, their views on transgenics were vastly different. In this paper, the codes that were used by the respondents are developed, compared to that of the academically composed Belmont Report, and then modified to create the more practical Common Moral Code. At the end, it is shown that the Common Moral Code has inherent inconsistency flaws that might be resolvable, but would require extensive work on the definition of terms and principles. However, the effort is worthwhile, especially if it results in a common moral code that all those involved in the debate are willing to use in negotiating a resolution to their differences.
ISSN:1187-7863
1573-322X
DOI:10.1007/s10806-003-1469-3