Moral and Economic Issues in Meat Cloning - Essay Example

Meat Cloning: Proposal Mohammed Rajeh ENGH 302 Prof. Michael Malouf Section AN3 June 23, Introduction Meat cloning is an upcoming technology that has the promise of becoming an economically viable and sustainable investment industry with few negative impacts on the environment that establishes moral and economic concerns. In 2008, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it was not sure whether meat from cloned animals was being sold to unsuspecting customers. USDA, however, moved that cloned meat was fit for consumption and that consumers should not worry or even require that cloned meat be labeled in order to make it easier for them to identify it in the market. This spawned mixed reactions from the public because of the many moral and economic considerations that plague meat cloning. One of the moral issues charged at meat cloning is that it is unnatural and it would therefore have the same limitations as its genetically modified counterpart products. Conventional meat producers, packing and supplying industries have gone on record opposing meat cloning for the reason that it would soon monopolize meat production hence kicking some of them out of business. These varying reactions to meat cloning make it an important topic to study. Problem Statement Meat cloning has gained popularity in different media with people registering diverse views about it. Existing literature has documented the moral and economic dimensions to meat cloning. Kaplan (2012) records that certain religious and cultural imperatives are the bases of people’s responses to meat cloning. Kaplan advises that if meat cloning is to live through the moral considerations held against it, meat cloners will have to prove that cloned meat is natural because it is grown form cells from living animals. Chiles (2012) associates an inability to control hype with lowered acceptance of meat cloning by the public. Chiles charged that a new food technology such as meat cloning would have to distance itself from past failed technologies in order to foster hype amongst consumers. According to Bartholet (2011), the repulsion to meat cloning results from some people’s objection to genetically modified products. The study by Mattick & Allenby (2013) indicates that a fear for potential competition for ranching is what makes people object to meat cloning. This fear is underpinned by the potential that meat cloning has to produce meat in large scale hence the possibility of overtaking and overshadowing conventional meat production. High cost of establishing meat-cloning technology is the aspect cited by Omholt (2008) and Bartholet (2011) as the important economic consideration to meat cloning. This draws from the scarcity and high cost of the ingredients required to grow meat in the laboratory. Bhat & Bhat (2011) endorse fungi as one of the meat cloning media that can be sustainable. These authors advise that the solution to the high cost of meat cloning lie in the recyclability of the media used. Edwards (2010) propose that technology improvement would boost the establishment of meat cloning. This is because improved technology would make it more efficient and economical. Current literature documents the moral and economic considerations associated with meat cloning. A few studies propose ways that can help address moral issues separately from economic issues. This study recognizes lack of a single way of addressing both considerations concurrently. It seeks to fill this gap by proposing an integrative approach of addressing these issues. An integrative approach would be more effective than the disparate ways proposed by other studies. It would save on the time and resources spent on trying to show that cloned meat is a viable solution to a problem such as food crisis as wells as a potential ground for investment. Plan of Action To investigate the moral and economic considerations of meat cloning systematically, I will review existing literature and collect data to establish the state of art in the public. Diverse voices from different key stakeholders including meat cloning technologists, food production authorities, and consumers will be collected. This will provide a robust perception and understanding of the issues surrounding the technology. To achieve my second objective, I will exhaustively analyze the data I will collect and synthesis it in order to seek points of consensus between the different opinions presented. This is with the recognition that, even though different, the solutions proposed by existing literature have several elements they share. For example, the proposition that meat cloning technologist prove that cloned meat is natural can be merged with the proposition to improve the technology used in meat cloning because they both seek to enhance the acceptability of the technology by consumers. My primary audience will be prospective investors in meat production industry many of whom might not have clear knowledge of the meat cloning technology. I will therefore endeavor to document exhaustive information of what entails the technology capturing relevant laws and regulations, and how to build a successful business out it. This will serve to inform the decision by potential investors to either join or not join the meat cloning business. My secondary audience will include conventional meat producers and legislators. I will provide adequate information that will help impart an understanding that meat cloning is not necessarily a threat to conventional meat production and that each will have equitable chances to secure market share. I will be sure to avail information that can help legislators understand how to regulate meat cloning better and change existing relevant laws to accommodate this relatively new food production technology. Budget Below is the summary of the costs that will be incurred while conducting this research. Item Number Daily pay($) * Number of days Cost Principal Researcher 3 5,000 * 65 975,000 Assistant Researchers 5 2,500 * 50 625,000 Stationeries 5,000 Printing & Photocopies 5,300 Communication 3,000 Miscellaneous 10,000 Total 1,623,300 Qualifications My postgraduate training in biotechnology is proof of my suitability to undertake this research. I have knowledge in industrial microbiology, biopolicy, ethics, and risks in biotechnology. The training equipped me with knowledge of working with bioreactors and I will interact with meat cloning technologists with ease. My participation in the nationwide survey for the safety of in vitro meat conducted in 2008 gave me experience with cytogenetic and this will help me to engage, meaningfully, the data that I will collect in this research. I have attached my resume for your review. Conclusion Literature review identifies need for an integrated analysis of moral and economic issues in meat cloning. One of the implications of this integrative approach is that it will enhance the entry of cloned meat into the mainstream meat market. This is because it will help counter the objections that draw from both conventional meat producers and consumers. This approach will pave the way for other innovative food technologies. This is because it will demonstrate the indispensable role that these technologies can play in solving the problems that have plagued conventional food production. References Bartholet, J. (2011). Inside the Meat Lab. Scientific American, June 2011: 65 – 69. Bhat, Z. & Bhat, H. (2011). Animal-free Meat Biofabrication. American Journal of Food Technology, 6(6): 441 – 459. Chiles, R. (2012). If they come, we will build it: in vitro meat and the discursive struggle over future agrofood expectations. Agric Hum Values, 1 February 2013: 1 -13. Edwards, C. (2010). Factory-fresh flesh. Engineering & Technology, 20 February – 5 March 2010. Kaplan, D. (2012). The Philosophy of food. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mattick, C. & Allenby, B. (2013). The Future of Meat. Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 2013: 64 – 70. Omholt, S. (2008). The In Vitro Meat Consortium Preliminary Economics Study Project 29071. V5 March, 2008: 1 -14. Talbot, M. (2012). Bioethics: an introduction. Cambridge: New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. For explanations of codes used in track changes, see Revision Symbols on BB Proposal (50 pts.) Points Comments Introduction & Conclusion (10 pts.) 8.5 Organization (10 pts.) 7.5 The master plan, budget, and qualifications sections were not necessary. The essay needed to make an argument about its topic and these sections detracted from that purpose. Argument (20 pts.) 14.6 Style, Grammar & Mechanics (10 pts.) 7.8 Total 38.4 Read More