



































1


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):1-10 

 

 1 
 

 

ETHICAL CHALLENGES OF USING BST AND TRANSGENIC ANIMAL 

 

A. S. M. Anwarullah Bhuiyan 

Associate Professor, Dept. of Philosophy, Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh 

E-mail : anwarullah1234@yahoo.com 

 

Abstract: This article examines whether using Bovine Somatotrophin (bST) and Transgenic Animal is 

compatible with the norms of animal welfare, environment, and public health. We cannot oppose its usefulness 

all on a sudden. Despite the usefulness of animal biotechnology, we cannot ignore the different adverse effects 

of this technology. All of these bring forth different ethical challenges. What is the environmental impact of this 

technology? Another ethical challenge is related to animal‘s welfare and human‘s health. In order to assessing 

the ethical challenges, this article has opted for Mepham‘s ethical matrix, which is a practical approach for 

addressing broader policy issues. I have focused on the application of this ethical matrix upon some contexts of 

animal biotechnology, such as bST and transgenic animal. Through the analysis, this article came to the 

conclusion that there are no short curt ways to reach an agreement on the application of animal biotechnology.  

 

KEY WORDS: ethics, challenges, bovine somatotrophin (bST), transgenic animal 

 

INTRODUCTION: Technological development has brought enormous amount of benefit for the mankind. Apart from 

this benefit, human beings are also be concerned about the unintended environmental, social, and health-related 

consequences. Considering this impact, scientists should take into account consequences of any science and accept 

the greater responsibility for the reasonable application of the scientific result. In doing so, this thesis endeavors to 

reach the conclusion that biotechnology, specially the field of animal biotechnology, has got a variegated splendor. 

Different sections of this article give us an understanding of the methodology, key concepts of animal biotechnology, 

and the implication of ethical matrix upon some contexts of animal biotechnology, such as bST and transgenic 

animal. Final section of this article is implication of ethical matrix. It is all concerned that animal biotechnology has 

wonderful contribution, but, we cannot avoid the dangerous potentials of this technology. In this regard, I will devote 

the ethical controversy of this technology in the final section. Therefore, this article will focus on the application of 

Mepham‘s ethical matrix in some contexts of animal biotechnology, such as bST and transgenic animal.  

 

METHODOLOGY: Bovine Somatotrophin (bST), transgenic animal is a development of animal biotechnology. As a 

technology, it is not a single issue. Rather, it has become a title for a wide range of environmental, public health, and 

animal welfare-related concerns. Therefore, the solution of the problem is not simple, but complex and 

multidimensional. To examine the ethical acceptability of animal biotechnology, we need to assess the impact of this 

technology and its potential effects upon the four interest factors: consumers, farmers and financiers, treated 

organisms, and environment. In this regard, I have selected Ben Mepham‘s
1
 ethical matrix, which is a practical 

approach for addressing broader policy issues in this regard. According to me, ethical matrix is such a theory that it 

can incorporate the demand of science and its existing multidimensional complexity. In order to evaluate the ethical 

impact of biotechnology in the fields of agriculture and food, Mepham provides this method of analysis that would 

help one for facilitate ethical decision making. Mepham‘s method of ethical matrix is two-dimensional i.e. 

consequence matrix and evaluative matrix. Consequential matrix, gives a brief description of the assumed or possible 

consequences of a decision taken upon every affected value, and evaluation matrix, on the other hand, provides an 

overall picture of the ethical status of the issue at stake. Both the approaches can help us articulate an ethical 

framework for the technologies applied to the animals. 

 

mailto:anwarullah1234@yahoo.com


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):1-10 

 

 2 
 

Mepham states that it has faced a lot of critiques. He also argues that the approach of four principles is quite 

applicable only to the realms of biological science, healthcare, and medicine. But, Mepham‘s ethical matrix is 

applicable to the fields of agriculture, biotechnology, and food. Not only that ―... the framework [four principles] is not 

an ethical theory and does not aspire to be decision-making procedure‖
2
 . Therefore, he assumes that Beachump‘s 

four principle approaches can hardly satisfy Rawls‘s non-intuitive means of moral judgment.‖ Due to its limitation, 

Mepham revises the four-principle approach and offers new ethical tools: ―ethical matrix‖.  

 

In his works, Mepham transforms Beauchamp and Childress‘s ‗four-principles‘ into three. In the framework of the 

‗matrix‘, Mepham combines Beauhamp and Childres‘s the first two principles (beneficence and non-maleficence) and 

renames it as the ‗respect for well-being‘. There are two ingredients in the framework of Mepham‘s ethical matrix: i. 

prima facie principles and ii. ‗interest groups‘. In his framework of ethical matrix, Mepham employs three prima facie 

principles: well-being, autonomy, and principles of justice. Well-being combines the first two principles of Beachump 

and Childress: non-maleficeine (avoidance of causation of harm) and beneficence (provision of benefits and 

balancing them against risks and costs) represent the utilitarian theory. Respect for autonomy represents the freedom 

of choice and respect for the individual‘s rights. Theory of justice represents the norms of fair distribution of costs, 

benefits, and risks.  Mepham has shown his ethical matrix through following figure (Figure 1). 

 

Figure 1 : Mepham‘s Ethical Matrix
3
 

 

Mepham states that in the ethical matrix there are twelve individual factors under the following three principles: well 

being, autonomy, and justice. And there are four stakeholders or interest groups, i.e. treated organisms (animals), 

producers (farmers), consumers (people), and biota (environment : flora and fauna)) on the vertical axis and three 

principles on the horizontal axis.  

 

Clarification of the Concepts 

In order to get a clear idea about the problem, it should be explained well what biotechnology means. The term, 

‗biotechnology‘, is first used in 1917 by the Hungarian agricultural engineer Karl Ereky who anticipates the term, 

‗biotechnology‘, as a ―spirit of molecular research‖ 
4
. In his research, he states that every living organism has got 

‗nucleic acids‘ which are different from each other in their structure. In 1918, Ereky finds a link between nuclear acids 

and biotechnology. He takes the term, biotechnology as a ―technology based upon biochemistry‘ 
5
. The European 

Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) accepts the term, ‗biotechnology‘, in the sense of the combination of biology and 

technology ― where the term biology is treated as a branch of knowledge of living organisms and technology as a 

scientific knowledge. EFB defines the term as an  

Respect for wellbeing autonomy Justice 

Treated 

organism 

e.g. Animal welfare e.g. Behavioural freedom Respect for telos 

Producers (e.g. 

farmers) 

Adequate income and 

working conditions 

 

Freedom to adopt or not 

adopt 

 

Fair treatment in trade and 

law 

 

Consumers 

(Availability of 

safe food) 

Availability of safe food, 

acceptability 

Respect for consumer 

choice (labeling) 

Universal affordability of 

food 

Biota Protection of the biota  

 

Maintenance of biodiversity Sustainability of biotic 

Populations 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):1-10 

 

 3 
 

―integrated use of biochemistry, microbiology and engineering sciences in order to achieve 

technological (industrial) application of the capabilities of micro-organisms, cultured tissue cells, and 

parts thereof‖ 
6
. 

 

In order to develop micro-organisms, improved plants or animals, and to modify food-products, biotechnologies have 

been used in a wide range of production. This technique is used for transgenic animal‘s production, commercial 

products, food production, plant tissue culture, DNA profiling/finger printings, animal tissue culture, pollution control, 

to safe plants and animal‘s extinction, prevention-diagnosis, and cure of diseases. According to its use, there are 

different kinds of biotechnologies can be mentioned as following: a. Industrial biotechnology, b. Environmental 

Biotechnology, c. Biotechnology as Human Application, d. Health Biotechnology and e. Agricultural Biotechnology. All 

these types of biotechnology are not my area of focus. Rather, I will focus on bST and transgenic animals as 

techniques of animal biotechnology. 

 

1. Bovine Somataotrophin (bST): It is one kind of natural occurring growth hormone. At first, bST was commercially 

produced in the USA as a GM product to be used in animal agriculture. It is produced by biotechnological engineering 

through recombinant DNA in cultures of the Escherichia coli 
7
. It helps stimulate milk productivity efficiency. This 

hormone is injected to a cow once in every two weeks in order to increase 15-25% of the milk it produces.
8
  

 

2. Transgenic animals: Transgenic animals are those which have been altered by genetically engineered with an 

aim to remove genes from them or to insert genes from other species. There are three techniques for producing 

transgenic animals: (i) recombinant DNA, (ii) retroviruses-mediated gene transfer, and (iii) embryonic stem cell-

mediated gene transfer. In 1981, biotechnologists produced transgenic mouse by inserting the gene for human 

growth hormone into a mouse‘s genome 
9
 . 

 

 

IMPLICATION OF ETHICAL MATRIX: This section considers ethical issues raised by the application of animal 

biotechnology in the field of food production and for medical purpose. In order to assess the ethical impact of this 

technique, I have selected some of animal biotechnologies, such as Bovine Somatotrophin (bST) and transgenic 

animal. And, then I have applied ethical matrix in order to ethical evaluation of these technologies.   

 

1. Case of bST 

Mepham has chosen the case of bST (Bovine Somatorophin) for some particular reasons. In the first case, this 

technology involves four interest groups: dairy cows, dairy farmers, consumers, and biota. All these stakeholders are 

accorded ethical standing. Secondly, in the case of bST there are also opposing factors, such as economic efficiency 

versus animal welfare, and consumer choice versus public health which characterizes bioethical debate. Thirdly, 

commercial use of bST is also a political issue
10

. Mepham applies his ethical matrix for using bST in dairy farming 

(Table 2). 

Table 2 : The ethical matrix applied to use the bovine somatotrophin (bST) in dairy farming
11

 

 

Respect for Well-Being Autonomy Fairness 

Dairy Farmers Satisfactory income and 

working conditions 

Managerial freedom of 

action 

Fair trade laws and 

practices 

Consumers Food Safety and 

acceptability 

Quality of life 

Democratic, informed 

choice, e.g. of food 

Availability of 

affordable food 

Dairy Cows Animal Welfare Behavioral freedom Intrinsic value 

The Biota Conservation Biodiversity  Sustainability 

 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):1-10 

 

 4 
 

Mepham applies three principles in the case of four stakeholders in respect of the use of bST in dairy cows. By 

analyzing the table, we can present a brief analysis of the ethical matrix in the context of bovine somatotrophin in 

dairying cows. In the case of bST, there are four stakholder :  

 

a. Dairy Cows. In respect of well-being, organism (here dairy cows) has rights to claim welfare. Now the question is 

whether the use of bST violates the welfare of dairy cows. Mepham states that different studies have shown that the 

act of using bST in dairy cows increases the risk of the cow‘s health. The Monsanto bST production company 

mentioned in the bST packet label that there are 21 side-effects. Some of these are: 

―Increased cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus; higher incidence of retained placenta; increased 

risk of clinical and subclinical mastitis; increased digestive disorders such as indigestion, bloat and 

diarrhea; increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions of the knee; disorders of the foot; and 

injection site lesions which may remain permanent‖
12

. 

 

The European Commission (EC) also shows by referring to different research experiments that the use of bST 

increases the risk of painful disease which results from the inflammation of the udder, and the risk of clinical mastitis 

and food and leg disorder, due to long-term administration of bST. The use of bST also reduces the reproductive 

capability of the cows. A number of other risks are also associated with the use of bST, e.g. increased level of 

morbidity and mortality. Besides, most of the cows loss their bodily strength at the end of the lactation period. 

Furthermore, the act of administrating injection to the cow is quite stressful.
13

  

 

There are also adverse side-effects of bST in respect of the principle of autonomy. The act of using bST violates 

animal behavioral freedom. Cows are then fed a high amount of concentrated food which requires to keep them in 

indoors. So, there occurs the loss of the opportunity of natural grazing. Different kinds of diseases, such as lameness, 

clinical mastitis, foot disorder, and other significant risks infringe the behavioral freedom of cows. 

 

Does the use of bST infringe the intrinsic nature of animals? Respect for an animal‘s intrinsic value does mean that 

we should not treat them unfairly. This principle claims that a cow as a sentient being should be treated as an intrinsic 

value. So, we should not merely use it instrumentally. But, ―bST use infringes the nature of the animals‖ 
14

 . 

   

b. Dairy Farmers. Regarding well-being, it should be mentioned that the farmer‘ welfare depends on their 

satisfactory income and working condition. In order to increase economic benefits, dairy farmers use bST for yielding 

milk of cows. Here economic benefits represent the welfare of dairy farmers. The autonomy of dairy farmers implies 

that they have got freedom of choosing any farming system. Farmers have got freedom regarding the use of bST. 

Mepham, in another study of his with Millar et.al, shows that in the United Kingdom 79% of the dairy farmers do not 

consider bST use in dairy cows as ‗ethically acceptable‘. In respect of justice, it can be said that the dairy farmers 

should be treated fairly by trade laws and practices
15

. It should also be mentioned here that they have got the right to 

get fair prices for their products.  

  

c. Dairy Consumers. The concept of the consumer‘s well-being refers to the welfare of the consumer. It refers also 

to the protection of food from being poisoned or by any other harmful agent. Mepham mentions that in different 

studies that respect and infringement of the use of bST has been emphasized. FAO and WHO have jointly found out 

that bST can be used without any applicable health risks to consumers
16

. But, there are also countervailing effects of 

bST use upon the dairy cows. IGF-1 and related proteins are present in the milk from bST treated cows. IGF-1 is 

responsible ―to gut pathophysiology, particularly of infants, and to gut associated cancers‘ and the association 

between circulating IGF-1 levels and an increased risk of breast and prostate cancer‖
17

.  Some other studies have 

shown that the milk from bST-supplemented cows has got allergic effect upon the human body. In these sense, bST-

inserted milk is not safe for the health of the body of human being. 

 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):1-10 

 

 5 
 

Regarding consumer‘s autonomy, it can be said that consumers have got the right to choose whether or not they 

would consume bST-used dairy products. According to Mepham, consumers‘ autonomy requires two conditions: 

firstly, there should be ‗voluntariness of consumer‘— it means that one has got the freedom to choose to purchase 

anything, secondly, s/he prefers that the matter of freedom of choice can be ensured by the producer‘s act of 

disclosing the information of the products: whether the products are labeled as ‗bST-treated cow milk‘ and ‗non-bST-

treated cow milk‘.
18

 In order to realize the consumer‘s autonomy, labeling is an important factor while choosing the 

product. Justice of the consumer in respect of the use bST means that there should be affordability of milk at a 

reasonable price. Accordingly, if the use of bST can help our power of afford to buy food, then it can be said that 

consumers are benefitted by this technology.   

 

d. Biota. Using bST in dairy cows has got both positive and negative impact. First of all, its use affects the natural 

environment. It encourages the intensification of farming, thus resulting in a fewer number of farms. However, these 

farmers are much larger in size and, consequentially, these appear as the sources of pollution. The silage run-off and 

excessive fertilizer from the farm jeopardizes biodiversity and sustainability of environment 
19

. On the other hand, it 

has been claimed that the use of bST can help us in an act of curling environmental pollution.  

  

By using ethical matrix, we can reach two diametrically-opposed conclusions: the positive and the negative impact of 

the use of bST in dairy cattle. A producer can gain more financial benefits by using bST. However, the health risk of 

the consumers should be taken into account seriously. In the case of dairy cows, the use of bST increases cow‘s milk 

productivity, and thus, provides economic benefit to the dairy farmer. In respect of the well-being of the dairy farmers, 

this is the positive ethical impact of bST. This technology helps us getting more benefits from a less number of cows. 

However, this will have run-off reduced slur and wastage. Mepham describes this as the ‗respect for a principle‘ 
20

.  

On the other hand, the use of bST has got some negative impact: giving extra metabolic and other load ‗infringes‘ the 

welfare of the animals. According to Mepham, this is the ‗infringement of a principle‘. For example, the use of 

biotechnology (i.e.bST) in animal farming affects environmental sustainability in two different ways. According to 

Mepham, firstly, bST is profitable in terms of economy to the farmers and therefore, it leads to a concentration of the 

highly intensive dairy farms. Intensification is also responsible for the existing environmental problem. Secondly, bST 

has got negative effects upon the environment. It depends on the ―fossil fuels, artificial fertilizers, farm and industrial 

machinery and transportation‖ 
21

.   

 

The process of ‗finding the facts‘ helps the user identify the problems that have arisen from the use of a particular 

biotechnology. Who will be affected? Which of the effects is best-off? The second step in ‗best reasons morality‘ is 

‗weighing the facts‘, which deals with the three ethical principles of matrix: well-being, autonomy, and justice. The use 

of bST use in the dairy cattle raises some ethical debates. The ethical principles can help the users, producers or 

even policy makers to weigh the problem. In this regard, we can study the example of Bovine Somatotrophin: 1. 

Using bST in dairy cattle affects their wellfare, 2. Question of producer‘s and user‘s financial benefits due to the use 

of bST, 3. ―Ethically concerned producers are economically harmed.‖ 4. ―Ethically concerned producers are 

potentially coerced‖, and 5. Ethical issue is related to biotic conservation 
22

. 

 

Case of Transgenic Animals 

The development of animal biotechnology has improved transgenic animal productivity, animal breeding, and the 

treatment of diseases. Besides, there is also the utility of this technology in healthcare and food production. 

Transgenic animals, such as cows, pigs, and lambs, have been genetically modified for healthier meat production. It 

has been claimed that transgenic animals can reduce fat. Xenotranplantation is another important use of transgenic 

animals. In human transplant surgery, tissues and different organs of transgenic animals are tailored as these are 

very similar to human cells. However, this act involves ethical concerns in respect of animal welfare particularly the 

ways we cause their harm and sufferings. The application of this technology has got both long or short term 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):1-10 

 

 6 
 

environmental and health impact. We can make a clear sense of this problem by applying Mepham ethical matrix in 

this regard (Table 3). 

 

Table 3 : The ethical matrix applied to transgenic animal 

Respect for Well-Being Autonomy Justice/Fairness 

Treated organism Avoid unnecessary pain Behavioral freedom Intrinsic value 

 

Producers Satisfactory profit Democratic, 

informed choice, 

e.g. of food 

Availability of affordable food 

Consumers Improved quality of life Informed consent Fair access to genome organs 

The Biota Conservation Biodiversity  Sustainability 

 

1. Animal. Is the act of producing transgenic animals compatible with the concept of animal welfare? Through this 

technology, it is possible to increase animal‘s well-being, which is affected by deleting the critical diseases of animals 

which can reduce the high range of animal mortality and also reduce sufferings of animal by the practice of castration 

and dehorning the agricultural animal 
23

.  By applying DNA and antibody-based test, it has become possible to 

diagnose some infectious animal diseases such as, brucellosis, pseadorabis, blue-tongue, foot-and-mouth diseases, 

avian leucosis, trichinosis, and so on. Farm animal diseases classical swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, and 

bovine spongiform can be managed casually through the new improved technology of animal biotechnology. 

Practicing animal biotechnology in producing transgenic animals for livestock purpose is helpful in improving animal 

health. This technology is capable of preventing and diagnosing poultry and livestock animal‘s diseases. And, quick 

prevention and diagnosis ultimately improve the well-being of animals. Genetic finger-print — a genetic analysis of 

animal pathogen — is helpful in identifying the sources of the outbreak of diseases, which is quite helpful to monitor 

the spread of the disease. All these examples show that animal biotechnology offers potential well-being of the 

animals.  

 

Some other studies
24

 also show that the genetically modified animals are found to be affected by physiological, 

anatomical, and behavioral abnormalities. Such animals have got poor survival rate of fetuses. They also experience 

short-life span and critical health risk. For example, the introduction of human GH to Beltsville pigs results in the high 

rate of mortality, arthritis, gastric ulcers, infection, degenerative joint disease, and drowsiness 
25

. 

 

The genetically modified transgenic animals have also been the target of attention while the purpose of public health 

is taken into consideration. The ethical controversy of killing animals raises the question about its acceptability. Ethics 

as an ecocentric sense that raises some questions as to whether we are allowed to modify the components of 

ecosystem. One most important question is that does the genetic integrity of (transgenic) animals have an intrinsic 

value that we should not change the form of them? In respect for telos, genetic engineering infringes the nature of 

animals and its intrinsic value. 

 

Justice in respect of animals indicates the telos of animals. The teleological approach to animals refers to ―their 

design, purpose, or final cause‖ 
26

. Mepham uses the term, ‗telos‘, in the sense of intrinsic value, which refers to the 

idea of ‗integrity‘. In different literatures, integrity is used differently. However, the central tenet of this term is 

―wholeness, fullness, or ―unalterdeness‖ of the animal...‖
27

 Telos is also a reflection of the intrinsic characteristics of 

animals, but genetic tempering affects the design and purpose of animals as well as their intrinsic characteristics. 

Technological enforcement disrupts the homeostatic processes of animals. In other words, the process infringes the 

intrinsic nature of the animals by controlling their normal body function. Thus, biotechnology is a potential violation of 

‗animal integrity‘ as well as intrinsic characteristics 
28

. 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):1-10 

 

 7 
 

 

2 Producer. Animal biotechnology can provide great well-being to the producer in terms of economic benefits.  The 

act of biotechnology providing them with less feed (feed is also biotechnologically developed) bought at reasonable 

prices results in getting more meat, more milk, more eggs, and more wool. 

 

3 Consumer. In everyday life, there are a lot of well-beings that come from the application of animal biotechnology. 

All these go to the doors of the consumers. Transgenic animals are produced for various purposes. First of all, this 

technology makes a contribution to the improvement of nutritional value and resistance against critical diseases. For 

example, pigs, rabbits, and horses are used to produce such products as blood, thinner haparin, anti-venoms, and 

drug protein. Through this technique, it is possible to produce such therapeutic proteins or antibodies by modifying 

animals. Transgenic animals are potentially used particularly for curing cancer, hemophilia, rheumatoid arthritis, etc.  

 

Xenotransplantation is another use of transgenic animals. For kidney, heart, and other organs-related diseases, today 

there is the solution through the replacement by the donors such as pigs and other transgenic animals whose organs 

and their apeutic cells can be used for the purpose. During the last few decades, pigs‘s heart valves are successfully 

used as substitutes for the damaged heart-valves of human beings. However, the risk of Xenotranplantation is 

another problem of animal biotechnology. There are possibilities of transmitted infectious diseases from one species 

to another. Some studies show that in the year 1999, 160 peoples received pig cells as part of treatment and they did 

not show any health hazards 
29

. Furthermore, when scientists prepare the organs of animals for Xenotransplantation, 

they are required to give close attention of the health hazards. In order to avoid health hazards, scientists 

successfully deleted the gene which is responsible for immune activity from transgenic animals. For this reason, the 

organs of transgenic animals are not infected by the virus or any lethal micro-organisms. Thus, in this way 

consumers‘ well-being can be ensured. 

 

Safety and informed consent would be the possible requirement for consumers in respect of autonomy. Consumer 

autonomy can be achieved when they get sufficient information about the transgenic animal‘s products. 

 

Consumer interest can be understood in terms of justice, particularly distributive justice. How are consumers 

benefited from the application of animal biotechnology in producing transgenic animals? Around the world there is 

inequality, and most of the people are not capable to afford transgenic organs for their treatment, which are 

necessary for them. In order to work towards better social equity, it is essential to minimize the impoverished 

condition. John Rawls argues that no one knows in which economic conditions one will be born. Therefore, every 

member of the society should wish for equal exposures to risk and that everyone should have the equal opportunity 

to grow up in an environment that is free from infectious diseases 
30

. The theory of justice reveals that every person in 

the world, irrespective of all conditions, should have the opportunity to use transgenic animals‘ organs while these 

become a necessary to them. Sometimes people do not have had the benefits from transgenic animals due to their 

economic deficiency. In this situation, consumers can be benefited through the reduced prices of the product and the 

increase of the level of consumer‘s power to afford such a product. 

 

4 Environment (Biota). Biotechnology in animal sector has brought a dramatic change in the livestock farming in 

terms of environmental context. The act of improving animal biotechnology offers such developed feed that disposes 

lower amount of phosphorus and nitrogen in animals‘ slurry and manure. Some studies show that the normal feeding 

of dairy cattle disposing 160 million tones of manure annually with high range of phosphorus and nitrogen causes 

surface and groundwater pollution. But, genetically modified animals can digest feed and dispose less slurry and 

manure with minimum pollutants. Biotechnologically developed pigs are one such transgenic animals that added 

gene and enhanced salivary phytose and grown with phosphorus digestibility and retention of phosphorus 
31

. In the 

case of conserving the endangered species, biotechnology shows good results. Transgenic animals are 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):1-10 

 

 8 
 

environmentally friendly. Recently, genetically modified EnviroPig
TM 

produce less slur and manures and have lower 

levels of phosphorus contents which are the causes of environmental pollution.   

 

Reproductive and cloning technology is helpful to conserve the endangered mammals and birds. Omha Zoo 

veterinarians used this technology (particularly embryo transfer and animal insemination) on three Bengal tigers and 

Siberian tigers (as a surrogate mother). The endangered species of European mouflon, a smallest wild sheep, has 

genetically multiplied the number of this species at the University of Teramo, Italy, in 2001. Indian ox-like guar, an 

endangered species, has been saved by the process of cloning. Recently, the endangered species, Giant Pandas, 

are being reproduced by using trans-species cloning technology. In 2005, water buffaloes, Arab‘s champion horses, 

and Monglian gazelles were cloned to multiply their number. 

 

LIMITATION OF ETHICAL MATRIX: The potential argument comes back to the philosophy of Peter Singer
32

 and 

Bernard Rolin 
33

. Both the philosophers agree that animals should be considered as moral subjects and that any 

action causing pain is ethically unacceptable. EGE opinion also explicates the sufferings of biotechnologically 

developed animals which affect animal welfare. Some ecocentric philosophers recommend the extension of moral 

values to other animal species 
34

. All these studies defend the view that animal biotechnology affects animal welfare 

and, therefore, it should not be acceptable. 

 

The application of ethical matrix in different cells gives different results. In respect of animals, we have got the 

opportunity to consider the positive and negative consequences of animal biotechnology for their well-being, 

behavioral freedom, and physical integrity. And, we can assess negative and positive effects of the biotechnologically 

developed products upon the environment. In respect of the producer, it may be said that ethical matrix provides a 

judgment of possible economic benefits. Ethical matrix also pays an attention to the consumers‘ rights. On the one 

hand, it makes us alert about the hygiene and safety of aspects production, transparent information, and free choice 

by labeling the product. The principles of justice in the matrix are others important factors of balancing different 

aspects related to the production of animal biotechnology. For example, the principles of justice indicate what kinds of 

technology the producers should receive. These also ensure their equal rights of fair access to the free market. At the 

same time, justice also looks at the animals and environmental integrity in the sense of intrinsic characteristics. Thus, 

ethical matrix can consistently help us reach a decision by assessing the negative and positive effects of different 

stakeholders. 

 

However, in most cases ethical matrix discourages to receive any sorts of technology. In this circumstance, where 

should we stand? Should we ban any kind of practice of bst and transgenic animals? Or, should we encourage this 

technology? Mepham‘s ethical matrix provides us with a tool to assess the problem. Mepham himself also states that 

ethical matrix helps us to facilitate rational decision-making. Different principles of ethical matrix give us different 

consequences. People can approve the use of bST in cows for yielding milk, producing transgenic for various 

purposes. 

 

We have also observed that ethical matrix warns us that the use of animal biotechnology has both positive and 

negative impact. For example, (i) diseases like fibrosis, thallassamia, and muscoviscidosis that we might inherit from 

our ancestors can be detected by using genetic testing, (ii) vaccines and some other medicines such as insulin meant 

for curing diabetes are produced by introducing human genes into bacteria, (iii) in order to produce organs for human 

transplants it is introducing human gene into animals: by using such techniques pigs are used for human heart-valves 

transplant (iv) large use of animal biotechnology can be recommended in food production. For producing food with 

high protein, for changing the taste of food, and for producing adequate food by investing lower productive prices are 

the causes of applying animal biotechnology in our day-to-day world. Ethical matrix, as an ethical tool, shows us the 

way through which we can detect its adverse effects and enormous benefits. We can also assess which of the animal 

biotechnology has got longer adverse effects, and which one has got enormous benefits. Ethical matrix provides us 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):1-10 

 

 9 
 

with an ethical solution to this problem. In the example mentioned above, it is seen that ethical matrix gives us a 

judgment as to which of the application should be ethically acceptable
35

.  

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS: By observing a number of studies, we can draw the argument that animal biotechnology 

affects animal welfare, break down the integrity of naturalness and also threat for the public health. On the other 

hand, animal biotechnology has got various purposes in relation to food and medicine. All of these technologies have 

given a great opportunity to the human beings. It is also used to experience the use of animal biotechnology for 

medical purpose. Ethical matrix has shown that the process of using bST, transgenic animals, and other 

biotechnological products involve a number of ethical concerns that come to play when decisions are to be taken 

concerning the application of animal biotechnology.  

 

Various problems generated through the application of animal biotechnology can be experienced by ethical matrix. 

The application of ethical matrix in the case of bST and transgenic animal has shown that there are enormous side-

effects and adverse impact upon the animals and the environment. However, compared to its technological 

contribution, a transgenic animal has got less effect on different stakeholders. In this regard, we can raise a pertinent 

question: does ethical matrix provide any concrete ethical decision regarding animal biotechnology? Do we accept it 

or regret it as unethical means? In any of the products or contribution of animal biotechnology, there is the violation of 

three cells: animal‘s well-being, animals‘ behavioral freedom, and the telos or intrinsic characteristics of animals.  

 

In conclusion, it can be said that ethical matrix is based on the weighing of pros and cons of the fact. It leads us to the 

conclusion that there are no short curt ways to reach an agreement on the application of animal biotechnology. There 

are various contexts and controversies including the relationship between technology and societal norms, and the 

relationship between animal integrity and human beings, and the question of substantial equivalence between 

technologically-developed products and naturally-developed products.  

 

REFERENCES:  

                                                 

1 Mepham, T. B., ―Ethical Analysis of Food Biotechnologies: an Evaluative Framework,‖ in B. Mepham (ed.), Food 

Ethics, London and New York: Routledge, 1996, pp. 101–119.   

    Mepham, T.Ben., ―A Frameworks For Ethical Analysis of Novel Foods : the Ethical Matrix‖ , Journal of Agricultural 

and Environmental Ethics, 2000a Vol.12, Issue : 2 : 165–176.  

Mepham, T.Ben, ―The Role of Food Ethics in Food policy‖, In Proceedings of the Natural Society, 2000b, 59, 609-

618. 

 Mepham,B., Kaiser M, Thorstensen E, Tomkins S and Millar K, Ethical Matrix Manual ,LEI, The Hague, 2006. 

        http://www.ethicaltools.info/content/ET2%20Manual%20EM%20(Binnenwerk%2045p).pdf (accessed at 10 am, 

01 April 2010) 

2.  Mepham, 2000a, p. 167. 

3 Mepham, 1996. 

4 Fari and Kralovanszky, ―The Founding Father of Biotechnology‖, International Journal of Horticultural Science, 
2006, 12 (1): 9–12, p.10. 

5 Fari & Kralovanszky, 2006, p.10. 

6 Becker, Gerhold, ―Biotechnology—The New Ethical Frontier: An Introduction‖, Changing Nature's Course :The 

Ethical Challenge of Biotechnology, eds by Gerhold K. Becker associate with James P. Buchanan, Hong 

Kong : Hong Kong University Press, 1996, p.1. 

7 Mepham, Kaiser et.al., 2006 , p.32.  

8 Mepham, 2005, Bioethics: An Introduction for the Biosciences, Oxford University Press, USA, pp.52-53. 

9 BIO, Guide to Biotechnology, Biotechnology Industries Organization, New York, 2007, p.71. 

10 Mepham, 2005, p.54. 

http://www.ethicaltools.info/content/ET2%20Manual%20EM%20(Binnenwerk%2045p).pdf


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):1-10 

 

 10 
 

                                                                                                                                                             
11 Mepham , 2005 : 54. 

12 cf Mepham, 1996, pp. 108-109. 

13 cf. Mepham, 2000b, p. 613. 

14 Mepham, 1996, p.109. 

15 Millar, et.al., 1995, p. 195. 

16 Mepham, 2000a, p.96. 

17 Mepham, 2000a, p.96. 

18 Mepham, 2005, p.59. 

19 Mepham, 2000b, p.613. 

20 Mepham, 2000b, p. 613. 

21 Mepham, 1996, p. 111. 

22 Schoreder and Palmer, Schroeder, Doris and Palmer, Clare, 2003. ―Technology Assessment and the Ethical 
Matrix‖ in Poiesis Praxis, 1.2003, p.300. 

23 BIO, 2007, p.71. 

24 EGE,. European Commission Group of Advisers on the Ethical Aspects of Biotechnology, 1993. The Ethical 

Implications of the Use Performance-enhancers in Agriculture and Fisheries,( Rapporteurs M. Warnock and M. 

Sinisalo), 1993. 

25 EGE, 2008, p.12. 

26 Munro, L., ―The Future Animal: Environmental and Animal Welfare Perspectives on the Genetic Engineering of 

Animals‖, Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care  Ethics, Vol, 10, 2001, p.315. 

27 CeBRA ―Ethics and Farm Animal Cloning Risks, Values and Conflicts‖, from the Report Project of Cloning in 

Public: A Specific Support Action within the 6th Framework Programme, Priority 5: Food Quality and Safety, 

Coordinator: Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment (CeBRA), (2005). Source: http:// 

www.bioethics.kvl.dk accessed on 30 May, 2010, p.16. 

28 Bruce, D. Should We Clone Animals ? 1998.  http://www.srtp.org.uk/clonan3.htm, accessed on 05 June, 2010.  

    Gjerris, M,. ―Ethical Aspects of Animal Cloning‖, Proceedings from the 21st Scientific meeting of the European 

Embryo Transfer Association, 2005, pp.79-93.  

29 BIO,. Guide to Biotechnology, Biotehnology Industries Organization, New York, 2007, p.37.  

30 Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971, p.448. 

31  BIO, 2007 , pp.74-75. 

32 Singer P., 1990. Animal Liberation N.Y.: Avon Books. 

33 Rollin B., 1998.  The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness Animal Pain and Science, Oxford : Oxford University 

Press.   

34 Naess A., ―In Defence of Deep Ecology‖, Environmental Ethics, 1984, 6(3):265-270. 

35  See for details : 

     Bhuiyan, A. S. M.A, 2010. ―Ethical Challenges of Animal Biotechnology‖, MAE thesis, published in : 

     URL : http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:359860, Linkoping University, Sweden. 

 
 
 
Acknowledgement: I am grateful to Professor Dr. Anders Nordgren, Prof of Bioethics, LinkÖping University, 

Sweden, for comments on my earlier draft of this paper. The paper is the part of my Master Thesis, submitted (2010) 
to the center for Applied Ethics, Linkoping University, Sweden.  
 

http://www.bioethics.kvl.dk/
http://www.srtp.org.uk/clonan3.htm
http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:359860

