Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 20 (1988) 83-94 83 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

Genetic Eng ineer ing B io techno logy 1: Animal Welfare and E n v i r o n m e n t a l Concerns

MICHAEL W. FOX

The Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L Street, N. W, Washington, DC 20037 (U.S.A.)

Fox, M.W., 1988. Genetic engineering biotechnology: animal welfare and environmental concerns. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 20: 83-94.

INTRODUCTION

As this present millennium closes, the industrial world is entering a new age: the Genetic Age of biotechnology. Genetic engineers have broken the genetic code; this is to biology as splitting the atom was to physics. Scientists are now developing ways to alter the genetic structure of all living things, such as by removing certain genes and inserting the genes of one species into another.

This new technology of genetic engineering means the commercial industrial t ransformation of living things into "new" and ever more useful and profitable life forms. Earlier industrial epochs entailed the transformation of various nat- ural resources into new forms of energy and synthetic materials, ranging from alloys and plastics to petrochemical ("artificial") fertilizers, pesticides, and various pharmaceutical products. The Genetic Age, which entails the bio-in- dustrial t ransformation of life itself, has consequences far more profound than these earlier technological innovations. While there are many benefits that this new age of biotechnology promises, there are some very serious potential risks and fundamental ethical questions that need to be carefully considered by everyone; not simply by the policy-makers of government and industry, nor by academicians and the advocates of public interest organizations, but by the public at large. This is because the Genetic Age is now upon us, and for better or for worse it will affect our lives and those of all the generations to come.

1This paper is taken in part from the author's manuscript Silent World: Biotechnology and Na- ture's End? Tenspeed Press, Berkley, CA, 1988.

84

GENETIC ENGINEERING OF ANIMALS

Quite apart from the ethics and wisdom of transforming the natural world into a human world, as our power over the gene now enables us to do, the morality of turning animals into biological machines has been highlighted by recent advances in genetic engineering. It may be morally and ethically ac- ceptable to turn bacteria into machines for the manufacture of various hor- mones and other biological chemicals, and to enhance the utility of various plant species (negative environmental consequences notwithstanding), be- cause these living things are not sentient. They lack the capacity to suffer, to experience pain and emotional distress. If they were sentient, suffering could well result from the effects of various genetic manipulations on their body structure and physiology. So is it morally and ethically acceptable to turn an- imals such as mice, pigs and sheep, which are sentient, into biomachines for the manufacture of protein (meat) and other biological materials? Especially since, as a consequence of such fundamental changes in their nature, there can be no guarantee that they will not suffer. Prior to the perfection of gene-inser- tion and -deletion techniques and the development of the desired animal ma- chines, there will be accidents, deformed and defective creatures will be born, their psyches imprisoned in alien bodies. Already giant mice have been created by inserting the growth-regulating genes of rats and humans into them while they are embryos. These mice failed to develop, suffered and died until it was found that they needed supplemental zinc in their diet.

And this is just the beginning. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) has used public funds to apply this same technique of inserting human genes into animals to endeavor to create giant pigs and sheep. Of the USDA's "superpigs" that carry the human growth gene, only one in every 200 embryos survived, and those pigs that lived to maturity had impaired vision, were arthritic and lethargic, and were prone to pneumonia because their im- mune systems were dysfunctional.

Ohio State researcher J. Mintz (who has successfully inserted rabbit growth genes into mouse embryos to create mice that grew 2.5 times larger than nor- mal) has predicted the development of cattle weighing over 10 000 pounds (4500 kg), and pigs 12 feet (3.6 m) long and 5 feet (1.5 m) high. Such mon- strosities of utility are within the realm of possibility within the next 10-20 years, although he cautions that such genetic engineering innovations might not be desirable for economic, environmental, anatomical, institutional and ethical reasons (Mintz, 1984).

Such "super animals" will not feed the hungry world: meat is a luxury, no matter how "efficiently" the animals are redesigned and managed in order to turn their feed into protein for human consumption. A de-emphasis upon meat production is consonant with an economically and ecologically sound, rege- nerative agriculture.

85

Several breeding techniques have been and are being developed in farm an- imal science and have all been termed genetic engineering (Rutledge and Sei- del, 1983). These techniques include selective breeding for desired traits, artificial insemination, estrus synchronization, superovulation, embryo trans- fer, sex selection, cloning, gamete and embryo storage, fusion of embryos to create chimeras, in vitro fertilization and molecular biology techniques popu- larly termed gene-splicing or genetic engineering. Animal scientists Rutledge and Seidel ( 1983 ) write:

"One of the most exciting uses of these techniques would be moving selected genes from one individual to another or from one taxa to another. Recombinant DNA technology has provided ways to identify, isolate, purify and multiply se- lected single genes. The single cell embryo is a logical place to attempt introduc- tion of foreign genes because all resulting cells including the germ line would be altered . . . .

In livestock species it would appear that gene transfer between taxa would be of most importance because within taxa transfer could be accomplished by nor- mal sexual reproduction . . . .

Gene transfer is a special case of migration. It is appropriate to inquire, 'what are the potential genes for transfer?' Unfortunately, the list is short . . . . . . de- scribed the effects of an allele in mice that results in growth rates and mature sizes considerably outside the range normally encountered. I t would be exciting to determine the effects of such an allele (and new locus) in any livestock species. Similarly, the Booroola gene, thought to account for a large fraction of the vari- ance in twinning rate in a stock of Australian Merino ewes, would be a candidate for interspecies transfer. In this instance intraspecies transfer might also be con- templated. Other examples do not immediately surface, perhaps because most of the traits that contribute to genetic value in livestock species are thought to be polygenic . . . . "

In sum, the main interest is in increasing the production traits of farm ani- mals, notably accelerated body growth and increased fertility-fecundity. A sec- ond benefit of gene-splicing speculated by these authors entails modifying the genetic composition of plants and microorganisms in the animals' external and internal environments. They (Rutledge and Seidel, 1983) state:

"One area in need of further research is matching animal genotypes to geno- types of other organisms in the environment. Examples include ruminant mi- croorganisms, fecal microorganisms and plants. These should be studied in concert. For example, it might be easy to improve performance of ruminants by modifying rumen microorganisms."

These authors make no reference to the potential Pandora's box phenomenon

86

of residual problems such as environmental and animal health risks following the genetic engineering of animals, plants and microorganisms.

Because of prohibitive cost limitations, genetic engineering of animals pre- sents a potentially serious animal welfare concern. As with factory farming (where it is too costly for the systems to be designed to provide fully for the animals' overall welfare), so it will be too costly to correctively redesign ani- mals physically and psychologically to better adapt them to any harmful, ia- trogenic consequences of genetic engineering. In other words, further genetic engineering to improve animals' welfare will not be cost-effective, since the primary goals of livestock and poultry genetic engineering will be production- and profit-oriented. This probability we have learned as fact from today's fac- tory farming, where full provision for animals' welfare (and for their basic freedoms essential for the development, expression and experiencing of their intrinsic nature) is frustrated, truncated and deformed.

Proponents of genetic engineering argue that man has, through selective breeding, already modified farm animals to boost productivity and that there is nothing fundamentally different between these new techniques of gene transfer between species and the old method of selective breeding. This ration- alization ignores the fact that there are genetic barriers between animal species that prevent interbreeding and the exchange of genes from one species to an- other (called transgenic engineering), probably for good reason. This is one of Nature's laws that it may be imprudent for us to ignore. Furthermore, tradi- tional selective breeding of farm animals to enhance egg and milk production and growth has contributed to widespread suffering, increased susceptibility to infection and new, complex diseases in "factory"-farmed animals. These so- called "production diseases", which are well recognized by animal scientists and veterinarians, have been documented (Fox, 1984). In order to offset fi- nancial losses from these production-related diseases, and the stress and suf- fering to which farm animals are subjected in overcrowded "super-farm" factories, antibiotics and other drugs are needed. This is now a recognized and serious hazard to consumer health.

Given then that genetic manipulation of farm animals by natural means (selective breeding) to enhance "productivity" and "efficiency" has resulted in widespread animal suffering and sickness primarily for reasons of expe- diency and profit (and there is a comparable legacy arising from the selective breeding of pedigree dogs who are now afflicted with over 200 diseases of ge- netic, hereditary origin), genetic engineering of farm animals for the same reasons is not likely to contribute to thei r health or well-being. Today their health and well-being are sacrificed for overall productive efficiency and prof- itability. Tomorrow will be no different, for as resources (top soil, water and fossil fuels ) become even scarcer and more costly, the price of animal feedstuffs will increase and farmers will experience even greater economic pressures that will force them to further sacrifice animals' health and well-being in order to

87

make a profit. Those that have "super" animals - - animals that grow twice as big twice as fast, or produce even more milk or eggs or offspring - - will have an economic edge over other farmers who do not have such stock. Another competitive economic treadmill will thus arise and a new market will be created for these animals, as happened in the 1930's with the advent of pesticides.

There is also interest in putting genetically engineered bacteria into the digestive systems of farm animals so that they can be used to break down in- digestible materials that the animal could not otherwise assimilate and convert them into meat, eggs or milk, but like spraying new bacterial "pesticides" onto crops, such changes in the internal ecology of the animals' digestive systems can open Pandora's box still further, increasing the probability of new disease problems and further animal suffering.

Animal rights philosophy holds that animals have inherent value, needs and interests quite independent of their value and usefulness to us. If we are to exploit animals to satisfy our own needs (even if we "created", bred and raised these animals ourselves), then we should give them equal and fair considera- tion. It is morally wrong to violate the right and entitlement of animals to humane treatment. This ethic is written into law; witness the Federal Animal Welfare Act and state anti-cruelty statutes. Since the genetic engineering of animals may cause them to suffer from physical and physiological changes that have been deliberately, accidentally or coincidentally induced by genetic ma- nipulation, it is surely unethical and a violation of human ethics and legal statutes to subject animals to such manipulation.

Introducing the genes of one species into another, regardless of potential animal suffering, also raises the ethical issues of man's violating the sanctity and dignity of the life of the individual animal and of the integrity and contin- uation of its species. Consider the sheep at the British agricultural research station in Cambridge and at the University of California at Davis that have the heads of goats - - goats' minds attached to sheep's bodies; a feat not of genetic engineering but of embryonic microsurgery. And for what purpose?

Many people are horrified by such demonstrations of scientific serendipity. Giant mice and goat-headed sheep are just the beginnings of a new age of bio- technology where man's dominion, as scientific imperialism, over the rest of creation, will be absolute. Is it not h u b r i s - - and biological fascism - - to regard and treat animals and other living things as though they have been created primarily for our own exclusive use?

Some people claim with religious conviction that this is not h u b r i s , but God's will, citing Genesis that we have been given dominion over the rest of creation. The original meaning of the word "dominion" comes from the Hebrew-root verb yorade, "to go down", which implies stewardship rather than ruling over. When we recognize our commonality with the animal kingdom, we can steward with compassion and have regard for the life of the beast. This is the philo- sophical basis of today's animal rights and "deep" ecology movements.

88

If we are to play God, should we not exercise humility, wisdom and compas- sion? Without a reverence for all life, we can only fail as planetary stewards since our supreme task is surely to exercise our power of dominion creatively, rather than selfishly and destructively, and compassionately, not perverting and exploiting sentient life for our own exclusive ends.

Since genetic engineering is a major new industry appearing on the horizon that will have a direct impact upon the environment and upon animals' welfare in the years to come, animal welfare and conservation societies should consider adopting the following resolution at this time. It will demonstrate to the public the breadth of their concern for animals in industry and for the environment, and it may also stimulate public recognition of the seriousness of genetic en- gineering and the need for strict legislation and rigorous regulatory control.

In 1984, the Board of Directors of the Humane Society of the United States approved the following resolution:

"Whereas it is recognized that the indirect genetic manipulation of domesticated animals and plants (through selective breeding) has been practiced for centuries and is the economic foundation of all materially advanced human societies, and whereas comparable benefits to society may accrue from the direct genetic ma- nipulation of DNA (termed gene-splicing or genetic engineering), be it resolved that:

1. Genetic engineering of sentient animals shall be prohibited except to correct already existing genetic disorders that cause stress, distress, and disease, if such advances were ever to become cost-effective for veterinary medicine.

2. Genetic engineering simply to make animals more productive or to enhance other traits useful to man shall be prohibited, since their well-being and welfare following such engineering cannot be foreseen or safely guaranteed, and correc- tives may be too costly.

3. Genetic manipulation to facilitate animals' adaptation to unnatural envi- ronments shall be prohibited for the same reasons, and because animals should not be kept in unnatural conditions to which they are unable to adapt in the first place.

4. Furthermore, while we acknowledge the potential medical benefits of genetic engineering in humans and in the manufacture of hormones and vaccines, we express grave concern over the ecological risks of introducing genetically engi- neered microorganisms and plants into the environment, since this could have untoward environmental consequences detrimental to the health and well-being of animals and humans. We therefore urge the government of the United States to establish an appropriate regulatory agency to oversee this new industry in order to minimize the potentially catastrophic consequences of releasing geneti- cally altered living organisms into the environment."

89

THE INTEGRITY AND FUTURE OF CREATION

Theologian Thomas Berry (1978) has written, "Every being has its own in- terior, its self, its mystery, its numinous aspect. To deprive any being of this sacred quality is to disrupt the total order of the universe." Now the bio-engineer can penetrate and rearrange the interior (genetic structure) of living beings to an unprecedented degree and rate (in contrast to traditional methods of selec- tive breeding and hybridization), and it is a matter of record that the august panel of scientists serving on the National Institutes of Health Recombinant DNA Committee have disavowed that living beings have their own interior, their own telos or "beingness."

To reduce animals to the level of patentable commodities, to regard them as useful genetic assemblies and resources, to cross the biological boundaries of species and to change the natural order of creation by switching genes between widely different creatures (to make transgenic animals) entails more than sci- entific knowledge and skill. It also entails a conscious denial of the inherent value, nature and meaning of living things. The mechanistic and instrumental valuation of life has come to take precedence over respect for the sanctity of life and its inherent value.

The deeper meaning of the Creation thus becomes trivialized and directed to serve exclusively human ends. The societal benefits of creating transgenic animals and of patenting life must be weighed against the many costs to soci- ety, as well as to the natural world and the created order.

Society, on the edge of the new Genetic Age, may lose its sense of reverence and wonder for the deeper meaning, significance and mystery of the Creation and substitute materialistic values for those higher values associated with re- spect for the sanctity of being and for the created order.

When life has meaning only in terms of human utility, it is perceived as being devoid of inherent value and meaning. This perception can only serve to alien- ate humanity further from the natural world. Some now fear the eventual pat- enting of human life because this perception will logically lead to an increasing valuation of human life in terms of its instrumental value to society. Already the human genome is being sequenced and techniques for human genetic en- gineering are being patented. The inherent value and meaning of the individual and the sanctity of human life could, like the rest of creation, become subor- dinate to the world-industrializing values of the technocracy.

Indeed the scientific establishment's world-objectifying view has even de- nied animals inherent nature or telos. This unscholarly and unfeeling subjec- tive consensus is sanctified by a religious community that interprets "dominion" (Genesis 1:26) as domination, and the natural world as imperfect, not for us to "dress and to keep" (Genesis 2:25) but to exploit however we choose. It is widely held by the leaders of this religious community, which is part of the technocracy, that animals and all living things are intended for man's use. This

90

accords with the view that all non-human life forms have no inherent value, deeper meaning and a life of their own.

The patenting of life will only serve to further sanction this world-as-object- resource-to-be-exploited view. It is rooted in two emotions that underlie the patina of hubris, rationalism and materialism. One is fear - - a fear that blinds us to the adverse cultural and ecological consequences of the genetic engineer- ing of life that the U.S. Patent Office will only exacerbate by giving economic protection to those who would create profitable "new" life forms. This fear, of pestilence, famine, suffering, death and loss of our loved ones, is arguably the legacy of the Black Death or Plague that killed off one-third of the European community, crippling industry, agriculture and the economy (Berry, 1978).

As theologian Thomas Berry (1978) observes, "There were two basic re- sponses to this terrifying experience of the Plague. From these two responses were formed the two communities of the present; the believing (redemption) re- ligious community and the secular scientific community." With today's AIDS epidemic, we see history repeating itself as these two responses intensify.

Fear of life and death turns the wise planetary stewardship of dominion into selfish domination. The genetic engineer becomes the scientific priest of hope. Hope is the second emotion that harms our objectivity, because it is imbued with self-interest. We hope for redemption, salvation, a millennium to come of a global industrial utopia with a surfeit of food and freedom from all disease and suffering.

In contrast to the optimists' utopia which the patenting of life will help en- sure, there is the rationalist's view that is more pessimistic, but no less altru- istically human-centered. This view sees genetic engineering as being vital for human survival - - to feed our ever-growing numbers and to treat and prevent such plagues as AIDS and the pestilences of bugs and blights that destroy our crops, as well as the droughts and salination of an abused earth. Drought, salt, pest-resisting, extra-nutritious, soil-fertilizing crops, and fast-growing, highly productive and disease-resistant farm animals will be created, as man adapts to save a dying, polluted and depleted planet.

Bacteria, plants and animals alike will also be engineered to produce bio- chemical compounds useful to agriculture, medicine and other industries. An- imals will, regardless of how much they may suffer as a consequence, be genetically engineered into human surrogate "models" of various diseases for the biomedical researcher to discover new ways of treating the plagues and epidemics that afflict humanity. With the hope of science, the biological en- gineer will save us all and we shall be redeemed.

Yet beyond fear and hope, the promises of genetic engineering will become a Promethean nemesis if this technology is not applied in accordance with the emerging new world view of modern science and creation-centered ethics.

Our basic values, in order to avoid continuation of what Rev. Berry calls"the terrifying assault upon the earth with an irrationality that is stunning in its

91

enormity while we were being assured that this was the way to a better, more humane, more reasonable world," depend on conformity with the Earth pro- cess: "To harm the earth is to harm man, to ruin the earth is to destroy man."

If genetic engineering technology is not applied with respect for the sacred order, unity and interdependence of all life, then man will be harmed; if the natural world is destroyed, then that which is human will be destroyed also. We may survive in physical form, possibly using biotechnology to help us adapt, but then we will no longer be human. For to be fully human is to be a part of the creation and the natural world.

There is an alternative. Beneath the emotions of fear and hope there is, in the deep heart's core, a longing for a world of creative beauty, diverse vitality, and harmonizing peace. This world is within our reach; it is still there, around us and within us, but it is being destroyed at an accelerating rate of entropy. The new world view of modern science, whose physics, molecular and evolu- tionary biology and ecology reveal that this Earth is part of a unified field of self-organizing intelligence, supports a theology of Creation that moves us to live in communion; to respect the created order, beauty, vitality, diversity and harmony of the natural world. If we do violence against the Creation and the natural world, we will ultimately harm ourselves because we are part of the same unified field.

Genetic engineering, applied within the broad ethico-spiritual, ecological and socio-political framework of this new world view, entails a creative and loving sense of participation in the Earth process; a planetary stewardship that re- spects the sanctity of life by giving equal and fair consideration to all living beings and which recognizes that the human role in the Earth process cannot be one of control and selfish exploitation. It is ours only in sacred trust. Those who would genetically engineer and patent life should reflect upon the impli- cations and consequences of their values and world view, and ponder the rele- vance of the ancient medical maxim "do no harm".

The basic teachings of all the world's major religions emphasize respect for life and for the integrity of Creation.

It is not simply a question of whether Nature belongs to humankind only or to all life in our common trust; or whether or not animals can suffer or have rights and souls. Rather, more fundamental than the ethics of land ownership and the exploitation of other sentient non-humans, and even more fundamen- tal than the issue of the existence and theology of God, is how we should live and influence the future of the world and the lives of our children's children.

These basic teachings are very simple. They formed the ethical and legal- moral codes of organically functional, healthy, wealthy and self-sustaining hu- man communities for generations past until the transition into the Industrial Age, and as we endeavor to build a post-industrial global community, we should all reflect - - theists and atheists alike - - upon the wisdom and pragmatism of our ancestral religious-community leaders, teachers and prophets.

92

If we waste, we shall want. This is the law of frugality. If we are destructive and violent, we shall suffer the consequences. Violence toward any living thing, human or non-human, is violence, regardless of "how much" suffering results. Likewise destructiveness of any vital living system, be it ecological or social, is destructiveness, regardless of "how much" we may claim to possess and have power over. We do not own the land; we borrow it from our children.

Without respect for life and without living a life that accords with the prin- ciples outlined above - - of frugality, non-violence, compassion, humility and generosity of heart b , the Creation will have no future.

The despoiled state of this desecrated Earth and the suffering and extermi- nation of sections of the animal kingdom is evidence enough that we must, singly and collectively, dedicate our lives to restore Nature and so help protect the future of the Creation.

Any religion concerned primarily, if not exclusively, with "saving souls" commits the dualistic fallacy of seeing Man as separate from Creation, and in so doing separates Man from God. A non-dualistic world-view sees humanity, animals and Nature as all part of the same Creation. Thus, saving the Earth and saving human souls is one and the same. From this holistic perspective Father Sean McDonagh (1986) offers a cosmic view of sin from a Christian orientation, stating, "If sin destroys the harmony between human beings and the natural world, then redemption, to be complete, must heal and renew the primal unity and recreate the Earth whenever it has been injured through hu- man greed and vice."

Our attempt to make over the natural world in our own image as an unnat- ural industrial utopia is failing. The Earth and the animals are telling us so and it is time for us all to listen because the Earth is now in our own hands. Such is our power over the planet, the atom and the gene. How we decide to wield this power will determine the future of the Creation. As Lao Tzu advised in the 6th century B.C., "The Earth is sacred. You cannot improve it. If you try to change it, you will ruin it. If you try to hold it, you will lose it."

Concern for the environment, for the plant and animal kingdoms and for the integrity and future of Creation is becoming a common unifying concern of all nation states and of all the world's religions; it can be the catalyst for a world community of peace and of a new economic order, based not upon com- petition and exploitation, but upon a cooperative attitude and creative rela- tionship between nation states and between humanity and the rest of Creation.

CONCLUSIONS

I wish to make it quite clear at the close of this paper that Iam not in principle opposed to biotechnology. It is a not unexpected development in the evolution of civilization. However, I am opposed to the way in which it is already being

93

used by those who adhere to the mind-set of scientific materialism, nature- atheism and agricultural (and other industrial) expansionism.

What is needed is a different mind-set, closer in some ways to our ancestral gatherer-hunter world view than to our more recent agriculturalist-industri- alist forefathers. The latter's mind-set sees Nature and all living things less as kin than as resources to exploit, devoid of inherent value or mystery. This world view is given religious, scientific (rational) and economic sanction by the priesthood of the technocracy.

The post agricultural-industrial mind-set that is best suited for the awesome task of developing the biotechnology industry so that it is applied appropri- ately, even creatively and profitably, must break with the orthodoxy of a con- sumer society.

We must, for example, break away from our addiction to meat and not mis- use this technology to support and even expand a meat-based agriculture. We can use this technology creatively to repair this despoiled planet and to help "dress and keep" the garden of Eden. More land can be returned to Nature only if we shift away from a meat-based agriculture to a regenerative eco-ag- riculture, where the world production and consumption of animal protein (in- cluding marine sources) declines as the production and consumption of vegetable protein increases. Biotechnology could be of great value in this kind of agriculture, helping develop new varieties of more nutritious, more easily harvested crops that are more resistant to local diseases and climatic variables. To genetically engineer seeds resistant to herbicides and to spray crops with bacterial pesticides is not a creative use of biotechnology.

Its appropriate application in medicine will do much to alleviate human suf- fering and disease, but the real advances in human medicine are not likely to come until the health industry recognizes that a medical science that relies primarily upon crude and cruel laboratory experiments upon animals for its advancement is conceptually flawed and ethically blind, because no good ends can, in the long-term, come from laboratory animal vivisection. Many altruis- tic vivisectors claim that all medical advances of any significance have come through experimenting upon animals. This is scientifically invalid, most ad- vances having come through improvements in nutrition, sanitation and pre- ventive medicine (Fox, 1986).

It is for these reasons that I am opposed to the utilitarian application of genetic engineering to animals. It could be applied appropriately to help correct genetic defects and facilitate the preservation of rare and endangered species (although there are other ways of effectively dealing with these problems, such as not deliberately inbreeding cats, dogs and farm and captive zoo animals, and eating less or no meat, the consumption of which is a major factor in acceler- ating the rate of species extinction world-wide ).

In sum, a new attitude toward animals and nature, indeed to the whole of Creation and the creative process itself, is needed if this technology is to be

94

appl ied appropr ia te ly . I f it is appl ied in the old mater ia l i s t ic mind-se t of in- dus t r ia l i sm a nd na tu re -a the i sm, t h e n our nemes is will be our legacy.

REFERENCES

Berry, T., 1978. The New Story. American Teilhard Association for the Future of Man, 867 Mad- ison Avenue, New York.

Fox, M.W., 1984. Farm Animals: Husbandry, Behavior and Veterinary Practice. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD.

Fox, M.W., 1986. Laboratory Animal Husbandry. State University of New York Press, Albany. McDonagh, S., 1986. To Care for the Earth: A Call to a New Theology. Geoffrey Chapman, London. Mintz, J., 1984. Venture Magazine. February. Rutledge, J. and Seidel, G.E., Jr., 1983. Genetic engineering and animal production. J. Anim. Sci.,

57: 265-272.