268


EQUINE VETERINARY EDUCATION


Equine vet. Educ. (2018) 30 (5) 268-273 doi: 10.1111/eve.12566


Review Article Is cloning horses ethical?


M. L. H. Campbell Department of Production and Population Health, The Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Herts, UK. Corresponding author email: mcampbell@rvc.ac.uk


Keywords: horse; equine cloning; welfare; ethics; equine assisted reproduction


Summary This paper assesses whether cloning horses is ethical by reviewing ethical arguments against cloning of nonequine species and determining whether they apply to horses, analysing ethical arguments about horse cloning which do not apply to noncompetitive species and considering the ethical dilemmas faced by veterinarians involved in horse cloning. The author concludes that concerns about the health and welfare of cloned horses render the technique ethically problematic and that the onus is on those providing commercial equine cloning services to collate data and provide a stronger evidence base for ethical decision- making.


Introduction


Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) or ‘cloning’ is currently being offered as a commercial method of horse reproduction in countries including the European Union, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South America (Hinrichs 2005, 2006; Herrera 2015; Hinrichs and Choi 2015). In 2012, it was estimated that there were 100–200 cloned horses worldwide (Hinrichs 2012). It is likely that the number of cloned horses being born per year is small. Herrera (2015) reported that 20 viable cloned foals had been produced over 4 years in South America, whilst Reis (2015) estimated that 2–5 cloned foals per year are born in Europe. Cloning is not allowed by international studbooks


registering racing Thoroughbreds. The American Quarter Horse Association is another notable example of a studbook which refuses to register clones (http://www.latimes.com/ nation/la-na-cloned-horses-20150314-story.html). Studbooks which will register clones include the majority of Warmblood stud books and the World Breeding Federation for Sport Horses. It is probable that cloning has been used in horses of various breeds being used for the disciplines regulated by the Federation Equestrian Internationale (FEI), although the FEI does not have data on which horses competing under FEI Regulations are clones (G. Akerstrom, personal communication). Reasons why owners choose to clone horses include the


production from a competitively successful castrated male animal of an entire male clone which can be used for breeding, the attempted ‘recreation’ of a favourite animal and attempted duplication of a successful competition horse.


Cloning of any species of animal is ethically contentious


(Nolen 2007). In 2012 the FEI changed its rules to allow clones and offspring of clones to compete. However, the European Commission in December 2013 tabled proposals to ban the use of the cloning technique in the EU for farm animals and


the import of such animal clones (IP/13/1269 18/12/2013). The proposals of the European Commission included horses used for agricultural production purposes, but allowed derogations for ‘...animals kept and reproduced exclusively for other purposes such as research, the production of medicinal products and medical devices, the preservation of rare breeds or endangered species, sporting and cultural events’, which effectively excluded horses used for purposes other than agricultural production from the proposed ban on cloning. In October 2015, the European Parliament amended the European Commission’s proposal, to remove the derogation from the ban for sporting and cultural events (Amendment 30: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/ getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015- 0285). This means that should the European Parliament’s amendments be agreed in regulation negotiations with the European Council, cloning of all horses except those of endangered breeds for which no other method of reproduction can be used will be banned in the EU. However, cloning of horses for all purposes will continue to be allowed in many other countries. Against this rather incoherent legislative background, the aim of this article is to determine whether there are


convincing ethical arguments for banning cloning of horses. It first reviews general ethical arguments against the cloning of animals of all species and analyses whether they apply to horses. Are arguments against cloning of other species convincing? If so, should they apply to horses, or is there something different about cloning horses which could make cloning horses ethical even if cloning other animals is not so? Secondly, the article considers whether there are any ethical arguments against cloning which apply to horses but not to other species, for example, arguments about sporting ethics. Finally, ethical dilemmas which might face veterinarians who are asked by their clients to become involved in equine cloning are presented.


Food safety concerns


In parts of Europe, although not commonly in the UK, horses are eaten. The initial debate within the European Union about cloning of farm animals incorporated concern about the possible health effects on man of eating cloned animals and their products. Were these concerns justified and do they apply to horses? There is undoubtedly public concern about the health


implications of consuming clones or their products (Anon 2008a,b, Aizaki et al. 2011). Scientific evidence suggests that such concerns are unfounded (Anon 2008b, 2009a, 2010, 2012a). Although this evidence relates to ruminants rather than to horses, it is hard to see why health risks in man


©2016 TheAuthors EquineVeterinaryEducation publishedby John Wiley&Sons Ltdonbehalf of British EquineVeterinary Association This is an open access article under the terms of the CreativeCommonsAttribution License, which permits use, distributionand reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76