Neuroscientists Engineer Animals Insensitive to Pain

Scientists at Washington University and the University of Toronto have recently succeeded in engineering mice that no longer find pain unpleasant. In a New York Times op-ed, a doctoral student in philosophy-neuroscience-psychology, Adam Shriver, suggests that we ought to endorse the application of this biotechnology to our livestock as the best humane option given that we are likely stuck with the cruel realities of factory farming.

Neuroscientists have identified a part of the brain, the anterior cingulate cortex, that is involved in processing our perception of pain. When this part of the brain is inhibited — whether through damage, morphine, or, in this case genetic engineering to remove certain enzymes — an animal can still feel pain, and will react to it initially, but it no longer bothers them and they will not go out of their way to avoid painful stimuli. In a painful environment like a factory farm, this would, by definition, reduce suffering. The engineered mice didn't avoid heated areas of their cage, even though they did draw their paws away when they felt it, whereas normally, a mouse has a hypersensitive learning reaction to avoiding pain. According to Shriver, because they could still feel the pain they could avoid injury, but it is unclear whether this is sourced information or conjecture.

This development raises some very interesting questions for the compassionate carnivore. Like many, I initially balk at the idea of involving even more genetic engineering in our food supply, and reducing suffering obviously does not eliminate the core problem. And while I disagree that factory farming is necessarily here to stay, no one can deny that they currently supply the majority of American meat, and any way we can improve the conditions of the unfortunate animals stuck in CAFOs is a good thing.

Shriver claims that because the engineering involves removing a protein rather than adding anything new, there is no human health risk. The small producers from which those of us who care about ethical meat buy our food would neither need nor desire such animals and thus would not likely be affected.

This is obviously a band-aid, incomplete solution to a system with a myriad of problems, and there is something at the very least sad about creating animals that no longer care about the pain they are subjected to — and possibly worse, since the animals might injure themselves from stimuli they didn't perceive as dangerous. But are the tangible benefits of reduced suffering worth the downsides of more genetic engineering? What do you think?

Photo credit: be_khe via Flickr