Page 144 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

8 Moral–Ethical Character and Science Education 121

now spawning in British Columbia and other places along North America’s west
coast (Stokstad 2002). Farmed fish may ease pressure on wild fisheries, but there is
an increasing emphasis on producing GMOs that will rapidly outgrow wild salmon
and if released, will continue to out-compete wild fish for food. Transgenic fish can
eat up to three times as much food as wild-type salmon. Additionally, farmed
salmon are typically raised in crowded conditions which increase the likelihood of
diseases that could spread to wild populations threatening already declining popu-
lations of salmon. What about wild-type zebrafish?
There are concerns that current understandings of the environmental biosafety
of transgenic fish and shellfish have not been given enough attention or research
(Kapuscinski 2005). In many parts of the world, native fish populations have a
direct impact on the livelihoods of people in the community. Often fish are part of
cultural ceremonies or events that have occurred over thousands of years. When
cultural erosion and environmental degradation occur, cultural and economic con-
nections with fish decline. If there are significant consequences for communities
where wild-type zebrafish are part of some important ecological relations, then it
ought to be included as part of what constitutes an ethically complex environmental
safety first principle. Yorktown’s principle of environmental safety depends on
where it is geographically situated, and henceforth, does not include all environments
as equal moral subjects, because if it did, the Earth’s environmental safety would
already be compromised. It is not right, good, or just to privilege some environments
over others, especially when all environments depend on each other as much as
humans depend on them.
Now reconsider FDA’s statement that they will not regulate GloFish because
they have not been shown to have an adverse affect on public health or any greater
threat for the environment than wild-type zebrafish. The FDA also limits environ-
mental impact to the USA. But since US environments are dependent on the health
of environments worldwide, it does not make sense to reduce the environment to
US boundaries. But could GloFish adversely impact ecosystems in Hawaii or
Caribbean and Pacific island territories (ecosystems)? If these locations are considered
as part of the analysis for determining adverse effects, they are not mentioned on
FDA’s website or anywhere else. Unfortunately invasive organisms have been a
huge problem for Hawaii (Wilson 2002). Will GloFish impact Hawaiian islands? A
scan of Honolulu’s pet stores indicates there are two or more places where GloFish
are currently sold in Oahu. Hawaii’s waters are at the same latitude as where
zebrafish are native in southern Asia. Concomitant with the FDA policy on GloFish,
other countries, such as Costa Rica and other significant biodiversity hotspots are
being held to a double standard when targeted by scientists and environmentalists
to protect rainforest ecosystems within their boundaries because of some adverse
implications for other environments worldwide (including the USA). Will the FDA
also be required to evaluate the consequences of policy for others?
The FDA notes there is no public health risk because humans do not eat
zebrafish. However, since public health cannot be separated from the health of
environments worldwide, the FDA has a responsibility to consider whether there is
any threat to people’s food livelihoods. Declining food livelihoods when environments