Beauteous beasts - Humans have been breeding animals for beauty for centuries. But should we draw the line at genetically modified pets?

"When meddling with animals, it’s not some fuzzy notion of what’s ‘natural’ that should give us pause — it’s the effects that our actions can have on a creature’s welfare. Animals might have become cosmetic commodities, but they are still living creatures capable of suffering. And so interfering in their lives — and re-engineering their bodies — involves balancing pain against gain. Yes, it might be horrible to amputate a dog’s leg, but if the procedure saves its life, then it may be a justifiable intervention. However, cosmetic procedures present a different calculus: it’s impossible to justify any amount of pain or suffering in the name of mere beauty. In deciding where to draw the line, our governing principle should be a simple four-word phrase familiar to doctors everywhere: first, do no harm." {emphasis mine}

I once met a Borzoi dog breeder who stopped breeding and selling them, dedicating her farm space to rescuing and caring for dogs born eyeless as a result of a genetic defect that had spread through the breed. A friend has to take her French bulldog to the vet on a regular basis, to get its eyes popped back into their sockets. [Yes, this is a pet peeve, pun intended - I live in a region where tiny malformed dogs are common fashion accessories, and it's grotesquely abusive.] That's without employing the now-practical direct genetic manipulations in the space of consumer-driven animal sculpture.

The author's approach to the idea of "harm" is somewhat shallow. When selecting a single gene for expression to improve aesthetics, you're also eliminating any potential advantages that might arise from its natural state. You might enjoy a brightly glowing fish, but it may not mate, hunt or behave as it would normally - there are a host of more subtle unintended consequences that could diminish its well-being.