Is there a law against biohacking your pet?

Question

Biohacking, particularly the self administration of genetic modification tools such as CRISPR, has become somewhat popular in recent years with advancements in genetic engineering technology. While this technology is robustly regulated in the lab the only law I can find that limits personal use in any way is a 2019 California law requiring “the kit is not for self-administration” label for the relatively cheap DIY kits.

Are there any legal restrictions where applying such kits to oneself would be legal but doing so to ones pet would be illegal?

Answer 1

uk

In the UK this is governed by the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (which covers Scotland as well as England and Wales). A summary of the bits relevant to this question is at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Briefly, a pet owner can only perform minor medical treatment. "Minor" isn't clearly defined, but the RCVS page suggests that a subcutaneous injection would be covered as long as a qualified vet said to do it. (Note: livestock on farms have a broader set of legal procedures, but that isn't relevant to pets).

However this would have to be a medical treatment. Again, that word isn't defined in the act, but it generally means medical care for illness or injury, or things like vaccinations to prevent injury. So it would depend a lot on why this was done, the likely side effects and so forth. I don't know of any case law, but I suspect the presumption would be against the administration of anything not prescribed by a vet.

Answer 2

There are a number of provisions in the (England and Wales) Animal Welfare Act that could be applied. They don't specifically mention "biohacking" or technology like CRISPR, but could be used after the fact (if, for example, the modifications caused suffering)

The general intent of the law is to prevent cruelty to "protected animals" (ie pets and domesticated animals). The scope is quite wide. A person causes an offence if he causes or allows an animal to suffer unnecessarily, and there are specific provisions against carrying out procedures that interfere with sensitive tissues or the bone structure of an animal, and the administration of drugs or poisons.

The intent was to make mutilation of animals (for cosmetic, sporting, fighting etc) an offence, but it would seem quite reasonable to extend this genetic modification, especially if the modification resulted in any pain or suffering for the animal.

Answer 3

California Penal Code §597(a) punishes anyone who “maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal”.

Whether a particular instance of “biohacking” constituted a violation of the code would be fact-specific. You might claim that the biohacking was for the animal’s own good, or that it was legitimate scientific curiosity — but you would have to convince a jury.

There does not seem to be a law here that specifically says you have to be licensed to biohack an animal you own.

There are Federal laws (the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 for example), but the prosecution would not only have to prove you violated them, but you did so “in interstate commerce”.

Answer 4

Various jurisdictions have laws on the release of GMO in the wild. In EU directive 2001/18/EC, article 2 defines GMO for the purpose of the directive to exclude humans, while subsequent articles clarifiy that the scope goes beyond GM food. Doing what you describe in a home setting would presumably not meet the national safety and reporting criteria.