NOT PARODY: ‘Beneficial Bloodsucking’: Bioethicists Want Ticks to Infect People to Stop Them from Eating Meat – ‘We argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne [allergy] are also morally impermissible’ – Published in the Journal Bioethics

This is not a parody. Two bioethicists have argued in the prestigious professional journal Bioethics that we should breed ticks to cause more infections of a condition that causes an allergy to red meat.

Seriously. | @thewesleyjsmith https://t.co/LewpLzTcXR

— JP (@NRO) July 30, 2025

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bioethicists-want-ticks-to-infect-people-to-stop-them-from-eating-meat/

By Wesley J. Smith

Excerpt: This is not a parody. Two bioethicists have argued in the prestigious professional journal Bioethics that we should breed ticks to cause more infections of a condition that causes an allergy to red meat. Seriously.

Why would anyone want ticks to become more dangerous? Meat-eating is wrong, and so anything (apparently) that causes fewer of us to eat meat is “beneficent“:

1. Eating meat is morally wrong.
2. If (1), then eating meat makes people morally worse and makes the world a worse place.
3. So, people would be morally better and the world would be a less bad place if people didn’t eat meat.
4. If an act makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place than it would otherwise be, then that act is morally obligatory. [Corollary of consequentialism]

5. Promoting tickborne AGS [a tickborne syndrome that causes a meat allergy] makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place.
6. So, promoting tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.

Notice that this isn’t a claim about factory farming, but an all-inclusive argument that we have a positive duty not to consume animal flesh.

If people choose to be vegans, more power to them. Acting consistently with one’s moral beliefs is a uniquely human endeavor. But humans are omnivores. Meat is part of our natural diet, offers inexpensive nutrition, is good for us (in proper proportions), and not unimportantly for many, offers an enjoyable eating experience.

The authors’ absolutism causes them to make an immoral argument:

Our main conclusion is that we should promote a particular tickborne syndrome: alpha‐gal syndrome (AGS). AGS is caused by the allergen alpha‐gal, which in humans causes an allergic reaction to eating mammalian meat and mammalian organs. People who have the allergy may have a variety of symptoms, including hives, gastrointestinal upset (e.g., vomiting and diarrhea), or anaphylaxis in severe cases. Often, these symptoms present 2–6 h after ingestion of mammalian meat. However, there is little reason to believe that there are additional harms associated with the allergy, aside from the allergic reaction itself. Although AGS is typically associated with the lone star tick (LST), other ticks also transmit AGS.

No additional harms? Good grief! (I double checked after entering the above quote. This is not a parody.)

The authors spend nine-plus pages of small print setting out various philosophical justifications for their cruel argument. It’s all the kind of hogwash you would expect. They conclude with a few shocking assertions:

We have argued that AGS is a moral bioenhancer and that its promotion is morally obligatory. Among other things, that means that researchers have an obligation to develop the AGS carrying capacity of ticks, and that means human agents are obligated to expose others to AGS (and possibly lone star ticks), not to prevent the spread of AGS or lone star ticks, and to undermine attempts to “cure” AGS. Indeed, given that AGS is a moral bioenhancement with no significant negative effects on human health (so long as one avoids eating meat), it is not a disease and thus cannot be “cured.” [Emphasis added.]

…

End JP Excerpt.

#

Journal article here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.70015?af=R

First published: 22 July 2025 https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70015

ABSTRACT
The bite of the lone star tick spreads alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a condition whose only effect is the creation of a severe but nonfatal red meat allergy. Public health departments warn against lone star ticks and AGS, and scientists are working to develop an inoculation to AGS. Herein, we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne AGS are also morally impermissible. After explaining the symptoms of AGS and how they are transmitted via ticks, we argue that tickborne AGS is a moral bioenhancer if and when it motivates people to stop eating meat. We then defend what we call the Convergence Argument: If x-ing prevents the world from becoming a significantly worse place, doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, and promotes virtuous action or character, then x-ing is strongly pro tanto obligatory; promoting tickborne AGS satisfies each of these conditions. Therefore, promoting tickborne AGS is strongly pro tanto obligatory. It is presently feasible to genetically edit the disease-carrying capacity of ticks. If this practice can be applied to ticks carrying AGS, then promoting the proliferation of tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.

#

Biosciences: “…we argue that tickborne AGS is a moral bioenhancer if and when it motivates people to stop eating meat. We then defend what we call the Convergence Argument: If x-ing prevents the world from becoming a significantly worse place, doesn’t violate anyone’s rights,… pic.twitter.com/diU1dzUJPs

— Gabriella Hoffman (@Gabby_Hoffman) August 1, 2025

#

Related: 

Human Engineering: Meet NYU Professor Matthew Liao, who yearns to bio-engineer smaller, drug-ready humans

July 29, 2017