Sanctuary to Table Dining: Cellular Agriculture and the Ethics of Cell Donor Animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellular agriculture – the process of growing animal tissue from stem cells – is a novel technology touted as a potential alternative to conventional animal agriculture. While it is frequently described as cruelty-free or animal-free, however, cellular agriculture will, for the foreseeable future, require living livestock as a source of cells. The arguments in favor of cellular agriculture, usually rooted in utilitarianism, are clear: its widespread adoption would reduce the harms caused by animal agriculture, including reducing the number of animals killed for food. What is less clear is whether cellular agriculture offers a path toward animal liberation or decommodification, least of all for cell donor animals. This article examines how the use of cell donor animals might be ethically justified and practically enacted. We argue that cell donor animals should be raised in settings akin to animal sanctuaries where minimal harm can be squared with a broader goal of decommodification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".