KALAMAZOO, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Most people hear the phrase “medical ethics” and think of protecting patients, respecting consent, and doing no harm. But two Western Michigan University-affiliated philosophers and medical ethicists are arguing that genetically engineering ticks to make people allergic to meat might be a way to help advance preferred social outcomes.
That’s the premise behind a paper by Western Michigan University bioethicists Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth. In their 2025 peer-reviewed paper, Beneficial Bloodsucking, which has recently gained new attention on social media and various websites, the two argue that if eating meat is morally wrong, then encouraging the spread of alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) – a tick-borne condition that can cause a severe allergy to red meat – could be morally justified, and in some cases even “morally obligatory” if it discourages people from eating animals. The paper also discusses the possibility of genetically modifying ticks to help spread the condition.
MORE NEWS: Op-Ed: Affordable Energy Is the Foundation of American Competitiveness
To be clear, the authors are not proposing that the government release genetically engineered ticks tomorrow morning. The paper is framed as a philosophical argument. Even so, critics have questioned why academics are spending their time debating whether intentionally spreading a medical condition could ever be considered morally desirable under any circumstances.
Why do people become “allergic” to meat after the tick bite?
Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) can develop after a bite from a lone star tick triggers an immune reaction to alpha-gal, a sugar found in most mammals. The condition can cause an allergy to red meat and other mammalian products. Not everyone bitten by a lone star tick develops AGS, and researchers are still studying why some people are affected while others are not. Researchers believe the risk for AGS syndrome may be influenced by factors such as the number of tick bites a person receives, repeated exposure to ticks, and individual differences in immune-system responses. There is no reported inoculation for the syndrome but scientists are working towards one.
The Focal Points website, a health and medicine commentary site, says symptoms of the syndrome can include “rash, gastrointestinal distress, and severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis (potentially life-threatening); reactions can occur after exposure to meat that comes from mammals, mammal-derived products, dairy in some cases, and certain medical products.” Their article also calls the idea of intentionally spreading the ticks “bioterrorism.”
The Michigan connection.
Once considered primarily a southern species, lone star ticks have steadily expanded their range into Michigan and are being reported far more frequently than in past decades. While they remain less common than American dog ticks and blacklegged (deer) ticks, a CDC map tracking the species through 2025 shows lone star ticks have now been detected in at least 45 Michigan counties, primarily across the Lower Peninsula. Lone star ticks are most often found in wooded areas, brushy habitats, and tall grass, particularly in southern Michigan – but appear to be spreading northward.
Your body, someone else’s moral project?
One reason the published paper is unsettling to critics is that it appears to invert one of the most fundamental principles of medical ethics: informed consent. The concern goes beyond ticks or meat allergies. Critics argue the real issue is the idea that people could be subjected to biological interventions designed to manipulate behavior or achieve preferred social outcomes without their knowledge or permission. If that principle sounds dangerous, consider how easily it could be applied elsewhere.
Consider: If obesity is considered a public-health problem, should we release mosquitoes that suppress appetite? If smoking is harmful, should we engineer a virus that makes cigarettes taste terrible and gives people stomach cramps? If climate activists think air travel is immoral, should we create a biological agent that makes flying physically unbearable? And all of it imposed without your knowledge because someone, somewhere, decided they have the right to manipulate your future health, behavior, and quality of life in pursuit of a preferred social outcome.
MORE NEWS: Tom Selleck Brings America’s Founding to the Big Screen in New Hillsdale Documentary
Most Americans would reject those ideas instantly. Yet the logic behind them isn’t very different from the logic being discussed in Beneficial Bloodsucking. Once you decide it’s acceptable to medically alter people’s behavior without their consent because the outcome is supposedly good, the guardrails start disappearing.
Not doctors. Not tick scientists.
Another important detail is that Crutchfield and Hereth are not physicians, immunologists, epidemiologists, or researchers who specialize in tick-borne diseases. Both hold Ph.D.s in philosophy and work in the fields of medical ethics and bioethics. Their academic backgrounds help explain the paper’s approach, which focuses on ethical arguments and philosophical reasoning rather than presenting new medical, biological, or epidemiological research to help people – or seriously examining the real-world consequences of intentionally exposing Americans to a medical condition in an effort to influence behavior.
Michigan News Source contacted both authors seeking comment on the ethical implications of intentionally exposing people to a medical condition as a means of encouraging certain social behaviors. Neither responded to requests for comment.
Other controversial ideas.
This isn’t the first eyebrow-raising argument from these authors. Crutchfield previously argued that compulsory “moral enhancement” like the one described in Beneficial Bloodsucking might be best administered covertly – without people knowing about it. Hereth wrote a thesis questioning the morality of self-defense, arguing that using force to harm another person is never morally justified. He concluded that people have neither a moral right nor a moral duty to use violence against an attacker.
Viewed in that context, Beneficial Bloodsucking is less of an isolated thought experiment and more of a continuation of the authors’ broader willingness to challenge widely accepted moral principles and ethical behavior. The problem, critics would argue, is that many principles exist for a reason.
Most reasonable people reading their paper will instinctively understand that deliberately exposing others to a medical condition in order to reshape their behavior crosses an ethical line. Whether the goal is reducing meat consumption, combating climate change, or advancing any other social cause, bodily autonomy shouldn’t become collateral damage in somebody else’s moral crusade.
