Bioethics Gone Rogue: The Plan to “Fix” Your Morals With a Tick Bite
A new academic proposal frames a dangerous meat allergy as a tool for moral engineering — and suggests altering your biology in secret “for your own good.”
Weaponizing Ticks? Why “Beneficial Bloodsucking” Is Ethically Poisonous
A new bioethics paper makes an extraordinary—and deeply disturbing—suggestion: that a dangerous tick-borne allergy could be considered a morally beneficial tool.
Parker Crutchfield, a bioethicist at Western Michigan University, argues that alpha-gal syndrome (AGS)—a meat allergy triggered by the lone star tick—might function as a “moral bioenhancer” because it forces people to stop eating meat.
Let’s be clear: this is an argument for altering people’s biology without their consent, on the premise that it’s “for their own good.” That’s not public health—that’s moral authoritarianism wrapped in medical jargon.
Framing moral disagreement as a public-health problem turns dissent into a disease. Claiming covert programs “protect autonomy” is absurd; autonomy is the right to know and choose, not the privilege of being secretly manipulated.
And once we normalize the idea that an involuntary condition can be morally “beneficial,” we open the door to engineering those conditions—ticks, viruses, even foods—deliberately.
The ethical line is bright: No covert moral bioenhancement. No biological coercion. No pretending that secrecy serves liberty.
The moment we let morality be manufactured without our knowledge, we’ve stopped cultivating virtue and started producing compliance. And that’s a path no free society should take.
From Medical Mystery to Moral Engineering
The conversation around alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) has shifted dramatically. What began as a public-health puzzle—tracing the syndrome’s mysterious tick-borne origins, debating prevention and healing—has now veered into the realm of compulsory moral bioenhancement.
As I explored in my earlier report, When Meat Turns Against Us: The Strange Rise of Alpha-Gal Syndrome and the War on Meat, AGS raises profound questions about food freedom, health policy, and the politics of diet. But with ethicists like Parker Crutchfield now suggesting this involuntary meat allergy could serve as a morally beneficial “nudge,” the debate risks tumbling from public health into covert social engineering.
Crutchfield’s Case — “Beneficial Bloodsucking” and Secret Enhancement
In Beneficial Bloodsucking (2025), co-authored with Blake Hereth, Crutchfield frames AGS not as a pathology, but as a potential moral bioenhancer:
“If eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne AGS are also morally impermissible … tickborne AGS is a moral bioenhancer if and when it motivates people to stop eating meat.”
— Bioethics, 2025
He further invokes what he calls 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.”
— Bioethics, 2025
Crutchfield’s Framework — Covert Compulsory MBE as Public Health
This thinking is consistent with Crutchfield’s earlier article, Compulsory Moral Bioenhancement Should Be Covert(2019), which argues:
“If moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. … I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does.”
— Bioethics, 2019
He makes the proposal explicit:
“Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further … without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement.”
— Bioethics, 2019
The implication is chilling: your biology could be altered for moral ends without your consent or knowledge—and secrecy would be presented as a virtue.
Why This Framing Is Dangerous
1. Misapplied Public-Health Analogy
Framing moral improvement as a public-health issue is a category mistake. Public-health ethics “justify” certain intrusions—quarantine, vaccination—because they address immediate, communicable harm. Moral disagreement over diet is not a contagious disease. Treating it as such risks pathologizing dissent and arming ideological agendas with medical authority. An issue that has already gone to far with vaccinations.
2. Autonomy Undermined, Not Preserved
Crutchfield claims covert programs protect autonomy better than overt ones. But autonomy is not simply freedom from interference—it’s the ability to know, deliberate, and choose. By definition, covert enhancement strips away the conditions for genuine moral agency.
3. Slippery Slope from Theory to Tactic
Once you accept the premise that a disease vector can be “beneficial,” it becomes far easier to justify engineered analogues—gene drives in vector species, CRISPR-based immune edits, or bioactive food additives—delivered covertly to “correct” behavior.
From Natural Allergy to Engineered Intervention
Alpha-gal syndrome is an immune sensitization, not a genetic alteration. Tick saliva introduces α-Gal molecules, triggering an IgE-mediated allergic response to mammalian meat. The effect is long-lasting and life-changing, but it doesn’t alter DNA.
Still, the AGS example sets a dangerous precedent: if a naturally occurring allergy can be reframed as morally desirable, then deliberate engineering to replicate or expand such effects becomes easier to justify.
Historical Parallels — When Ideas Shape Policy
Crutchfield insists his work is purely philosophical. But history shows that academic “what-ifs” often lay the groundwork for coercive policy. Eugenics began as a scholarly theory before becoming law. Public-health rhetoric has been used to justify forced sterilizations. In moments of crisis, “ethical arguments” can become tools for state power.
The Critics — Zambrano, Austin-Eames, and Others
Alexander Zambrano warns that moral bioenhancement does not belong in a public-health framework and that covert methods erode autonomy more than overt programs.
Louis Austin-Eames directly challenges Crutchfield’s claim that covert programs better promote liberty, equality, or fairness, arguing that transparency is integral to moral self-authorship.
Philosophers like Michael Sandel and Jürgen Habermas warn that unconsented biological shaping corrodes humility, solidarity, and ethical freedom.
Risks of Covert Moral Bioenhancement
Violation of Autonomy — Treats people as instruments rather than agents.
Erosion of Trust — Discovery of covert interventions would undermine confidence in medicine and governance.
Political Weaponization — “Moral wrongs” are defined by whoever holds power.
Ethical No-Man’s Land — Violates both bioconservative and transhumanist principles.
Where This Leads — Hypothetical, but Not Far-Fetched
If we normalize AGS as morally beneficial, it’s not hard to imagine:
Engineered ticks or mosquitoes designed to induce dietary change.
Viral vectors altering empathy or aggression.
Foods laced with biologically active compounds to modify moral dispositions.
These remain hypothetical—but the ethical barrier to their use erodes the moment such concepts are treated as legitimate moral tools.
Recommendations — Drawing the Bright Line Now
Ban covert moral bioenhancement outright.
Require informed, voluntary consent for any moral bioenhancement.
Subject all MBE research to independent ethical oversight.
Legislate clear protections against non-consensual biological modification.
Use education and voluntary initiatives for moral development.
Keep public health separate from moral engineering.
Conclusion — Defending Moral Agency
The Beneficial Bloodsucking paper is more than a thought experiment—it’s a case study in how naturally occurring phenomena can be reframed as tools for social engineering. Paired with Crutchfield’s advocacy for covert compulsory MBE, it presents a blueprint for biological coercion.
Even if the goal is framed as a moral good, the means matter. Covert interventions destroy autonomy, corrode trust, and give ideological agendas biological weapons.
We cannot safeguard morality by destroying the moral subject.