Researchers Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth of Western Michigan University published a cotroversial paper in 2025 proposing that society has a moral duty to disseminate ticks carrying alpha‑gal syndrome (AGS), a condition that makes sufferers allergic to red meat. The proposal, framed as a philosophical thought experiment, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from bioethicists, public health officials,and the online community.

2025 Study Claims a Moral Duty to Spread AGS‑Carrying Ticks

Crutchfield and Hereth argue that because meat production inflicts animal suffering and environmental harm, it is ethically justified to engineer ticks that transmit AGS, effectively forcing people to avoid meat. They write, “If we are right, then today we have the obligation to research and develop the capacity to proliferate tick‑borne AGS and, tomorrow, carry out that proliferation.” The authors acknowledge that large‑scale deployment is not yet feasible, but claim the mere possibility creates a moral imperative.

Alpha‑Gal Syndrome:Real Health Risks Behind the Theory

Alpha‑gal syndrome is transmitted by the lone‑star tick, which ranges from Texas to the East Coast. According to the CDC, between 2017 and 2022 there were about 90,000 suspected cases, with roughly 15,000 new cases reported each year, and the agency estimates up to half a million Americans may be affected. Symptoms range from mild hives to life‑threatening anaphylaxis, and there is currently no cure—patients must avoid all mammalian products for life.

University Defends Paper as a “Thought Experiment”

Western Michigan University’s Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine responded to the backlash by emphasizing that the paper , published in the journal Bioethics, is a philosophical exercise, not a policy proposal. In a statement to Snopes, the school said, “Thought experiments are a long‑established and legitimate philosophical method… they are neither policy proposals nor clinical recommendations.” The institution therefore distances itself from any suggestion that the authors intend to implement the idea.

Public Outcry Labels Proposal as Biological Terrorism

Social media users and bioethicists have condemned the study,with one commentator on X calling for criminal prosecution, saying, “Intentionally inflicting a debilitating disease on people is a horribly vicious crime and should get the strongest possible penalty.” Critics argue that even as a hypothetical, the suggestion normalizes the notion of weaponizing disease to enforce dietary choices.

Unanswered Questions About Feasibility and Governance

Key uncertainties remain: (1) whether genetic editing can reliably produce ticks that consistently transmit AGS at scale; (2) what legal frameworks would govern the intentional release of a disease‑causing organism; and (3) how public health agencies would respond to a covert biocontrol program.. The study offers no empirical data on these points, leaving the debate firmly in the realm of speculation.