Human enhancement: Are we going cyborg?
A conference happening this week (29 March 2009) on human enhancement suggests the ethics of human enhancement will be the single most important issue in science & society in this century. So what do we mean by human enhancement and why is it raising the ethical hackles of many, yet exciting others? What should be morally permissible and what should not?
What defines human enhancement
Humans already spend small fortunes on cosmetic surgery such as breast enhancements, facelifts, nose jobs, growth hormones…and so on. Reading a book or eating vegetables might be considered enhancement of the mind. But that is not what we are talking about here.
Nano and biotechnologies are on the verge of far more radical and permanent changes that boost our functioning beyond what the human species is naturally capable of. Many of these advances will come through the development of nano materials and electronics, and through our ability to manipulate the genome and its protein products.
Examples:
*Increasing lifespan, for instance, by programming the immune systems to combat ailments such as cancer, heart disease, dementia, or normal physical decline
*Neural implants to enhance intelligence, concentration, control emotions, or simply to be constantly hardwired to the Internet
*Bionic limbs for greater strength or vision
Ethical questions, issues to consider
There are many but the following five loose categories are given in a recent series of journal article – see references below:
*Freedom and autonomy (our right to choose)
*Health and safety
*Fairness and equity
*Societal disruption
*Human dignity
I present these only for readers to keep in mind when pondering this issue, and based on these categories here are some questions/issues to kickstart your pondering.
First, we need to distinguish between therapy and enhancement. For example, gene therapy used to enhance muscle growth in muscular dystrophy sufferers can bring those people a quality of life that resembles normality – if they can perfect gene therapy as a treatment. But for an athlete or other “normal” individual to use the technology to increase their strength and provide an advantage on the sporting arena or elsewhere is enhancement. But when does therapy become enhancement and is this even an issue?
What of a potential societal gap between the enhanced and un-enhanced?
What could it mean for our ‘humanness’. That is, will we need to redefine what it means to be human? Are we genetically hardwired (as some research suggests – see NanoEthics journal reference below) to be forever unsatisfied with who we are? Is part of being human having that desire to constantly better our circumstances? If considered abhorrent, is the only solution then to eliminate the genes involved in this discontent – which would ironically mean enhancing ourselves to do so?
How should we, if at all, regulate to control what enhancements are permissible.
What sort of big picture effects (beneficial and detrimental) could this have on society –careers/employment, economics (if we start living longer), communications and social (how we communicate and socialize), security and privacy?
Some brain fodder
Live blogging from a human enhancement conference
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/hughes20090328/
Some other people’s ponderings: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2993
A whole bunch of stuff here
http://www.emergingethics.com/
For those of you with access.
NanoEthics: Ethics for Emerging Technologies that converge on the nanoscale, December 2008, Vol 2, Number 3: 251-264 (If you would like copies of the series of papers from this journal on human enhancement contact the Gene and NanoTechnology Information Service – www.gntis.edu.au )