Beyond Humanity? The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-176
Author(s):  
Ezra Sullivan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Enhancement

scholarly journals Human enhancement

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mara Almeida ◽  
Rui Diogo
Keyword(s):  
Natural Environment ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Human Enhancement ◽  
Genetic Enhancement ◽  
Human Biology ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Genetic Intervention ◽  
Biomedical Enhancement ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Evolutionary Context

Abstract Genetic engineering opens new possibilities for biomedical enhancement requiring ethical, societal and practical considerations to evaluate its implications for human biology, human evolution and our natural environment. In this Commentary, we consider human enhancement, and in particular, we explore genetic enhancement in an evolutionary context. In summarizing key open questions, we highlight the importance of acknowledging multiple effects (pleiotropy) and complex epigenetic interactions among genotype, phenotype and ecology, and the need to consider the unit of impact not only to the human body but also to human populations and their natural environment (systems biology). We also propose that a practicable distinction between ‘therapy’ and ‘enhancement’ may need to be drawn and effectively implemented in future regulations. Overall, we suggest that it is essential for ethical, philosophical and policy discussions on human enhancement to consider the empirical evidence provided by evolutionary biology, developmental biology and other disciplines. Lay Summary: This Commentary explores genetic enhancement in an evolutionary context. We highlight the multiple effects associated with germline heritable genetic intervention, the need to consider the unit of impact to human populations and their natural environment, and propose that a practicable distinction between ‘therapy’ and ‘enhancement’ is needed.

scholarly journals Achievement and Enhancement

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 322-338
Author(s):  
Lisa Forsberg ◽  
Anthony Skelton
Keyword(s):  
Critical Examination ◽  
Biomedical Enhancement

AbstractWe engage with the nature and the value of achievement through a critical examination of an argument according to which biomedical “enhancement” of our capacities is impermissible because enhancing ourselves in this way would threaten our achievements. We call this the argument against enhancement from achievement. We assess three versions of it, each admitting to a strong or a weak reading. We argue that strong readings fail, and that weak readings, while in some cases successful in showing that enhancement interferes with the nature or value of achievement, fail to establish that enhancement poses an unusual threat to achievement.

Biomedical Cognitive Enhancements: Coercion, Competition and Inducements

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-89
Author(s):  
Ori Lev
Keyword(s):  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The State ◽  
Competitive Pressure ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Biomedical Enhancement

Abstract There is an ongoing debate over the ethical permissibility of using biomedical enhancement interventions. This debate has generated a variety of concerns; one worry that stands out in this regard is the question of coercion. Curiously, although pointed out by many, this concern has not received close scrutiny. The aim of this paper is to begin addressing this conceptual gap. In order to explore this concern, I employ Alan Wertheimer’s understanding of coercion. According to Wertheimer’s account coercion involves a wrongful threat in which one has little choice but to succumb. Moreover, the wrongfulness of the threat stems from the fact that it violates the coercee’s rights. I suggest that if one accepts this account, it follows that coercing people to enhance would be impermissible. Using this framework, the paper assesses the claim that competition over jobs, goods, and positions coerces people to enhance. I argue, however, that competition pursued within a proper legal framework cannot be coercive since it neither involves a wrongful threat nor violates a person’s rights. Nonetheless, I propose that although competition is not coercive, enhancing because of competitive pressure can be morally problematic as it could restrict personal autonomy and harm well-being. The paper explores strategies the State could devise in order to address both these concerns. The paper then examines whether there are noncoercive permissible ways to induce people to cognitively enhance. Using a number of hypothetical cases, I delineate criteria that could be used to determine whether a particular enhancement should be considered mandatory or otherwise encouraged. Specifically, I consider the circumstances under which it would be justified to use incentives and penalties in order to induce people to enhance.

scholarly journals Human Subjects Protections in Biomedical Enhancement Research: Assessing Risk and Benefit and Obtaining Informed Consent

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 546-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell J. Mehlman ◽  
Jessica W. Berg
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Human Experimentation ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Healthy Children ◽  
Human Capabilities ◽  
Biomedical Enhancement ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Risk And Benefit

There are two critical steps in determining whether a medical experiment involving human subjects can be conducted in an ethical manner: assessing risks and potential benefits and obtaining potential subjects’ informed consent. Although an extensive literature on both of these aspects exists, virtually nothing has been written about human experimentation for which the objective is not to prevent, cure, or mitigate a disease or condition, but to enhance human capabilities. One exception is a 2004 article by Rebecca Dresser on preimplantation genetic modification — one of the most controversial enhancement technologies — in which she states, “Under existing research ethics principles, it would be unethical for investigators to perform modifications exposing embryos expected to develop into healthy children to significant risk in exchange for a possible physical or mental enhancement.” But Dresser does not explain why such an experiment would be unethical under existing principles, and her conclusion is not self-evident.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document