DOCSLIB.ORG

Human Enhancement and the Future of Work

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Human Enhancement and the Future of Work Human enhancement and the future of work Report from a joint workshop hosted by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society. November 2012 Academy of Medical Sciences The independent Academy of Medical Sciences promotes advances in medical science and campaigns to ensure these are translated into benefits for patients. The Academy’s Fellows are the United Kingdom’s leading medical scientists from hospitals, academia, industry and the public service. British Academy The British Academy, established by Royal Charter in 1902, champions and supports the humanities and social sciences. It aims to inspire, recognise and support excellence in the humanities and social sciences, throughout the UK and internationally, and to champion their role and value. The British Academy is an independent, self-governing fellowship of scholars elected for their distinction and achievement. Royal Academy of Engineering As the UK’s national academy for engineering, we bring together the most successful and talented engineers from across the engineering sectors for a shared purpose: to advance and promote excellence in engineering. We provide analysis and policy support to promote the UK’s role as a great place from which to do business. We take a lead on engineering education and we invest in the UK’s world class research base to underpin innovation. We work to improve public awareness and understanding of engineering. We are a national academy with a global outlook and use our international partnerships to ensure that the UK benefits from international networks, expertise and investment. The Royal Society The Royal Society is a self-governing Fellowship of many of the world’s most distinguished scientists drawn from all areas of science, engineering, and medicine. The Society’s fundamental purpose, as it has been since its foundation in 1660, is to recognise, promote, and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity. For more information visit royalsociety.org ISBN No: 978-1-903401-35-4 Human enhancement and the future of work Report from a joint workshop hosted by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society. November 2012 Acknowledgements and disclaimer Cognisant of the lack of debate about the potential impact of human enhancement in the workplace, the Academy of Medical Sciences, British Academy, Royal Academy of Engineering and Royal Society came together to consider the implications of human enhancement technologies for the future of work. The Academies convened a small policy-focused workshop on 7 March 2012, which brought together policy-makers with leading experts from across engineering, science, social science, the humanities and industry. The Academies are very grateful to the steering committee, chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson CBE FBA, which has overseen this project. This is the first time that these four academies have combined their expertise to consider the policy implications of developments in a diverse range of research fields. This report captures the themes and questions that emerged from the workshop and does not necessarily represent the views of the four host academies. All web references were accessed in October 2012. © The Academy of Medical Sciences CHAPTERCONTENTS TITLE Contents Summary 5 1 Introduction 9 2 Cognitive enhancement 13 3 Physical enhancement 23 4 Commercialisation opportunities and challenges 33 5 Potential implications for the future of work 37 6 Policy and regulatory implications 49 7 Conclusion 53 Annex I Workshop programme 55 Annex II Steering committee membership 57 Annex III Workshop participants 59 Glossary 61 3 HUMAN ENHANCEMENT AND THE FUTURE OF WORK 4 CHAPTERSUMMARY TITLE Summary Over the next few decades, the nature of paid A fundamental aspect of this discussion relates work is likely to change significantly owing, to the ultimate objective of enhancement. for example, to the ageing workforce and Potential outcomes exist along a spectrum, changing working practices. Although human from increasing participation in work among enhancement technologies might aid society in those who might otherwise be disadvantaged dealing with this transition, their use at work is or excluded, to improving the performance likely to have implications that require careful and efficiency of all employees beyond the consideration, particularly by policy-makers, current limits of human capacity. Any effective employers, employees, researchers and wider regulatory framework would need to reflect society. Any such use would have impacts these different objectives. Attention also needs across the population and on individuals to be given to the risk that people will be put both employed and not employed. Human under pressure to enhance their ability to enhancement has been widely debated and tolerate demanding work such as shift working; discussions usually focus on the desire to this risk will be greatest for those with the improve performance. Although the context weakest labour market conditions. Attendees of work is clearly a primary application of were keen to stress that these technologies are these technologies, debate around human not a substitute for improving conditions enhancement has not specifically considered of work. the context of work. This report outlines selected developments Cognisant of the lack of debate about the from across science and engineering that potential impact of human enhancement in the could enable both cognitive and physical workplace, the Academy of Medical Sciences, enhancement, although it is not exhaustive. British Academy, Royal Academy of Engineering It summarises the themes and issues raised and Royal Society jointly hosted a workshop to during the workshop. Given that there is consider this topic on 7 March 2012. Human currently little debate about the use of enhancement refers to endeavours that enhancements at work or an academic research are designed or used to restore or improve base to draw upon, the report aims to highlight human performance, thus overcoming the possible implications of such use, which are current limits of one’s human body (see Box likely to be complex, and to identify potential 1). This workshop was concerned with novel areas for debate. Key messages identified by technologies that have the potential to extend workshop participants include the following: an individual’s capacities beyond their current • Enhancement technologies could limits. This interdisciplinary workshop brought change how people work. Work together policy-makers with leading experts will evolve over the next decade, with from across engineering, science, social science, enhancement technologies potentially the humanities and industry. The workshop making a significant contribution. provided insights into enhancements that might Widespread use of enhancements might arise from advances in science and engineering influence an individual’s ability to learn or that are likely to impact on the future of work, perform tasks and perhaps even to enter and it considered the associated opportunities a profession; influence motivation; enable and challenges for all stakeholders and for people to work in more extreme conditions policy in particular. To capture the range of or into old age, reduce work-related illness; future technologies most accurately, the or facilitate earlier return to work workshop primarily focused on technologies after illness. likely to impact on work in the next decade. 5 HUMAN ENHANCEMENT AND THE FUTURE OF WORK • Implications will be complex and there • A range of policy questions will need will be multiple political and social to be addressed. Although enhancement tensions. There are many instances where technologies might bring opportunities, the possible implications of enhancement they also raise several health, safety, at work will be complex and potentially ethical, social and political challenges, divisive. Enhancement could benefit which warrant proactive discussion. Very employee efficiency and even work–life different regulatory regimes are currently balance, but there is a risk that it will applied: for example, digital services be seen as a solution to increasingly and devices (with significant cognitive challenging working conditions, which could enhancing effects) attract less, if any, have implications for employee wellbeing. regulatory oversight than pharmacological Enabling an ageing workforce to delay interventions. This raises significant retirement would have implications for questions, such as whether any form of youth employment. self-regulation would be appropriate and • The distinction between enhancement whether there are circumstances where and restoration is difficult. The enhancements should be encouraged or workshop aimed to consider enhancement even mandatory, particularly where work technologies as both restorative and involves responsibility for the safety of taking individuals ‘beyond the norm’. others (e.g. bus drivers or airline pilots). Although ‘norm’ is a challenging concept, • Empirical data are needed to guide this distinction may be integral to policy. ‘Known unknowns’ need to be considerations of the acceptability of addressed by studies on short- and long- new technologies, and thus to regulatory term impacts (both positive and negative) decisions. The use of restorative of enhancements on individuals with technologies might
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genetics and Other Human Modification Technologies: Sensible International Regulation Or a New Kind of Arms Race?
    GENETICS AND OTHER HUMAN MODIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES: SENSIBLE INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OR A NEW KIND OF ARMS RACE? HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 19, 2008 Serial No. 110–201 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 43–068PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado DIANE E. WATSON, California RON PAUL, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington JEFF FLAKE, Arizona RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JOE WILSON, South Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida RUBE´ N HINOJOSA, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas DAVID WU, Oregon TED POE, Texas BRAD MILLER, North Carolina BOB INGLIS, South Carolina LINDA T.
    [Show full text]
  • Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge of the Techno-Human Condition
    Nathan VAN CAMP Redesigning Life The emerging development of genetic enhancement technologies has recently become the focus of a public and philosophical debate between proponents and opponents of a liberal eugenics – that is, the use of Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge these technologies without any overall direction or governmental control. Inspired by Foucault’s, Agamben’s of the Techno-Human Condition and Esposito’s writings about biopower and biopolitics, Life Redesigning the author sees both positions as equally problematic, as both presuppose the existence of a stable, autonomous subject capable of making decisions concerning the future of human nature, while in the age of genetic technology the nature of this subjectivity shall be less an origin than an effect of such decisions. Bringing together a biopolitical critique of the way this controversial issue has been dealt with in liberal moral and political philosophy with a philosophical analysis of the nature of and the relation between life, politics, and technology, the author sets out to outline the contours of a more responsible engagement with genetic technologies based on the idea that technology is an intrinsic condition of humanity. Nathan VAN CAMP Nathan VAN Philosophy Philosophy Nathan Van Camp is postdoctoral researcher at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. He focuses on continental philosophy, political theory, biopolitics, and critical theory. & Politics ISBN 978-2-87574-281-0 Philosophie & Politique 27 www.peterlang.com P.I.E. Peter Lang Nathan VAN CAMP Redesigning Life The emerging development of genetic enhancement technologies has recently become the focus of a public and philosophical debate between proponents and opponents of a liberal eugenics – that is, the use of Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge these technologies without any overall direction or governmental control.
    [Show full text]
  • Tilburg University Patentability of Human Enhancements Schellekens, M.H.M.; Vantsiouri, P
    Tilburg University Patentability of human enhancements Schellekens, M.H.M.; Vantsiouri, P. Published in: Law, Innovation and Technology Publication date: 2013 Document Version Peer reviewed version Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Schellekens, M. H. M., & Vantsiouri, P. (2013). Patentability of human enhancements. Law, Innovation and Technology, 5(2), 190-213. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 01. okt. 2021 Patentability of Human Enhancements Maurice Schellekens and Petroula Vantsiouri* I. INTRODUCTION The patent system is dynamic. Its limits are redefined as industries evolve and explore new technologies. History has shown that campaigners for novel patents are likely to succeed, except where they meet persistent opposition from other interests groups.1 Human enhancing technologies may very well be the next field where the battle of patentability is fought. We define human enhancement as a modification aimed at improving individual human performance and brought about by science-based or technology-based interventions in the human body.2 Hence, in our analysis we use a broad concept of human enhancement, which may involve aspects of healing.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Genetic Enhancements: a Transhumanist Perspective
    Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective NICK BOSTROM Oxford University, Faculty of Philosophy, 10 Merton Street, Oxford, OX1 4JJ, U. K. [Preprint of paper published in the Journal of Value Inquiry, 2003, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 493-506] 1. What is Transhumanism? Transhumanism is a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually over the past two decades. It promotes an interdisciplinary approach to understanding and evaluating the opportunities for enhancing the human condition and the human organism opened up by the advancement of technology. Attention is given to both present technologies, like genetic engineering and information technology, and anticipated future ones, such as molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.1 The enhancement options being discussed include radical extension of human health-span, eradication of disease, elimination of unnecessary suffering, and augmentation of human intellectual, physical, and emotional capacities.2 Other transhumanist themes include space colonization and the possibility of creating superintelligent machines, along with other potential developments that could profoundly alter the human condition. The ambit is not limited to gadgets and medicine, but encompasses also economic, social, institutional designs, cultural development, and psychological skills and techniques. Transhumanists view human nature as a work-in-progress, a half-baked beginning that we can learn to remold in desirable ways. Current humanity need not be the endpoint 1 of evolution. Transhumanists
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers
    Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology Volume 4, Issue 1 2010 Article 4 Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers Fritz Allhoff∗ Patrick Liny James Moorz John Weckert∗∗ ∗Western Michigan University, [email protected] yCalifornia Polytechnic State University, [email protected] zDartmouth College, [email protected] ∗∗Charles Sturt University, [email protected] Copyright c 2010 The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved. Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers∗ Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor, and John Weckert Abstract This paper presents the principal findings from a three-year research project funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) on ethics of human enhancement technologies. To help untangle this ongoing debate, we have organized the discussion as a list of questions and answers, starting with background issues and moving to specific concerns, including: freedom & autonomy, health & safety, fairness & equity, societal disruption, and human dignity. Each question-and- answer pair is largely self-contained, allowing the reader to skip to those issues of interest without affecting continuity. KEYWORDS: human enhancement, human engineering, nanotechnology, emerging technolo- gies, policy, ethics, risk ∗The authors of this report gratefully acknowledge the support of the US National Science Foun- dation (NSF) under awards #0620694 and 0621021. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We also acknowledge our respective institutions for their support: Dartmouth College and Western Michigan University, which are the recipients of the NSF awards referenced above, as well as California Polytechnic State University and Australia’s Centre for Ap- plied Philosophy and Public Ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • CRISPR-Cas9 and the Ethics of Genetic Enhancement
    A peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies ISSN 1541-0099 27(1) – July 2017 Editing the Genome of Human Beings: CRISPR-Cas9 and the Ethics of Genetic Enhancement Marcelo de Araujo Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro [email protected] Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 27 Issue 1 – June 2017 - pgs 24-42 Abstract In 2015 a team of scientists used a new gene-editing technique called CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the genome of 86 non-viable human embryos. The experiment sparked a global debate on the ethics of geneediting. In this paper, I first review the key ethical issues that have been addressed in this debate. Although there is an emerging consensus now that research on the editing of human somatic cells for therapeutic purpose should be pursued further, the prospect of using gene-editing techniques for the purpose of human enhancement has been met with strong criticism. The main thesis that I defend in this paper is that some of the most vocal objections recently raised against the prospect of genetic human enhancement are not justified. I put forward two arguments for the morality of genetic human enhancement. The first argument shows how the moral and legal framework within which we currently claim our procreative rights, especially in the context of IVF procedures, could be deployed in the assessment of the morality and legality of genetic human enhancement. The second argument calls into question the assumption that the average level of human cognitive performance should have a normative character.
    [Show full text]
  • BCI and BMI: Therapeutic Treatment Or Human Enhancement?
    BCI and BMI: Therapeutic treatment or human enhancement? A comparative study on the exclusion of patentability of methods of treatment using brain-computer and brain-machine interfaces under Article 53c EPC and US patent law. Student: Merel Hazes (ANR 844426) First reader: J.P. Waterson Second reader: M.H.M. Schellekens Thesis focus group: Intellectual Property and Automated Systems LL.M Law and Technology, Tilburg Law School, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, Tilburg University May 2018 2 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor John Waterson, for repeatedly reading my work and providing me with helpful and constructive feedback. Furthermore, I want to thank Maurice Schellekens, for giving me new insights after I had been working on this thesis for months. Your feedback has helped me to increase the value of my thesis. Last but definitely not least, I would like to thank my friends Sanne and Martha. I am glad we were in our Law and Technology journey together. You motivated me during the tough times, and you were there to celebrate this year’s achievements. We were in it together, and my year would not have been the same without you. 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1: ................................................................................................................................ 6 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Eugenics: a Review Through History and the Role Of
    ReviewArticle IndianJournalofGeneticsandMolecularResearch Volume8Number2,July-December2019 DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.21088/ijgmr.2319.4782.8219.4 EvolutionofEugenics:AReviewThrough HistoryandtheRoleofEthicalBoundariesToday SoundaryalahariRavinutala1,VenkatachalamDeepaParvathi2 Howtocitethisarticle: SoundaryalahariRavinutala,VenkatachalamDeepaParvathi.EvolutionofEugenics:AReviewThroughHistoryandtheRole ofEthicalBoundariesToday.IndianJGenetMolRes.2019;8(2):87-91. Abstract etc. Although a revolutionary idea, history holds evidences of how science can turn people blind Today,whentechnologyisopeningdoorsthatwe if ethics don’t come into play. History may have didn’tknow existed,itisimportanttoenforcelaws instilledastigmaagainstanypracticeassociatedwith toensurethateverynovelidealeadstothewelfare thewordgenetic,butunderstandinghistoryandthe of the society andnot causeharm in any way. The emphasisofethicstodaycanhelpinovercomingthat. discovery of Eugenics came as a revolution where Geneticcounsellingisonesuchfieldwherenegative the idea of improving the quality of inheritance in eugenicscantakeoverandgivedeleteriouspowers humans has aided in the development of various tothephysicians,whichreiteratestheimportanceof Assistant reproductive techniques, cytogenetic ethicalinterference. and molecular diagnostic methods, gene testing Keywords:Eugenics;Ethics;GeneticCounselling. Introduction theprogenylinecouldbeofahigherqualitywith only “desirable” genes. This systemic effort of Eugenics originated asa philosophy attributed to minimisingthetransmissionofcertainundesirable
    [Show full text]
  • CRISPR-Cas and Its Wide-Ranging Applications: from Human Genome Editing to Environmental Implications, Technical Limitations, Hazards and Bioethical Issues
    cells Review CRISPR-Cas and Its Wide-Ranging Applications: From Human Genome Editing to Environmental Implications, Technical Limitations, Hazards and Bioethical Issues Roberto Piergentili 1 , Alessandro Del Rio 2,*, Fabrizio Signore 3, Federica Umani Ronchi 2, Enrico Marinelli 2 and Simona Zaami 2 1 Institute of Molecular Biology and Pathology, Italian National Research Council (CNR-IBPM), 00185 Rome, Italy; [email protected] 2 Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic, and Orthopedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy; [email protected] (F.U.R.); [email protected] (E.M.); [email protected] (S.Z.) 3 Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, USL Roma2, Sant’Eugenio Hospital, 00144 Rome, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] Abstract: The CRISPR-Cas system is a powerful tool for in vivo editing the genome of most organ- isms, including man. During the years this technique has been applied in several fields, such as agriculture for crop upgrade and breeding including the creation of allergy-free foods, for eradicating pests, for the improvement of animal breeds, in the industry of bio-fuels and it can even be used as a basis for a cell-based recording apparatus. Possible applications in human health include the making of new medicines through the creation of genetically modified organisms, the treatment of viral Citation: Piergentili, R.; Del Rio, A.; infections, the control of pathogens, applications in clinical diagnostics and the cure of human genetic Signore, F.; Umani Ronchi, F.; diseases, either caused by somatic (e.g., cancer) or inherited (mendelian disorders) mutations.
    [Show full text]
  • Gene Editing: Medicine Or Enhancement?
    1 GENE EDITING: MEDICINE OR ENHANCEMENT? Marcos Alonso, Jonathan Anomaly and Julian Savulescu Abstract: In this paper we will discuss the status of gene editing tech- nologies like CRISPR. We will examine whether this technology should be considered a form of enhancement, or if CRISPR is merely a medical technology analogous to many of the common medical interventions of today. The importance of this discussion arises from the enormous po- tential of CRISPR to increase human health and welfare. If we interrupt or delay its investigation and implementation based on misconceptions about its nature and consequences, we may fail to achieve great benefits. Clarifying what CRISPR is and how it compares to other medical pro- cedures should create the right environment to discuss its development and introduction in society. We argue that gene editing is both a conven- tional medical technology and a potential human enhancer. It is important to separate these different applications. Just as in the cloning debate, it is possible to sort out therapeutic gene editing from enhancement gene editing in considering regulation or policy. Keywords: Gene editing, enhancement, CRISPR, biotechnology, bioethics. 1. INTRODUCTION “Genetic modification is no longer science fiction” (Juth, 2016, p. 416). For years, different techniques for gene editing, among which CRISPR appears prominently, have become viable (Smith et al., 2012, p. 493). Gene editing technologies like CRISPR have been used in labs Ramon Llull Journal_11.indd 259 29/4/20 11:35 260 RAMON LLULL JOURNAL OF APPLIED ETHICS 2020. issue 11 pp. 259-276 for research, but they are likely to be applied to human embryos in the coming years.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement
    Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement Nick Bostrom Rebecca Roache (2008) [Published in New Waves in Applied Ethics, eds. Jesper Ryberg, Thomas Petersen & Clark Wolf (Pelgrave Macmillan, 2008): pp. 120-152] www.nickbostrom.com What is Human Enhancement? Human enhancement has emerged in recent years as a blossoming topic in applied ethics. With continuing advances in science and technology, people are beginning to realize that some of the basic parameters of the human condition might be changed in the future. One important way in which the human condition could be changed is through the enhancement of basic human capacities. If this becomes feasible within the lifespan of many people alive today, then it is important now to consider the normative questions raised by such prospects. The answers to these questions might not only help us be better prepared when technology catches up with imagination, but they may be relevant to many decisions we make today, such as decisions about how much funding to give to various kinds of research. Enhancement is typically contraposed to therapy. In broad terms, therapy aims to fix something that has gone wrong, by curing specific diseases or injuries, while enhancement interventions aim to improve the state of an organism beyond its normal healthy state. However, the distinction between therapy and enhancement is problematic, for several reasons. First, we may note that the therapy-enhancement dichotomy does not map onto any corresponding dichotomy between standard-contemporary-medicine and medicine- as-it-could-be-practised-in-the-future. Standard contemporary medicine includes many practices that do not aim to cure diseases or injuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers
    Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers Prepared for: US National Science Foundation Prepared by: Fritz Allhoff, Ph.D., Western Michigan University Patrick Lin, Ph.D., California Polytechnic State University James Moor, Ph.D. Dartmouth College John Weckert, Ph.D., Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Australia Prepared on: August 31, 2009 Version: 1.0.1 This work is sponsored by the US National Science Foundation, under awards # 0620694 and 0621021. ▌ 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 4 A. Introduction 5 B. Definition & Distinctions 1. What is human enhancement? 8 2. Is the natural- artificial distinction morally significant in this debate? 9 3. Is the internal-external distinction morally significant in this debate? 9 4. Is the therapy-enhancement distinction morally significant in this debate? 11 C. Contexts & Scenarios 5. Why would contexts matter in the ethics of human enhancement? 14 6. What are some examples of enhancement for cognitive performance? 15 7. What are some examples of enhancement for physical performance? 15 8. Should a non-therapeutic procedure that provides no net benefit be called an “enhancement”? 16 D. Freedom & Autonomy 9. Could we justify human enhancement technologies by appealing to our right to be free? 18 10. Could we justify enhancing humans if it harms no one other than perhaps the individual? 19 E. Fairness & Equity 11. Does human enhancement raise issues of fairness, access, and equity? 21 12. Will it matter if there is an “enhancement divide”? 22 F. Societal Disruptions 13. What kind of societal disruptions might arise from human enhancement? 24 14. Are societal disruptions reason enough to restrict human enhancement? 25 15.
    [Show full text]