Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Untangling the Debate: The Ethics of Human Enhancement

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Human enhancement, in which nanotechnology is expected to play a major role, continues to be a highly contentious ethical debate, with experts on both sides calling it the single most important issue facing science and society in this brave, new century. This paper is a broad introduction to the symposium herein that explores a range of perspectives related to that debate. We will discuss what human enhancement is and its apparent contrast to therapy; and we will begin to tease apart the myriad intertwined issues that arise in the debate: (1) freedom & autonomy, (2) health & safety, (3) fairness & equity, (4) societal disruption, and (5) human dignity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For an overview of ethical and social issues beyond nanotechnology’s role in human enhancement, see [1, 30, 32].

  2. We recognize that some advocates of human enhancement argue against making such a distinction (e.g., [7]), which seems to serve to more easily justify unrestricted human enhancement; even if this position is tenable, we do not want to take that point for granted here, which we will discuss below.

  3. However, if the military were to prescribe such medications prior to combat, then one could make the case for counting that as an enhancement; but this may take us full circle back to the vaccination question, particularly as soldiers are routinely vaccinated against bio-threats such as anthrax.

  4. Perhaps even the right to be happy may be inappropriately exercised, say, at a funeral?

  5. For more about the general debate on regulation in nanotechnology, see [31].

References

  1. Allhoff F (2005) Germ-line genetic enhancement and Rawlsian primary goods. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 15(1):39–56 doi:10.1353/ken.2005.0007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (2007) Nanoethics: The social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  3. Allhoff F, Lin P, Moore D (forthcoming) Nanotechnology: what it is and why it matters. Malden, MA. Blackwell Publishing

  4. Allhoff F, Lin P (2008) Nanotechnology & society: Current and emerging issues. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006) Good, better, best: The human quest for enhancement. AAAS, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bailey R (2005) Liberation biology: The scientific and moral case for the biotech revolution. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bostrom N, Roache R (2008) “Ethical issues in human enhancement”. In: Ryberg J, Petersen TS, Wolf C (eds) New waves in applied ethics. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Daniels N (2000) Normal Functioning and the Treatment-Enhancement Distinction. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 9:309–322 doi:10.1017/S0963180100903037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. de Balzac H (1835) Père Goriot (Signet Classics edition, 2004), trans. Henry Reed. New York, Signet Classics

    Google Scholar 

  10. de Grey A (2007) Ending aging: The rejuvenation breakthroughs that could reverse human aging in our lifetime. St. Martin’s Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dennis C (2004) Genetics: deaf by design. Nature 431:894–896 doi:10.1038/431894a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dyer C (2000) Surgeon amputated healthy legs. BMJ 320:332 doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7231.332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Edwards SD (2008a) Should Oscar Pistorius be excluded from the 2008 olympic games? Sports Ethics Philos 2:112–125 doi:10.1080/17511320802221802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Edwards SD (2008b) The Ashley treatment: a step too far, or not far enough? J Med Ethics 34:341–343 doi:10.1136/jme.2007.020743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Freitas RA Jr (1998) Exploratory design in medical nanotechnology: a mechanical artificial red cell. Artif Cells Blood Substit Immobil Biotechnol 26:411–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Friends of the Earth (2006) The disruptive social impacts of nanotechnology: issue summary. last access on 1 August 2008: http://nano.foe.org.au/node/151

  17. Fukuyama F (2002) Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. Picador, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fukuyama F (2006) Beyond bioethics: A proposal for modernizing the regulation of human biotechnologies. School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  19. Greely H (2006) 2005. “Regulating human biological enhancements: questionable justifications and international complications”, The Mind, The Body, And The Law: University Of Technology, Sydney, Law Review 7: 87–110 (2005). Santa Clara J Int Law 4:87–110. joint issue

  20. Guston D, Parsi J, Tosi J, (2007) “Anticipating the ethical and political challenges of human nanotechnologies” in Allhoff et al., 2007

  21. Harris J (2007) Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making ethical people. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hick J (1966) Evil and the God of love. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hill SE (2006) Dissatisfied by design: The evolution of discontent (dissertation). University of Texas, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hobbes T (1651) Leviathan (penguin classics edition, 1982). Penguin Group, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hughes J (2004) Citizen cyborg: Why democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future. Westview, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hurlbut W (2006) Opening remarks at “human enhancement technologies and human rights” conference, Stanford University Law School, 26–28 May 2006

  27. Juengst E (1997) Can enhancement be distinguished from prevention in genetic medicine? J Med Philos 22:125–142

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kurzweil R (2005) The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Viking Penguin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lin P (2006) Space ethics: Look before taking another leap for mankind. Astropolitics 4:281–294

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lin P, Allhoff F (2007) “Nanoscience and Nanoethics: Defining the Discipline” in Allhoff et al. 2007

  31. Lin P (2007b) “Nanotechnology bound: evaluating the case for more regulation”. NanoEthics 2:105–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lin P, Allhoff F (2008) “Introduction: nanotechnology, society, and ethics” in Allhoff et al., 2008.

  33. McKibben B (2004) Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. Henry Holt & Co, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mielke J (2008) “Digital tattoo interface” entry at Greener Gadgets Design Competition 2008, New York, NY, February 2008. Last accessed on 1 August 2008: http://www.core77.com/competitions/GreenerGadgets/projects/4673/

  35. MIT (2008) Institute for soldier nanotechnologies website. Last accessed on 1 August 2008: http://web.mit.edu/ISN/research/index.html

  36. Naam R (2005) More than human. Broadway Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Parfit D (1986) Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. Parviz BA, et al (2008) “Contact lens with integrated inorganic semiconductor devices” presentation at 21st IEEE International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems, Tuscon, AZ, 13–17 January 2008

  40. Persaud R (2006) “Does smarter mean happier?” in better humans?: The politics of human enhancement and life extension. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  41. Peters T (2007) “Are we playing God with nanoenhancement?” in Allhoff et al. (2007)

  42. President’s Council on Bioethics (2003) Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rescher N (1980) “The canons of distributive justice”. In: Sterba J (ed) Justice: Alternative political perspectives. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  45. Roco M, Bainbridge WS (2003) Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  46. Saletan W (2008) “Night of the living meds: the US Military’s sleep-reduction program”, Slate, 16 July 2008. Last accessed on 1 August 2008: http://www.slate.com/id/2195466/

  47. Sandel M (2007) The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  48. Savulescu J, Foddy B (2007) “Ethics of performance enhancement in sport: Drugs and gene doping”. In: Ashcroft RE, Dawson A, Draper H, McMillan JR (eds) Principles of health care ethics. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  49. Selgelid M (2007) “An argument against arguments for enhancement”, studies in ethics, law, and technology 1: Article 12. Last accessed on 1 August 2008: http://www.bepress.com/selt/vol1/iss1/art12/

  50. Thompson M (2008) “America’s medicated army”, Time, 16 June 2008. Last accessed on 1 August 2008: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811858,00.html

  51. Williams B (1973) Problems of the self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  52. Woodall J (2007) “Programmed dissatisfaction: does one gene drive all progress in science and the arts?”. The Scientist 21(6):63

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Philosophy, California Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA

    Patrick Lin

  2. Dept. of Philosophy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA

    Patrick Lin

  3. Dept. of Philosophy, Western Michigan Univ., 3004 Moore Hall, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008, USA

    Fritz Allhoff

  4. Centre for Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics, The Australian National University, LPO Box 8260, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

    Fritz Allhoff

Authors
  1. Patrick Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fritz Allhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, P., Allhoff, F. Untangling the Debate: The Ethics of Human Enhancement. Nanoethics 2, 251–264 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0046-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0046-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation