Thinking across species—a critical bioethics approach to enhancement
Drawing upon a concept of ‘critical bioethics’  this paper takes a species-broad approach to the social and ethical aspects of enhancement. Critical Bioethics aims to foreground interdisciplinarity, socio-political dimensions, as well as reflexivity to what becomes bioethical subject matter. This paper focuses upon the latter component and uses the example of animal enhancement as a way to think about both enhancement generally, and bioethics. It constructs several arguments for including animal enhancement as a part of enhancement debates, and considers some connections between human and animal enhancement. The paper concludes in a plea for an ‘enhancement’ to our critical abilities to examine some of the underlying social, moral and ethical assumptions bound up in varied anticipated ‘enhanced’ futures.
KeywordsEnhancement Bioethics Animals Ethical bypass Convergence
- 1.Parens, E., ed. 1998a. Enhancing human traits—ethical and social implications. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- 2.Juengst, Eric. 1998. What does enhancement mean? In Enhancing human traits—ethical and social implications, ed. E. Parens. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- 3.Parens, E. 1998b. Is better always good? The enhancement project. In Enhancing human traits—ethical and social implications. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- 4.Brock, Dan. 1998. Enhancements of human function: Some distinctions for policymakers. In Enhancing human traits—ethical and social implications, ed. E. Parens. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- 8.Fox, Dennis, and Isaac Prilleltensky. 1997. Critical psychology: An introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- 9.Clarke, Adele. 1998. Disciplining reproduction—modernity, American life sciences, and the problems of sex. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- 10.Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 11.Twine, Richard. 2001. Ma(r)king essence: Ecofeminism and embodiment. Ethics and the Environment 6, no. 2: 31–58.Google Scholar
- 12.Harris, John. 2004. On cloning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 16.Miah, Andy. 2004. Genetically modified athletes: Biomedical ethics, gene doping, and sport. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 17.Hutson, Stu. 2005. Gene turn-off makes meek mice fearless. New Scientist, November 17,http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8337.html.
- 19.FABRE. 2005. Sustainable animal breeding and reproduction—a vision for 2025. The Farm Animal Breeding and Reproduction Technology Platform (FABRE-TP).Google Scholar
- 20.Brown, Nik. 2003. Hope against hype—accountability in biopasts, presents, and futures. Science Studies 16, no. 2: 3–21.Google Scholar
- 21.Williams, Bernard. 1995. Making sense of humanity—and other philosophical papers 1982–1993. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 22.Organic Consumers Association. 2005. EPA rule loopholes allow pesticide testing on kids. Sept. 15, 2005: http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/loophole091605.cfm.
- 24.Chadwick, Ruth, et al. 2003. Functional foods. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 26.BBC. 2005. Genes can be ‘changed’ by foods. November 17. http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4441564.stm.
- 27.Patterson, Charles. 2002. Eternal Treblinka—our treatment of animals and the Holocaust. New York: Lantern Books.Google Scholar
- 29.Rajan, Kaushik. 2006. Biocapital—the constitution of postgenomic life. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar