Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 509–523 | Cite as

Thinking across species—a critical bioethics approach to enhancement

Article

Abstract

Drawing upon a concept of ‘critical bioethics’ [7] 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.

Keywords

Enhancement Bioethics Animals Ethical bypass Convergence 

References

  1. 1.
    Parens, E., ed. 1998a. Enhancing human traits—ethical and social implications. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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. 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. 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
  5. 5.
    Bostrom, Nick. 2005. In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics 19, no. 3: 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hedgecoe, Adam. 2004. Critical bioethics: beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics 18, no. 2: 120–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Twine, Richard. 2005. Constructing critical bioethics by deconstructing culture/nature dualism. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8, no. 3: 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fox, Dennis, and Isaac Prilleltensky. 1997. Critical psychology: An introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke, Adele. 1998. Disciplining reproduction—modernity, American life sciences, and the problems of sex. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Twine, Richard. 2001. Ma(r)king essence: Ecofeminism and embodiment. Ethics and the Environment 6, no. 2: 31–58.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harris, John. 2004. On cloning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tang, Ya-Ping, et al. 1999. Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice. Nature 401, no. 6748: 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, Sukho, et al. 2004. Viral expression of insulin-like growth factor-I enhances muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained rats. Journal of Applied Physiology 96: 1097–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shumyatsky, Gleb, et al. 2005. Stathmin, a gene enriched in the amygdala, controls both learned and innate fear. Cell 123: 697–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miah, Andy. 2004. Genetically modified athletes: Biomedical ethics, gene doping, and sport. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hutson, Stu. 2005. Gene turn-off makes meek mice fearless. New Scientist, November 17,http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8337.html.
  18. 18.
    Rauw, Wendy, et al. 1998. Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: A review. Livestock Production Science 56: 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 20.
    Brown, Nik. 2003. Hope against hype—accountability in biopasts, presents, and futures. Science Studies 16, no. 2: 3–21.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Williams, Bernard. 1995. Making sense of humanity—and other philosophical papers 1982–1993. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Organic Consumers Association. 2005. EPA rule loopholes allow pesticide testing on kids. Sept. 15, 2005: http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/loophole091605.cfm.
  23. 23.
    Canton, James. 2004. Designing the future: NBIC technologies and human performance enhancement. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1013: 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chadwick, Ruth, et al. 2003. Functional foods. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jerez-Timaure, Nancy, et al. 2005. Fine mapping of QTL with major effect on weight and fat on distal mouse chromosome 2. Physiological Genomics 21: 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    BBC. 2005. Genes can be ‘changed’ by foods. November 17. http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4441564.stm.
  27. 27.
    Patterson, Charles. 2002. Eternal Treblinka—our treatment of animals and the Holocaust. New York: Lantern Books.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kimmelman, Barbara. 1983. The American Breeders Association: Genetics and eugenics in an agricultural context, 1903–13. Social Studies of Science 13, no. 2: 163–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rajan, Kaushik. 2006. Biocapital—the constitution of postgenomic life. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (CESAGen)Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations