The gene-editing of super-ego
New emerging biotechnologies, such as gene editing, vastly extend our ability to alter the human being. This comes together with strong aspirations to improve humans not only physically, but also mentally, morally, and socially. These conjoined ambitions aggregate to what can be labelled “the gene editing of super-ego.” This article investigates a general way used to argue for new biotechnologies, such as gene-editing: if it is safe and efficacious to implement technology X for the purpose of a common good Y, why should we not do so? This is a rhetorical question with a conditional, and may be dismissed as such. Moreover, investigating the question transformed into a formal argument reveals that the argument does not hold either. Nonetheless, the compelling force of the question calls for closer scrutiny, revealing that this way of arguing for biotechnology is based on five assumptions. Analysis of these assumptions shows their significant axiological, empirical, and philosophical challenges. This makes it reasonable to claim that these kinds of question based promotions of specific biotechnologies fail. Hence, the aspirations to make a super-man with a super-ego appear fundamentally flawed. As these types of moral bioenhancement arguments become more prevalent, a revealing hype test is suggested: What is special with this technology (e.g., gene editing), compared to existing methods, that makes it successful in improving human social characteristics in order to make the world a better place for all? Valid answers to this question will provide good reasons to pursue such technologies. Hence, the aim is not to bar the development of modern biotechnology, but rather to ensure good developments and applications of highly potent technologies. So far, we still have a long way to go to make persons with goodness gene(s).
KeywordsGene-editing Crispr Enhancement Super-ego Social biology
This article is based on a presentation at ESPMH in Belgrade August 20, 2017. I am most thankful for a good discussion and comments from attendees and for pointed critique and very wise suggestions from excellent reviewers.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declare that he has no conflict of interest.
- Bostrom, Nick. 2009. Dignity and enhancement. Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice 1: 2.Google Scholar
- de Araujo, Marcelo. 2017. Editing the genome of human beings: CRISPR-Cas9 and the ethics of genetic enhancement. Journal of Evolution and Technology 27: 24–42.Google Scholar
- Dylan, B. 1964. “The Times They Are a-Changin’” Recorded October 24, 1963, released 1964, length 3:15. http://www.songlexikon.de/songs/timestheyaredylan/
- Editor. 1967. Criminal behaviour and the Y chromosome. British Medical Journal 1 (5532): 64–65. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.5532.64.
- Freud, Sigmund. 1966. . Project for a scientific psychology (1950 ). In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume I (1886–1899): Pre-Psycho-Analytic Publications and Unpublished Drafts, 281–391.Google Scholar
- Gilbert, Walter. 1992. A vision of the grail. In The Code of Codes, eds. Daniel J. Kevles, and Leroy Hood, 83–97. Cambridge, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Hauskeller, Michael. 2014. Better Humans?: Understanding the Enhancement Project. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hofmann, Bjørn. 2002. Is there a technological imperative in health care? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 18 (3): 675–689.Google Scholar
- Jotterand, Fabrice. 2017. Cognitive enhancement of today may be the normal of tomorrow. In Neuroethics: Anticipating the Future, ed. Judy Illes, 411–425. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Martin, Joseph B. 2017. Reflections on Science, Religion and Society: A Medical Perspective. Altona: FriesenPressGoogle Scholar
- Oring, Elliott, and Leo Rangell. 2007. The Road to Unity in Psychoanalytic Theory. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Owen, Gerald. 2014. Moral enhancement and moral disagreement. PhD, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
- Pauly, Philip J. 1987. Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb and the Engineering Ideal in Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
- Pinker, Steven. 2008. The Moral Instinct. The New York Times.Google Scholar
- Savulescu, Julian, and Ingmar Persson. 2012. Moral enhancement. Philosophy Now 91: 6–8.Google Scholar
- Schaefer, Kellie A., Wen-Hsuan Wu, F. Diana, H. Colgan, Stephen, G. Tsang, Alexander, Bassuk, and Vinit B. Mahajan. 2017. Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo. Nature Methods 14 (6):547–548. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4293 http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/abs/nmeth.4293.html#supplementary-information.
- Sniekers, Suzanne, Sven Stringer, Kyoko Watanabe, Philip R Jansen, Jonathan R. I. Coleman, Eva Krapohl, Erdogan Taskesen, Anke R. Hammerschlag, Aysu Okbay, and Delilah Zabaneh. 2017. Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence. Nature Genetics 49: 1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Snow, Charles Percy. 1959. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution: The Rede Lecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz. 2016. The stoic sage 3.0–A realistic goal of moral (Bio) enhancement supporters? Journal of Evolution and Technology 26 (1): 83–93.Google Scholar
- Wang, Kevin. 2017. CRISPR and the future of genome engineering: A bold new world. Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology, and Society 10 (3).Google Scholar
- Warrier, V., K. L. Grasby, F. Uzefovsky, R. Toro, P. Smith, B. Chakrabarti, J. Khadake, E. Mawbey-Adamson, N. Litterman, and J. J. Hottenga. 2017. Genome-wide meta-analysis of cognitive empathy: Heritability, and correlates with sex, neuropsychiatric conditions and cognition. Molecular Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2017.122 Google Scholar