Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 201–212

Ethics of Human Enhancement: An Executive Summary



  1. Allhoff, F. (2005). Germ-line genetic enhancement and Rawlsian primary goods. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 15.1, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allhoff, F., & Lin, P. (2006). What’s so special about nanotechnology and nanoethics? International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 20.2, 179–190.Google Scholar
  3. Allhoff, F., & Lin, P. (2008). Nanotechnology & society: Current and emerging ethical issues. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Allhoff, F., Lin, P., Moor, J., & Weckert, J. (Eds.). (2007). Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Allhoff, F., Lin, P., Moor, J., & Weckert, J. (2009). Ethics of human enhancement: 25 questions and answers. Accessed 27 Nov 2009.
  6. Allhoff, F., Lin, P., & Moore, D. (2010). What is nanotechnology and why does it matter? From science to ethics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Bailey, R. (2005). Liberation biology: The scientific and moral case for the biotech revolution. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  8. Camus, A. (1951). The Rebel: An essay on man in revolt (Vintage International edition, 1982). New York: Vintage International.Google Scholar
  9. Daniels, N. (2000). Normal functioning and the treatment-enhancement distinction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 9, 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Grey, A. (2007). Ending aging: The rejuvenation breakthroughs that could reverse human aging in our lifetime. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  11. Friends of the Earth. (2006). The disruptive social impacts of nanotechnology: Issue summary. Accessed 1 Aug 2009.
  12. Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  13. Fukuyama, F. (2006). Beyond bioethics: A proposal for modernizing the regulation of human biotechnologies. Washington DC: School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  14. Greely, H. (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. Santa Clara Journal of International Law, 4, 87–110 (2006) (joint issue).Google Scholar
  15. Guston, D., Parsi, J., & Tosi, J. (2007). Anticipating the ethical and political challenges of human nanotechnologies. In F. Allhoff, P. Lin, J. Moor, & J. Weckert (Eds.), Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making ethical people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hick, J. (1966). Evil and the god of love. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, S. E. (2006). Dissatisfied by design: The evolution of discontent. Dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  19. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan (Penguin Classics edition, 1982). New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  20. Hughes, J. (2004). Citizen cyborg: Why democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Lin, P. (2007). Nanotechnology bound: Evaluating the case for more regulation. NanoEthics, 2, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin, P., & Allhoff, F. (2007). Nanoscience and nanoethics: Defining the disciplines. In F. Allhoff, P. Lin, J. Moor, & J. Weckert (Eds.), Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology (pp. 3–16). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  24. Lin, P., & Allhoff, F. (2008). Untangling the debate: The ethics of human enhancement. NanoEthics, 2, 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKibben, B. (2004). Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
  26. Mielke, J. (2008). Digital tattoo interface entry at greener gadgets design competition 2008, New York, NY, February 2008. Accessed 1 Aug 2009.
  27. Naam, R. (2005). More than human. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
  28. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Parviz, B.A., 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.Google Scholar
  30. Persaud, R. (2006). Does smarter mean happier? In J. Wilsdon & P. Miller (Eds.), Better humans? The politics of human enhancement and life extension. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  31. Peters, T. (2007). Are we playing god with nanoenhancement? In F. Allhoff, P. Lin, J. Moor, & J. Weckert (Eds.), Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  32. President’s Council on Bioethics. (2003). Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  33. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  34. Roco, M., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2003). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Sandel, M. (2007). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  36. Savulescu, J., & Bostrom, N. (2009). Human enhancement. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Williams, B. (1973). Problems of the self. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Woodall, J. (2007). Programmed dissatisfaction: Does one gene drive all progress in science and the arts? The Scientist, 21(6), 63.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoUSA
  3. 3.Division of Behavioral and Social SciencesUniversity of Pittsburgh at BradfordBradfordUSA

Personalised recommendations