Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 161–177 | Cite as

Is Human Enhancement also a Personal Matter?

  • Vincent MenuzEmail author
  • Thierry Hurlimann
  • Béatrice Godard
Original Paper

Abstract

Emerging technologies are increasingly used in an attempt to “enhance the human body and/or mind” beyond the contemporary standards that characterize human beings. Yet, such standards are deeply controversial and it is not an easy task to determine whether the application of a given technology to an individual and its outcome can be defined as a human enhancement or not. Despite much debate on its potential or actual ethical and social impacts, human enhancement is not subject to any consensual definition. This paper proposes a timely and much needed examination of the various definitions found in the literature. We classify these definitions into four main categories: the implicit approach, the therapy-enhancement distinction, the improvement of general human capacities and the increase of well-being. After commenting on these different approaches and their limitations, we propose a definition of human enhancement that focuses on individual perceptions. While acknowledging that a definition that mainly depends on personal and subjective individual perceptions raises many challenges, we suggest that a comprehensive approach to define human enhancement could constitute a useful premise to appropriately address the complexity of the ethical and social issues it generates.

Keywords

Biomedical enhancement Enhancement technologies Genetic engineering Ethical issues 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are greatly indebted to R. Stenne, L. Baret, P.-A. Côté and J. Bisping for their helpful and constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. This project was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

References

  1. Adashi, E. Y., Cohen, J., Hamberger, L., Jones, H. W., Jr., de Kretser, D. M., Lunenfeld, B., et al. (2000). Public perception on infertility and its treatment: An international survey. Human Reproduction, 15(2), 330–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allhoff, F., Lin, P., Moor, J., & Weckert, J. (2009). Ethics of human enhancement: 25 questions & answers. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 4(1), 4.Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous. (2008). Defining ‘natural’. Nature, 452(7188), 665–666.Google Scholar
  4. Azzazy, H. M., Mansour, M. M., & Christenson, R. H. (2009). Gene doping: Of mice and men. Clinical Biochemistry, 42(6), 435–441.Google Scholar
  5. Basl, J. (2010). State neutrality and the ethics of human enhancement technologies. AJOB Neuroscience, 1(2), 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, K. (2006). An overview of assisted reproduction in Australia and directions for social research. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 4(1), 15–27.Google Scholar
  7. Blackford, R. (2009). Moral pluralism versus the total view: Why singer is wrong about radical life extension. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(12), 747–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bostrom, N., & Roache, R. (2007). Ethical issues in human enhancement. In J. Ryberg, T. S. Petersen, & C. Wolf (Eds.), New waves in applied ethics. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  9. Braude, P., Pickering, S., Flinter, F., & Ogilvie, C. M. (2002). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3(12), 941–953.Google Scholar
  10. Camporesi, S. (2008). Oscar pistorius, enhancement and post-humans. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(9), 639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Canton, J. (2003). The impact of convergent technologies and the future of business and the economy. In M. C. Roco & W. S. Bainbridge (Eds.), Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (pp. 71–78). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Canton, J. (2004). Designing the future: NBIC technologies and human performance enhancement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1013, 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caplan, A. L. (2009). Good, better or best? In J. Savulescu & N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement (pp. 199–209). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cartier, N., Hacein-Bey-Abina, S., Bartholomae, C. C., Veres, G., Schmidt, M., Kutschera, I., et al. (2009). Hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy with a lentiviral vector in X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy. Science, 326(5954), 818–823.Google Scholar
  15. Chadwick, R. (2009). Therapy, enhancement and improvement. Medical Enhancement and Posthumanity, 2(I), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coenen, C., Schuijff, M., Smits, M., Klaassen, P., Hennen, L., Rader, M., et al. (2009). Human Enhancement: study. In Science and Technology Option Assessment (Ed.). Brussel: European ParliamentGoogle Scholar
  17. Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2010). The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Science, 329(5987), 47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daniels, N. (2000). Normal functioning and the treatment-enhancement distinction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 9(3), 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Melo-Martin, I. (2010). Defending human enhancement technologies: Unveiling normativity. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(8), 483–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Devereaux, M. (2009). Cosmetic Surgery. Medical Enhancement and Posthumanity, 159–174.Google Scholar
  21. Edwards, S. D. (2008). Should oscar pistorius be excluded from the 2008 olympic games? Sport Ethics and Philosophy, 2(2), 112–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eisinger, F. (2007). Prophylactic mastectomy: Ethical issues. British Medical Bulletin, 81–82(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elliott, T. (2009). Body dysmorphic disorder, radical surgery and the limits of consent. Medical Law Review, 17(2), 149–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Finch, C. (2010). Secrets of a long life. Nature, 467(7313), 274–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fontana, L., Partridge, L., & Longo, V. D. (2010). Extending healthy life span: From yeast to humans. Science, 328(5976), 321–326.Google Scholar
  26. Gasson, M. N. (2010). Human Enhancement: Could you become infected with a computer virus? In 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society, (pp. 61–68): IEEEGoogle Scholar
  27. George, S. M. (2006). Millions of missing girls: From fetal sexing to high technology sex selection in India. Prenatal Diagnosis, 26(7), 604–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geraedts, J. P., & De Wert, G. M. (2009). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Clinical Genetics, 76(4), 315–325.Google Scholar
  29. Gnoth, C., Godehardt, E., Frank-Herrmann, P., Friol, K., Tigges, J., & Freundl, G. (2005). Definition and prevalence of subfertility and infertility. Human Reproduction, 20(5), 1144–1147. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graafstra, A. (2007). Hands on: How radio-frequency identification and I got personal. IEEE Spectrum, 44(3), 18–23.Google Scholar
  31. Greely, H. T. (2005). Regulating human biological enhancements: Questionable justifications and international complications. University of Technology, Sydney, Law Review, 7, 87.Google Scholar
  32. Greely, H. T. (2007). Remarks on human biological enhancement. University Kansas Law Review’s, 56, 1139.Google Scholar
  33. Haas, C. F., Champion, A., & Secor, D. (2008). Motivating factors for seeking cosmetic surgery: A synthesis of the literature. Plastic Surgical Nursing, 28(4), 177–182.Google Scholar
  34. Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton, N.J.; Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Harvey, M. (2004). Reproductive autonomy rights and genetic disenhancement: Sidestepping the argument from backhanded benefit. Journal of applied philosophy, 21(2), 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ho, A. (2008). The individualist model of autonomy and the challenge of disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5(2), 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ida, R. (2009). Should we improve human nature ? An interrogation from an Asian perspective. In J. Savulescu & N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement (pp. 59–70). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ilbasmis-Tamer, S., Yilmaz, S., Banoglu, E., & Degim, I. T. (2010). Carbon nanotubes to deliver drug molecules. Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology, 6(1), 20–27.Google Scholar
  39. Jadad, A. R., & O’Grady, L. (2008). How should health be defined? British Journal of Medicine, 337, a2900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kamm, F. (2009). What is and is not wrong with enhancement? In J. Savulescu & N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement (pp. 91–130). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kitcher, P. (1997). The lives to come: The genetic revolution and human possibilities (Penguin science). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  42. Kline, R. (2009). Where are the Cyborgs in Cybernetics? Social Studies of Science, 39(3), 331.Google Scholar
  43. Lanni, C., Lenzken, S. C., Pascale, A., Del Vecchio, I., Racchi, M., Pistoia, F., et al. (2008). Cognition enhancers between treating and doping the mind. Pharmacological Research, 57(3), 196–213.Google Scholar
  44. Laos, C., & Metzl, J. D. (2006). Performance-enhancing drug use in young athletes. Adolescent Medicine Clinics, 17(3), 719–731.Google Scholar
  45. Laure, P. (2002). Les conduites dopantes: Une prévention de l’échec? Psychotropes, 8(3), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lê-Germain, & Leca, R. (2005). Les conduites dopantes fondatrices d’une sous culture cycliste (1965–1999). Staps, 26(4), 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lentillon-Kaestner, V. (2008). Conduites dopantes chez les jeunes cyclistes du milieu amateur au milieu professionnel. Psychotropes, 14(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lentillon-Kaestner, V., & Brissonneau, C. (2009). Appropriation progressive de la culture du dopage dans le cyclisme. Déviance et Société, 33(4), 519–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lin, P., & Allhoff, F. (2008). Untangling the debate: The ethics of human enhancement. NanoEthics, 2(3), 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mansour, M. M., & Azzazy, H. M. (2009). The hunt for gene dopers. Drug Testing and Analysis, 1(7), 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McKanna, T. A., & Toriello, H. V. (2010). Gene doping: The hype and the harm. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 57(3), 719–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McKean, E. (Ed.). (2005). The new oxford American dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Missa, J. N., & Perbal, L. (Eds.). (2009). Enhancement: Éthique et philosophie de la médecine d’amélioration. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  54. Nordmann, A. (2007). If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics, 1(1), 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ogilvie, C. M., Braude, P. R., & Scriven, P. N. (2005). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: An overview. Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, 53(3), 255–260.Google Scholar
  56. Omer, S. B., Salmon, D. A., Orenstein, W. A., deHart, M. P., & Halsey, N. (2009). Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(19), 1981–1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Parens, E. (1998). Is better always good? The enhancement project. The Hastings Center Report, 28(1), S1–S15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. President’s Council on Bioethics. (2003). Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Washington, DC: Dana Press.Google Scholar
  59. Roco, M. C. (2004). Science and technology integration for increased human potential and societal outcomes. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1013, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (Eds.). (2003). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  61. Rothman, S. M., & Rothman, D. J. (2004). The pursuit of perfection: The promise and perils of medical enhancement. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  62. Ryan, C. J. (2009). Out on a limb: The ethical management of body integrity identity disorder. Neuroethics, 2(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sadler, J. Z. (2010). Dignity, arete, and hubris in the transhumanist debate. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(7), 67–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sandel, M. J. (2004). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Savulescu, J. (2006). Justice, fairness, and enhancement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1093, 321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schneider, A. J. (2006). Cultural nuances: Doping, cycling and the tour de France. Sport in Society, 9(2), 212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shamloul, R. (2010). Natural aphrodisiacs. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7(1 Pt 1), 39–49.Google Scholar
  68. Spence, S. A. (2008). Can pharmacology help enhance human morality? The British Journal of Psychiatry, 193(3), 179–180.Google Scholar
  69. Spinney, L. (2006). Gerontology: Eat your cake and have it. Nature, 441(7095), 807–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Spriggs, M. (2002). Lesbian couple create a child who is deaf like them. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(5), 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. ter Meulen, R. (2010). Dignity, posthumanism, and the community of values. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(7), 69–70. doi: 10.1080/15265161003728852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. The Irish Council for Bioethics. (2007). Human enhancement: Making people better or making better people. Human Enhancement Information Leaflet.Google Scholar
  73. Turner, L. (2004). Biotechnology, bioethics and anti-aging interventions. Trends in Biotechnology, 22(5), 219–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van den Heuvel, M. G., & Dekker, C. (2007). Motor proteins at work for nanotechnology. Science, 317(5836), 333–336.Google Scholar
  75. Van Hilvoorde, I., & Landeweerd, L. (2010). Enhancing disabilities: Transhumanism under the veil of inclusion? Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(26), 2222–2227. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2010.491578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weinberg, M. A., & Insler, M. S. (2010). LASIK refractive eye surgery in the 21st century. US Pharmacist, 4, 20–24.Google Scholar
  77. Weir, K., & Keegan, M. (2010). Girl to have leg amputated to become Paralympian. Manchester evening news. http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1301780_girl_to_have_leg_amputated_to_become_paralympian. Accessed 24th July 2010.
  78. Wenning, L., & Cruz, R. (2006). The ethics of artificial vision technology: An early step towards an ethics of cybernetic repair and augmentation. Columbia University Journal of Bioethics, V(1), 59–64.Google Scholar
  79. Wijsbek, H. (2000). The pursuit of beauty: The enforcement of aesthetics or a freely adopted lifestyle? Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(6), 454–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Williams, E. A. (2006). Good, better, best: The human quest for enhancement. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  81. Wolfe, R. M., & Sharp, L. K. (2002). Anti-vaccinationists past and present. British Journal of Medicine, 325(7361), 430–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wolpe, P. R. (2002). Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics. Brain and Cognition, 50(3), 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Menuz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thierry Hurlimann
    • 1
  • Béatrice Godard
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of medicine, Department of Social and Preventive MedicineBioethics Programs, University of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations