Advertisement

Wider die Begrenzung der Enhancement-Debatte auf angewandte Ethik

Zur Dynamik und Komplexität technowissenschaftlicher Entwicklungen
  • Christopher CoenenEmail author
  • Arianna Ferrari
  • Armin Grunwald
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Reflexionen zum Verhältnis von Mensch und Technik durchziehen die Technikphilosophie und angrenzende Bereiche spätestens seit den grundlegenden Überlegungen von Karl Marx (vgl. Quante 2013) und haben vor allem im deutschsprachigen Raum wesentliche Anregungen durch Arnold Gehlen (vgl. Gutmann 2013) und andere Vertreter der Philosophischen Anthropologie erhalten. Visionen einer Technisierung des Menschen, einer „Verwissenschaftlichung“ gesellschaftlicher Beziehungen und eines Verschmelzens von Mensch und Technik – die aktuell insbesondere aufgrund des sog. ‚Transhumanismus‘ und im Diskurs über ‚Cyborgs‘ viel diskutiert werden – gewinnen im Verlauf des 20.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Babcock Q, Byrne T (2000) Student perceptions of methylphenidate abuse at a public liberal arts college. J Am Coll Health 49: 143-145Google Scholar
  2. Bechmann G. (1993) Ethische Grenzen der Technik oder technische Grenzen der Ethik? Geschichte und Gegenwart. Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Gesellschaftsanalyse und politische Bildung 12: 213-225Google Scholar
  3. Beck S (Hg) (2012) Gehört mein Körper noch mir? Strafgesetzgebung zur Verfügungsbefugnis über den eigenen Körper in den Lebenswissenschaften. Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  4. Béland JP, et al. (2011) The Social and Ethical Acceptability of NBICs for Purposes of Human Enhancement: Why Does the Debate Remain Mired in Impasse? NanoEthics 5(3): 295-307Google Scholar
  5. Boenink M, Swierstra T, Stemerding D (2010) Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: a scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Stud Ethics Law Tech 4(2)Google Scholar
  6. Bogle KE, Smith BH (2009) Illicit methylphenidate use: a review of prevalence, availability, pharmacology, and consequences. Curr Drug Abuse Rev May 2(2): 157-176Google Scholar
  7. Bogner A (Hg) (2013) Ethisierung der Technik – Technisierung der Ethik. Der Ethik-Boom im Lichte der Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung. Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  8. Brey PAE (2012) Anticipatory Ethics for Emerging Technologies. NanoEthics 6(1): 1-13Google Scholar
  9. Caldera EO (2008) Cognitive Enhancement and Theories of Justice: Contemplating the Malleability of Nature and Self. In: The Journal of Evolution and Technology 18 (01), http://jetpress.org/v18/caldera.htm
  10. Caldwell J, et al. (2004) The efficacy of modafinil for sustaining alertness and simulator flight performance in F-117 pilots during 37 hours of continuous wakefulness. U. S. Air Force Research Laboratory Technical Report AFRLHE-BR-TR-2004-0003Google Scholar
  11. Chatterjee A (2006) The promise and predicament of cosmetic neurology. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 110-113Google Scholar
  12. Chatterjee A (2013) The ethics of neuroenhancement. Handbook of Clinical Neurology 118: 323–334Google Scholar
  13. Christmas D, et al. (2014) A randomised trial of the effect of the glycine reuptake inhibitor Org 25935 on cognitive performance in healthy male volunteers. Hum Psychopharmacol Jan 14:  https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.2384
  14. Clatworthy PL, et al. (2009) Dopamine release in dissociable striatal subregions predicts the different effects of oral methylphenidate on reversal learning and spatial working memory. Journal of Neuroscience 29: 4690-4696Google Scholar
  15. Coenen C (2008) Von der Leistungs- zur Leistungssteigerungsgesellschaft? TAB-Brief 33 (Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung, Berlin): 21-27Google Scholar
  16. Coenen C (2010) Deliberating Visions: The Case of Human Enhancement in the Discourse on Nanotechnology and Convergence. In: Kaiser M et al. (2009): 73-88Google Scholar
  17. Coenen C (2013) Converging technologies. In: Gramelsberger G, Bexte P, Kogge W (2013): 209-230Google Scholar
  18. Coenen C, et al. (2009) Human enhancement. Brussels: European Parliament, http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/lit/2009/coua09a.pdf
  19. Coenen C (2013) Nachdarwinsche Visionen einer technischen Transformation der Menschheit. In: Ebert U, Riha O, Zerling L (2013): 9-36Google Scholar
  20. Coenen C, Simakova E (2013) STS policy interactions, technology assessment and the governance of technovisionary sciences. In: Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9(2): 3-20Google Scholar
  21. Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooper AC (1999) The slippery slope and technological determinism. Princeton Journal of Bioethics 2(1): 64-76Google Scholar
  23. de Jongh R, et al. (2008) Botox for the brain: Enhancement of cognition, mood and pro-social behavior and blunting of unwanted memories. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 32(4): 760-776Google Scholar
  24. Decker M, Ladikas M (Hg) (2004) Bridges between Science, Society and Policy. Technology Assessment – Methods and Impacts. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. DEEPEN (2009) Reconfiguring Responsibility. Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology. www.geography.dur.ac.uk/projects/deepen
  26. DGPPN (2009) Stellungnahme der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Nervenheilkunde (DGPPN) zum Gebrauch von Neuroenhancern, 2009, http://www.dgppn.de/publikationen/stellungnahmen/detailansicht/select/stellungnahmen-2009/article/141/stellungnahm-3.html
  27. Dresler M, et al. (2013) Non-pharmacological cognitive enhancement. Neuropharmacology 64: 529-543Google Scholar
  28. Ebert U, Riha O, Zerling L (Hg) (2013) Der Mensch der Zukunft - Hintergründe, Ziele und Probleme des Human Enhancement (Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Bd. 82/3). Stuttgart, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  29. Elliott R, et al. (1997) Effects of methylphenidate on spatial working memory and planning in healthy young adults. Psychopharmacology 131: 196-206Google Scholar
  30. Elliott C (1998) What’s wrong with enhancement technologies? CHIPS Public Lecture, University of Minnesota, February 26, 1998, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbtdag/bioethics/writings/Elliott.html
  31. Emanuel R, et al. (2013) Cognitive enhancement drug use among future physicians: Findings from a multi-institutional census of medical students. Journal of General Internal Medicine 28(8): 1028-1034Google Scholar
  32. Esposito R, et al. (2013) Acute effects of Modafinil on Brain resting state networks in young healthy subjects. In: PLOS One 8(7): e69224Google Scholar
  33. Farah MJ, et al. (2004) Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5(5): 421-425Google Scholar
  34. Farah MJ (2011) Overcorrecting the neuroenhancement discussion. Addiction 106(6): 1190, author reply 1190-1191Google Scholar
  35. Ferrari A (2012) Autonomie und Visionen in der Debatte um pharmakologisches Cognitive Enhancement (PCE). In: Beck S (2012): 347-367Google Scholar
  36. Ferrari A, et al. (2012) Visions and ethics in current discourse on human enhancement. NanoEthics 6(3): 215-229Google Scholar
  37. Finger G, et al. (2013) Use of methylphenidate among medical students: a systematic review. Rev assoc med bras. 59(3): 285-289Google Scholar
  38. Forlini C, Racine E (2009a) Autonomy and coercion in academic “cognitive enhancement” using methylphenidate: perspectives of key stakeholders. Neuroethics 2(3): 163-177Google Scholar
  39. Forlini C, Racine E (2009b) Disagreements with implications: Diverging discourses on the ethics of non-medical use of methylphenidate for performance enhancement. BMC Medical Ethics 10Google Scholar
  40. Forlini C, Racine E (2010) Response. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7(4): 383-384Google Scholar
  41. Forlini C, Racine E (2013) Does the cognitive enhancement debate call for a renewal of the deliberative role of bioethics? In: Hildt E, Franke A (2013): 173-186Google Scholar
  42. Fox RC, Swazey JP (2008) Observing Bioethics. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Franke A, et al. (2011) Non-medical use of prescription stimulants and illicit use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in pupils and students in Germany. Pharmacopsychiatry 44: 60-66Google Scholar
  44. Galert T, et al. (2009) Das optimierte Gehirn. Gehirn und Geist 11. http://zeus.zeit.de/wissen/2009-10/memorandum-gehirn-geist.pdf
  45. Gramelsberger G, Bexte P, Kogge W (Hg) (2013) Synthesis. Zur Konjunktur eines philosophischen Begriffs in Wissenschaft und Technik. BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  46. Goordjin B (2005) Nanoethics: From Utopian Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares Towards a More Balanced View. Science and Engineering Ethics 11(4): 521-533Google Scholar
  47. Greely H, et al. (2008) Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456: 702-705Google Scholar
  48. Grunwald A (2010) From Speculative Nanoethics to Explorative Philosophy of Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 4(2): 91-101Google Scholar
  49. Grunwald A (2006) Nanotechnologie als Chiffre der Zukunft. In: Nordmann A, Schummer J, Schwarz A (2006): 49-80Google Scholar
  50. Grunwald A (2007) Converging Technologies: Visions, Increased Contingencies of the Conditio Humana, and Search for Orientation. Futures 39(4): 380-392Google Scholar
  51. Grunwald A (2008) Auf dem Weg in eine nanotechnologische Zukunft. Freiburg/MünchenGoogle Scholar
  52. Grunwald A (2009) Technology Assessment: Concepts and Methods. In: Meijers A (Hg) Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Volume 9. Amsterdam. S 1103-1146Google Scholar
  53. Grunwald A (2011) Energy futures: Diversity and the need for assessment. Futures 43: 820-830Google Scholar
  54. Grunwald A (2012) Technikzukünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific PublishingGoogle Scholar
  55. Grunwald A (2013) Techno-visionary Sciences: Challenges to Policy Advice. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies 9(2): 21-38Google Scholar
  56. Hall SS (2003) The quest for a smart pill. Scientific American 289(3): 54-65Google Scholar
  57. Hall W, Lucke J (2010) The enhancement use of neuropharmaceuticals: More scepticism and caution needed. Addiction 105(12): 2041-2043Google Scholar
  58. Hansson SO (2006) Great Uncertainty about small Things. In: Schummer J, Baird D (2006): 315-325Google Scholar
  59. Harris J (2010) Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  60. Harris J, Chatterjee A (2009) Is it acceptable for people to take methylphenidate to enhance performance? YES and NO. British Medical Journal 338: 1532-1533Google Scholar
  61. Hartley LR, et al. (1983) The effect of beta adrenergic blocking drugs on speakers’ performance and memory. British Journal of Psychiatry 142: 512-517Google Scholar
  62. Hays S, et al. (2011) Public Attitudes Towards Nanotechnology-Enabled Cognitive Enhancement in the United States. In: Hays S, et al. (2011a): 43-65Google Scholar
  63. Hays S, et al. (Hg) (2011a) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology: Nanotechnology, the Brain, and the Future, Volume III. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Hedgecoe A (2010) Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science 40(2): 163-186Google Scholar
  65. Heil R, Coenen C (2013) Zukünfte menschlicher Natur: Biovisionäre Diskurse von der Eugenik bis zum Human Enhancement. Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis 22(1): 23-31Google Scholar
  66. Hildt E (2011) Neuroenhancement Bubble? — Neuroenhancement Wave! In: AJOB Neuroscience 2(4): 44-45Google Scholar
  67. Hildt E, Franke A (Hg) (2013) Cognitive enhancement: An interdisciplinary perspective. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Jasanoff S, Kim SH (2009) Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47: 119-146Google Scholar
  69. Kaiser M. et al. (Hg) (2009, 2010) Governing Future Technologies. Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  70. Karafyllis NC (2009) Facts or Fiction? A Critique on Vision Assessment as a Tool for Technology Assessment. In: Sollie P, Düwell M (2009): 93-117Google Scholar
  71. Keiper A (2007) Nanoethics as a Discipline? The New Atlantis. A Journal of Technology & Science 16: 55-67Google Scholar
  72. Kettner M (2009) Wunscherfüllende Medizin - Ärztliche Behandlung im Dienst von Selbstverwirklichung und Lebensplanung. Frankfurt/MGoogle Scholar
  73. Khushf G (2005) The Use of Emergent Technologies for Enhancing Human Performance: Are We Prepared to Address the Ethical and Political Issues? Public Policy & Practice 4(2): 1-17Google Scholar
  74. Kogge W (2008) Technologie des 21. Jahrhunderts. Perspektiven der Technikphilosophie. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 56(6): 935-956Google Scholar
  75. Kraemer F (2011) Authenticity anyone? The enhancement of emotions via neuropsychopharmacology. Neuroethics 4(1): 51- 64Google Scholar
  76. Larriviere D, et al. (2009) Responding to requests from adult patients for neuroenhancements. Guidance of the Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee. Neurology 73: 1406-1412Google Scholar
  77. Lieb K (2010) Hirndoping: Warum wir nicht alles schlucken sollten. MannheimGoogle Scholar
  78. Looby A, Earleywine M (2011) Expectation to receive methylphenidate enhances subjective arousal but not cognitive performance. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 19(6): 433-444Google Scholar
  79. Lucivero F, et al. (2011) Assessing Expectations: Towards a Toolbox for an Ethics of Emerging Technologies. NanoEthics 5(2): 129-141Google Scholar
  80. Lynch G, et al (2011) The likelihood of cognitive enhancement. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 99(2): 116-29Google Scholar
  81. Maher B, et al. (2008): Pool results: Look who’s doping. Nature 452(7188): 674-675Google Scholar
  82. Martin PA, et al. (2011) Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement: Interrogating the Ethics, Adressing the Issues. In: Segev I, Markram H (2011): 179-192Google Scholar
  83. Mehta MA, et al. (2000) Methylphenidate enhances working memory by modulating discrete frontal and parietal lobe regions in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience 20(6): RC65Google Scholar
  84. Middendorff E, et al. (2012) Formen der Stresskompensation und Leistungssteigerung bei Studierenden. HISBUS-Befragung zur Verbreitung und zu Mustern von Hirndoping und Medikamentenmissbrauch, HIS: Forum Hochschule 01 | 2012, Hannover, http://www.his.de/pdf/pub_fh/fh-201201.pdf
  85. Mittelstraß J (1991) Auf dem Wege zu einer Reparaturethik? In: Wils JP, Mieth D (Hg): Ethik ohne Chance? Erkundungen im technologischen Zeitalter. Tübingen, S 89-108Google Scholar
  86. Mnyusiwalla A, Daar AS, Singer PA (2003) Mind the Gap. Science and Ethics in Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14: R9-R13Google Scholar
  87. Moor J, Weckert J (2004) Nanoethics: Assessing the Nanoscale from an Ethical Point of View. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (Hg) Discovering the Nanoscale. AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  88. Müller U, et al. (2012) Effects of modafinil on non-verbal cognition, task enjoyment and creative thinking in healthy volunteers. Neuropharmacology 64: 490-495Google Scholar
  89. Nadler R, Reiner PB (2010) A call for data to inform discussion on cognitive enhancement. BioSocieties 5(4): 481-482Google Scholar
  90. Nadler R, Reiner PB (2011) Prototypes or Pragmatics? The Open Question of Public Attitudes Toward Enhancement. AJOB Neuroscience 2(2): 49-50Google Scholar
  91. NEK‐CNE (National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics) (2011) Human Enhancement by means of pharmacological agents (Opinion No. 18, October 2011)Google Scholar
  92. Nida-Rümelin J (Hg) (2005) Angewandte Ethik. Die Bereichsethiken und ihre theoretische Fundierung. StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  93. Nordmann A (2007) If and Then: A Critique of Speculative Nanoethics. Nano-Ethics 1(1): 31-46Google Scholar
  94. Nordmann A (2010) A Forensics Of Wishing: Technology Assessment In The Age Of Technoscience. Poiesis & Praxis. International Journal Of Technology Assessment And Ethics Of Science 7(1-2): 5-15Google Scholar
  95. Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology 4: 273-274Google Scholar
  96. Nordmann A, Schummer J, Schwarz A (Hg) (2006) Nanotechnologien im Kontext. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  97. Outram SM, Racine E (2011) Developing Public Health Approaches to Cognitive Enhancement: An Analysis of Current Reports. Public Health Ethics 4(1): 93-105Google Scholar
  98. Outram SM (2011) Ethical Considerations in the Framing of the Cognitive Enhancement Debate. Neuroethics 5(2): 173-184Google Scholar
  99. Outram SM (2010) The use of methylphenidate among students: the future of enhancement? Journal of Medical Ethics 36: 198-202Google Scholar
  100. Palm E, Hansson SO (2006) The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73(5): 543-558Google Scholar
  101. Patenaude J, et al. (2011) Moral Arguments in the Debate over Nanotechnologies: Are We Talking Past Each Other? NanoEthics 5(3): 285-293Google Scholar
  102. Pereira AG, von Schomberg R, Funtowicz S (2007) Foresight Knowledge Assessment. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 4: 65-79Google Scholar
  103. Quednow B (2010) Ethics of neuroenhancement: a phantom debate. BioSocieties 5: 153-156Google Scholar
  104. Racine E, et al. (2014) The value and the pitfalls of speculation about science and technology in bioethics: the case of cognitive enhancement. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17(3): 325-37Google Scholar
  105. Racine E, Forlini C (2010) Cognitive Enhancement, Lifestyle Choice or Misuse of Prescription Drugs? Ethics Blind Spots in Current Debates. Neuroethics 3(1): 1-4Google Scholar
  106. Ragan CI, Bard J, Singh I (2013) What should we do about student use of cognitive enhancers? An analysis of current evidence. Neuropharmacology 64: 588-595Google Scholar
  107. Rayne S, Malone L (Hg) (1998) Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol 2 Resources and Technology. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  108. Reches A, et al. (2013) Network dynamics predict improvement in working memory performance following donepezil administration in healthy young adults. Neuroimage Nov 21,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.020
  109. Rehmann-Sutter C, Leach Scully J (2010) Which Ethics for (of) the Nanotechnologies? In: Kaiser M, et al. (2010): 233-252Google Scholar
  110. Repantis D, et al. (2010a) Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research Sep; 62(3): 187-206Google Scholar
  111. Repantis D, et al. (2010b) Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: a systematic review. Pharmacological Research 61(6): 473-481Google Scholar
  112. Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological Change. In: Rayne S, Malone L (1998): 327-399Google Scholar
  113. Rip A, te Kulve H (2008) Constructive technology assessment and sociotechnical scenarios. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore JM (Hg) The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, Volume 1: Presenting futures. Berlin, S 49-70Google Scholar
  114. Roache R (2008) Ethics, speculation, and values. NanoEthics 2(3): 317-327Google Scholar
  115. Rohbeck J (1993) Technologische Urteilskraft. Zu einer Ethik technischen Handelns. FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  116. Rose SPR (2002) ‘Smart drugs’: do they work? Are they ethical? Will they be legal? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3: 975-979Google Scholar
  117. Royal Society (2012): Human enhancement and the future of work, The Royal Society, London, http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/human-enhancement/workshop-report/
  118. Sahakian B, Morein-Zhamir S (2007) Professor’s little helper. Nature 450: 1157-1159Google Scholar
  119. Sandel M (2007) The case against perfection. Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  120. Sattler S, Wiegel C (2013) Test anxiety and cognitive enhancement: the influence of students’ worries on their use of performance-enhancing drugs. Substance Use & Misuse 48: 220–232Google Scholar
  121. Sauter A, Gerlinger K (2012) Der pharmakologisch verbesserte Mensch. Leistungssteigernde Mittel als gesellschaftliche Herausforderung. Studien des Büros für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag, Bd. 34. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  122. Savulescu J, Bostrom N (Hg) (2008) Human Enhancement. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  123. Savulescu J, Bostrom N (2008) Human Enhancement Ethics: The State of the Debate. In: Savulescu J. Bostrom N (2008): 1-22Google Scholar
  124. Schermer M, et al. (2009) The future of psychopharmacological enhancements: Expectations and policies. Neuroethics 2: 75-87Google Scholar
  125. Schleim S (2010) Risiken und Nebenwirkungen der Enhancement-Debatte. Suchtmagazin 2: 49-51Google Scholar
  126. Schöne-Seifert B, et al. (2009) Neuro-Enhancement. Ethik vor neuen Herausforderungen. PaderbornGoogle Scholar
  127. Schummer J, Baird D (Hg) (2006) Nanotechnology Challenges – Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society. SingapurGoogle Scholar
  128. Segev I, Markram H (Hg) (2011) Augmenting Cognition. LausanneGoogle Scholar
  129. Selin C (2011) Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 723-737Google Scholar
  130. Silber BY, et al. (2006) The acute effects of d-amphetamine and methamphetamine on attention and psychomotor performance. Psychopharmacology 187: 154-169.Google Scholar
  131. Silver JA, et al. (2004) Effect of anxiolytics on cognitive flexibility in problem solving. Cognitive Behavioral Neurology 17: 93-97Google Scholar
  132. Singh I, Kelleher KJ (2010) Neuroenhancement in Young People: Proposal for Research, Policy, and Clinical Management. AJOB Neuroscience 1(1): 3-16Google Scholar
  133. Skorupinski B, Ott K (2000) Technikfolgenabschätzung und Ethik. Eine Verhältnisbestimmung in Theorie und Praxis. ZürichGoogle Scholar
  134. Smith ME, Farah M (2011) Are Prescription Stimulants “Smart Pills”? The Epidemiology and Cognitive Neuroscience of Prescription Stimulant Use by Normal Healthy Individuals. Psychological Bulletin 137(5): 717-741Google Scholar
  135. Siep L (2006) Die biotechnische Neuerfindung des Menschen. In: Abel G (Hg) Kreativität. Akten des XX. Deutschen Kongresses für Philosophie. Hamburg, S 306-323Google Scholar
  136. Siune K, Markus E, Calloni M, Felt U, Gorski A, Grunwald A, Rip A, de Semir V, Wyatt S (2009) Challenging Futures of Science in Society. Report of the MASIS Expert Group. Europäische Kommission; BrüsselGoogle Scholar
  137. Sollie P, Düwell M (Hg) (2009) Evaluating New Technologies, The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology 3. DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  138. Stahl B (2011) IT for a better future: how to integrate ethics, politics and innovation. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 9(3): 140-156Google Scholar
  139. Synofzik M (2009) Ethically justified, clinically applicable criteria for physician decision-making in psychopharmacological enhancement. Neuroethics 2: 89-102Google Scholar
  140. Teter CJ, et al. (2006) Illicit use of specific prescription stimulants among college students: prevalence, motives, and routes of administration. Pharmacotherapy 26(10): 1501-1510Google Scholar
  141. Tone A (2005) Listening to the past: History, psychiatry, and anxiety. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 50(7): 373-380Google Scholar
  142. Turner DC, et al. (2003) Cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology 165: 260-269Google Scholar
  143. Van der Plas A, et al. (2010) Beyond speculative robot ethics: a vision assessment study on the future of the robotic caretaker. In: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 17(6): 299-315Google Scholar
  144. Van Lente H (1993) Promising Technology. The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological Developments. DelftGoogle Scholar
  145. Viehöver W, Wehling P (2011) Entgrenzung der Medizin? Von der Heilkunst zur Verbesserung des Menschen. BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  146. Williams R (2006) Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures. Science as Culture 15(4): 327-348Google Scholar
  147. Wolbring G (2008) Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? The European Journal of Social Science Research 21: 25-40Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Coenen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arianna Ferrari
    • 1
  • Armin Grunwald
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS)KITKarlsruheDeutschland

Personalised recommendations