Studies in Ethics, Law, and
Technology
Volume 4, Issue 1 2010 Article 4
Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions
& Answers
Fritz Allhoff∗ Patrick Lin†
James Moor‡ John Weckert∗∗
∗
Western Michigan University, fritz.allhoff@wmich.edu
†
California Polytechnic State University, palin@calpoly.edu
‡
Dartmouth College, james.h.moor@dartmouth.edu
∗∗
Charles Sturt University, jweckert@csu.edu.au
Copyright c 2010 The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.
, Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions
& Answers∗
Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor, and John Weckert
Abstract
This paper presents the principal findings from a three-year research project funded by the
US National Science Foundation (NSF) on ethics of human enhancement technologies. To help
untangle this ongoing debate, we have organized the discussion as a list of questions and answers,
starting with background issues and moving to specific concerns, including: freedom & autonomy,
health & safety, fairness & equity, societal disruption, and human dignity. Each question-and-
answer pair is largely self-contained, allowing the reader to skip to those issues of interest without
affecting continuity.
KEYWORDS: human enhancement, human engineering, nanotechnology, emerging technolo-
gies, policy, ethics, risk
∗
The authors of this report gratefully acknowledge the support of the US National Science Foun-
dation (NSF) under awards #0620694 and 0621021. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions
or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the NSF. We also acknowledge our respective institutions for their support:
Dartmouth College and Western Michigan University, which are the recipients of the NSF awards
referenced above, as well as California Polytechnic State University and Australia’s Centre for Ap-
plied Philosophy and Public Ethics. In writing this report, we have benefited from discussions and
presentations from many colleagues and friends during the course of our three-year investigation,
which include workshop participants at Dartmouth College (April 14-15, 2007) and conference
participants at Western Michigan University (March 28-29, 2009). Special thanks go to Dr. Tom
Powers at the University of Delaware for his gracious support through Delaware NSF-EPSCoR
grant #EPS-0447610. Thanks also to our editorial assistant, Lindsay Mouchet. We are indebted to
two anonymous reviewers from this journal and its editors—Bert Gordijn and Mark Cutter—for
valuable feedback on an earlier draft. Finally, we thank our families as well as the broader public
whose hopes and concerns highlight the role that ethics must play in guiding the development and
use of human enhancement technologies—inescapably a part of all our futures.
, Allhoff et al.: Ethics of Human Enhancement
“Man is the only creature that refuses to be what he is.”—Albert
Camus (1951, p.11)
A. Introduction
Homo sapiens has been such a prolific species, simply because we are very good
at relentlessly adapting to our environment. At the most basic level, we have won
control over fire and tools to forge a new world around us, we build shelter and
weave clothes to repel the brutal elements, and we raise animals and crops for
predictability in our meals. With our intellect and resourcefulness, we are thereby
better able to survive this world.
However, it is not just the world around us that we desire to change. Since
the beginning of history, we also have wanted to become more than human, to
become Homo superior. From the godlike command of Gilgamesh, to the lofty
ambitions of Icarus, to the preternatural strength of Beowulf, to the mythical skills
of Shaolin monks, and to various shamans and shapeshifters throughout the
world’s cultural history, we have dreamt—and still dream—of transforming
ourselves to overcome our all-too-human limitations.
In practice, this means that we improve our minds through education,
disciplined thinking, and meditation; we improve our bodies with a sound diet and
physical exercise; and we train with weapons and techniques to defend ourselves
from those who would conspire to kill. But today, something seems to be
different. With ongoing work to unravel the mysteries of our minds and bodies,
coupled with the art and science of emerging technologies, we are near the start of
the Human Enhancement Revolution.
Now we are not limited to “natural” methods to enhance ourselves or to
merely wield tools such as a hammer or binoculars or a calculator. We are
beginning to incorporate technology within our very bodies, which may hold
moral significance that we need to consider. These technologies promise great
benefits for humanity—such as increased productivity and creativity, longer lives,
more serenity, stronger bodies and minds, and more—though, as we will discuss
later, there is a question whether these things translate into happier lives, which
many see as the point of it all (President’s Council on Bioethics, 2003; Persaud,
2006).
As examples of emerging technologies in the last year or so, a couple
imaginative inventions in particular, among many, are closing the gap even more
between science fiction and the real world. Scientists have conceptualized an
electronic-packed contact lens that may provide the wearer with telescopic and
night vision or act as an omnipresent digital monitor to receive and relay
information (Parviz, et al., 2008). Another innovation is a touch display designed
to be implanted just under the skin that would activate special tattoo ink on one’s
Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010 1
, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, Vol. 4, Iss. 1 [2010], Art. 4
arm to form images, such as telephone-number keys to punch or even a video to
watch (Mielke, 2008). Together with ever-shrinking computing devices, we
appear to be moving closer to cybernetic organisms (or “cyborgs”), that is, where
machines are integrated with our bodies or at least with our clothing in the nearer-
term. Forget about Pocket PCs, mobile phones, GPS devices, and other portable
gadgets; we might soon be able to communicate and access those capabilities
without having to carry any external device, thus raising our productivity,
efficiency, response time, and other desirable measures—in short, enabling us to
even better survive our world.
Technology is clearly a game-changing field. The invention of such
things as the printing press, gunpowder, automobiles, computers, vaccines, and so
on, has profoundly changed the world, for the better we hope. But at the same
time, they have also led to unforeseen consequences, or perhaps consequences
that might have been foreseen and addressed had we bothered to investigate them.
Least of all, they have disrupted the status quo, which is not necessarily a terrible
thing in and of itself; but unnecessary and dramatic disruptions, such as mass
displacements of workers or industries, have real human costs to them. As we
will discuss, this may well be the case with human enhancement technologies,
enabled by advances in nanotechnology, micro-electro-mechanical systems
(MEMS), genetic engineering, robotics, cognitive science, information
technology, pharmacology, and other fields (Roco and Bainbridge, 2003).
In this paper, we examine many ethical and social issues surrounding
human enhancement technologies. For instance, on the issue of whether such
technologies ought to be regulated or otherwise restricted, one position is that
(more than minimal) regulation would hinder personal freedom or autonomy,
infringing on some natural or political right to improve our own bodies, minds,
and lives as we see fit (Naam, 2005; Bailey, 2005; Harris, 2007; Allhoff et al.,
forthcoming). Others, however, advocate strong regulation—and even a research
moratorium—to protect against unintended effects on society, such as the
presumably-undesirable creation of a new class of enhanced persons who could
outwit, outplay, and outlast “normal” or unenhanced persons for jobs, in schools,
at sporting contests, and so on, among other reasons (Fukuyama, 2003, 2006;
Friends of the Earth, 2006). Still others seek a sensible middle path between
stringent regulation and individual liberty (Hughes, 2004; Greely, 2005).
No matter where one is aligned on this issue, it is clear that the human
enhancement debate is a deeply passionate and personal one, striking at the heart
of what it means to be human. Some see it as a way to fulfill or even transcend
our potential; others see it as a darker path towards becoming Frankenstein’s
monster. To help untangle this debate, we have organized this report as the
following list of questions and answers, starting with background issues and
http://www.bepress.com/selt/vol4/iss1/art4 2
DOI: 10.2202/1941-6008.1110
