Maybe it would be simpler to disregard bioethics. One could argue that scientific and technological advances are constrained by ethical considerations and that scientists and engineers should be able to use any and all means to achieve progress as long as it promises improvement of the human condition. There may be some risk for collateral damage or misapplication of research but if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, it’s worth it. This viewpoint is valid but also somewhat parochial. Pursuing progress, human enhancement specifically, has already produced sociopolitical, legal, and moral dilemmas that suggest the fast track to progress is not the most perspicacious course of action. In the discussion forum, Dr. Grinnell of UT Southwestern, Dr. Rose of UT Arlington, and Dr. Scotch of UT Dallas explored the implications of human enhancement.
According to Dr. Rose, a culture fixated on human enhancement would naturally be intolerant of the disabled and view eugenics, euthanasia, and selective abortion as viable alternatives. Already there are prenatal diagnostic tests that can identify chromosome abnormalities (Trisomy 21) or genetic disorders (cystic fibrosis). If detected early in the pregnancy, the mother might be pressured to abort the ‘baby’ because disability is, according to many, abnormal and socially/financially costly. Ironically, the same can be said of enhancements although the context is different. However, the question remains: How do you define “a life worth living”? Do you even have the right to make that decision for another person?
Dr. Scotch generated another interesting question: Are enhancements necessary? Cochlear implants can be seen as a type of enhancement. Yet, the deaf community, which does not consider deafness a disability, has objected strongly to cochlear implants, believing it to be something pushed upon them by the hearing majority. This leads to yet another question. What is considered an enhancement? Are Oscar Pistorius’ Cheetah carbon fiber blades an enhancement? Some have claimed that his artificial legs give him an unfair advantage over able-bodied athletes. Is he disabled or too-abled?
Clearly, enhancements improve quality of life but they also change the standards of what is normal (or acceptable), what is considered fair, what it means to be human. However, it is difficult to predict exactly what impact they will have. Will human enhancement technologies create more equality or inequality? Should we try to change human biology and genetics in the face of incomplete knowledge? The answer may seem obvious. You may say we will always have incomplete knowledge, so what’s the point of even arguing about these issues? Or you may say experimentation is a necessary step to achieve progress and there will be many experimental failures on the path to success; this is unavoidable but necessary. This line of thought goes nowhere fast. The answer is not so clear-cut, and as Dr. Grinnell points out, theoretical matters of academic interest are not in the distant future; they are issues now (as seen in the embryonic stem cell controversy). He presents a couple of thought-provoking questions: Is a free-living human embryo a person or a clump of human cells? If the latter, how many malformed or dysfunctional embryos are we willing to accept to successfully develop cloned or transgenic human embryos? For everything, there is a price. Yet we remain fascinated by the possibilities (of immortality and perfection) offered by science. Whether the future will be utopian or dystopian remains to be seen. Human enhancement technologies can exacerbate inequality and injustice; they can also offer a number of exciting possibilities like neural implants and powered exoskeletons. We should foster a climate that encourages advances in biomedical research but also be careful to ensure that research that is potentially harmful is subject to careful oversight.