[ad_1]
Last year, perhaps a little on the sly, the first ethical guidelines by the European Commission in the matter of human enhancement, human enhancement. Today, two of the main authors, Yasemin J. Erden and Philip AE Brey of the University of Twente (Holland), relaunch the theme by speaking about it in a item on Science. Why, they write, whether to discuss strengthening human today may seem too futuristic, the direction that medical and technological developments are taking is that. And it is necessary, in addition to a regulation on the subject, to have a framework of ethical reference to handle such a critical field of research with care. Starting from tailor-made guidelines, because the existing ones for medicine and research – such as the Declaration of Helsinki or the Oviedo convention – are not enough, they are not appropriate. And because it is undeniable that human enhancement is a divisive field, both scientifically and socially. How and why some might be gifted with superpowers? At what risk for the person and the society?
Empowerment as a tool to improve human performance
Erden and Brey’s discussions start from considering what is meant first of all human empowermentfirst of all distinguishing the purpose with which a intervention. So we talk about human enhancement when we have:“a modification intended to improve human performance compared (only, ed) to restore it – brought about by scientific or technological interventions in or on the human body”. On the one hand, therefore, it is clear that “improvement” is placed on a different level than any other therapeutic intervention that seeks to counteract a problem, or to prevent it. On the other hand, however, saying this is not enough, because we are navigating on slippery and not well-defined ground, as the philosophy experts themselves clearly say, because everything depends on what is taken as a reference, what is considered normal. Having said this, the idea that empowerment means a general “going further”, with the ability to to acquire or exactly to improve a certain performance or capacity: whether it is to see, to remember, to live longer, to get stronger, to resist tiredness. It is therefore a theme that concerns several areas, as you can imagine, at least if you want to classify the human enhancement according to the field of intervention. Here then it is possible to intervene in the physical, cognitive, affective and emotional, cosmetic, moral and longevity fields.
The fields of application
To understand what type of research might be affected by these guidelines – developed within the Sienna project (Stakeholder-informed ethics for new technologies with high socio-economic and human rights impact) to date addressed to the research carried out within the Horizon Europe program – the authors propose some examples. The common idea is this: all theresearch activity that has human enhancement as its purpose, or that may lead to the development of products (of any kind) that can be used for improve human performance. Directly or indirectly. Here then is that could be it a substance developed to improve memory and concentration in a healthy person, or an exoskeleton to increase physical strength, or a cochlear implant that can be used to increase a person’s hearing spectrum.
They all sound like futuristic quests, superpowers for supermen, but not so much to look around: exoskeletons to lift heavy loads capable of increasing strength have already been developed. And wanting to remind us of a much more problematic example, not only for ethical but also scientific questions, also the case of crispr babies (to make two girls more resistant to HIV), could be counted as an attempt at human enanchement. It is no coincidence that the genetic modificationsboth somatic ones, but even more those of the germ line, with the risk of creating designer babies, are cited by the authors as perhaps one of the most problematic examples of human enanchement.
The key values of the guidelines
If these are the premises that help to understand which type of research, in which field and with which purposes it is susceptible of an ethical evaluation in the matter of enhancement, what are the specific guidelines on the subject? What should a search have to comply with guidelines in the field? It should develop around six key values.
If some of these values are already the cornerstone of clinical research – such as the informed consent – others seem more to embrace the particular character of human empowerment. Not so much maybe as far as the concept of Welfare – an intervention must tend to produce benefit to a person – as for the aspects of autonomy, justice, equality and social responsibility. It is important, write Erden and Brey – to guarantee freedom of choice, avoiding interventions that could influence one’s identity and personality. Not because these do not change over time, the philosophers remind us, but in fact they must be considered today as the product of something else, such as experiences and introspection. Finally, the invitation is to emphasize ai more social risks interventions of human enhancement, which by definition, empowering And getting bettercan increase the risk of inequalitygiving some of the benefits and leaving others behind.
[ad_2]
Source link
