Background

A new wave of emerging technologies and scientific breakthroughs has created an environment in which the possibilities for so-called human "enhancement" are seemingly endless. Successful efforts to decipher our genetic code through the Human Genome Project, novel advances in the fields of biotechnology and nanotechnology, and a greater understanding of the brain resulting from the development of cognitive neuroscience and discoveries emerging from the Human Cognome Project, are giving rise to an unparalleled understanding of our most complex human abilities.

In 2002, a report entitled Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance was released by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The report, which represents an effort at directing the future of human "enhancement," has provided fodder for discussion. In addition to presenting a panoply of potential human "enhancements," the report details the role that convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information science, and cognitive science (NBIC) is heralded to play in the future of scientific discovery, and thus human "enhancement." It becomes evident that our decisions as a society on how to proceed in light of these possibilities and the issues they raise will introduce novel questions on how we define "enhancement" and even what it is to be "human."

Much of current human "enhancement" research is focused on improving the lives of those who have a physical or mental disability or illness. New drugs to combat Alzheimer's and implantable bio-medical devices to restore lost hearing are examples of these research efforts. In addition, agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have long been conducting "enhancement" - related projects with national security in mind.

There is also, however, both nascent research into and expectation by groups, such as those calling themselves transhumanists and post-humanists, for "enhancing" otherwise healthy (by current standards) individuals. As human beings, we spend much of our time thinking about, or pursuing, various means of "improving" our daily lives. These means, on occasion, involve interventions that can be characterized as "enhancements" - ranging from the most common and routine, i.e. putting on make-up, meditating, drinking coffee in the morning, and exercising, to the more risky and less readily available, i.e., laser eye surgery, cosmetic surgery, and the use of performance enhancing drugs (e.g., gene doping, designer steroids, anti-depressants, and Viagra).

Using technology to enhance the lives of healthy individuals raises significant ethical, legal, and social concerns. Analysis of current trends in human enhancement provides some insight into how such enhancements are perceived. While professional and non-professional athletes are routinely tested and censured for the use of steroids, with the general consensus being that users gain an unfair advantage, there is less contempt for individuals who elect to improve their appearance with plastic surgery. Likewise, the increasingly common use of lasers to improve one's eyesight does not garner the same kind of disapproval as does the use of Ritalin by students preparing for the SATs or college course exams. The commonality, however, seems to revolve around unease with those "enhancements" that create unfair physical or mental advantages.

While many questions remain unanswered, the most enthusiastic proponents of human enhancement, the transhumanists, believe that there is a duty to push on with such research. Transhumanists, including Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom, see the enhancement movement as a unified effort between science and technology toward human progress, and they believe that enhancing the abilities of disabled, as well as healthy individuals, will result in greater economic productivity, increased creativity and learning, longevity, health, and overall happiness. By transforming our understanding of what it means to be human, transhumanists believe we are taking - and should take - evolution into our own hands.

Meanwhile, those concerned with so-called human "enhancement," as applied to healthy individuals, are concerned that such efforts are mere hubris and vanity. Furthermore, there is speculation that there will be unequal access to such enhancements, furthering the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots."

Given that we may be on the cusp of potentially altering - permanently - the course of humankind, it is imperative that we raise and thoroughly discuss all the implications of such a step. The extent to which we use these developments will certainly play a large part in our future understanding of what it means to be human, and we must take steps now to ensure that we proceed along the path that preserves human dignity and enables human flourishing.