Nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, information technologies and cognitive sciences (NBIC) have gradually gained traction in the United States of America (USA), subsequently expanding to Europe, and are now proliferating worldwide. Scientists are trying with more success to remove the causes of death by “repairing” humans, or even by “increasing” their physical and cognitive capacities. NBICs not only can help researchers promote “one health” by improving environmental conditions, human and animal health, but also, they can lead humanity towards transhumanism through eugenics. Thanks to (...) the principle of totality, the intentional modification of the human body for therapeutic purposes through surgery has always been seen as a source of medical progress. But how far can the living human body be modified at will? Gilbert Hottois and Jean-François Mattei have deciphered transhumanism to question its alleged “humanism” and study its impact on our humanity. Today, science has gone further thanks to the possibilities offered by converging NBIC technologies and especially with the advent of human genome editing! The objective of this article is to highlight the hopes and fears of Homo sapiens following the applications of NBICs, and to propose ethical reflections on the invading transhumanist and posthumanist doctrines that tend to become spiritual movements, even religions. A summary study, based on a scientific bibliography, linked to NBICs and including ethical aspects, will present the ethical issues of the convergence of nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, information technologies and cognitive sciences, which could become a springboard for transhumanism and posthumanism. (shrink)

As the rapidly advancing possibilities of biotechnology have outstripped the adaptive capacity of current legal and ethical institutions, a vigorous debate has arisen that considers the boundaries of appropriate use of this technology, particularly when applied to humans. This article examines ethical concerns surrounding the development of markets in a particular form of human genetic engineering in which heterozygotes are fitter than both homozygotes, a condition known as heterozygous advantage. To begin, we present a generalized model of the condition, illuminated (...) by the application to sickle-cell anemia. Next, we propose a typology of related markets, some of which are currently functioning with available products and services, and others that are widely viewed as imminent. We suggest the manner in which perverse incentives may arise for firms that market genetic intervention in circumstances where heterozygous advantage is possible. Finally, we propose that this misalignment of incentives with social welfare has arisen from both ill-conceived market intervention where markets are capable of achieving efficient outcomes and the lack of market intervention where markets have failed. We offer specific legal and regulatory approaches for reform. (shrink)