New technologies facilitate the enhancement of a wide range of human dispositions, capacities, or abilities. While it is argued that we need to set limits to human enhancement, it is unclear where we should find resources to set such limits. Traditional routes for setting limits, such as referring to nature, the therapy-enhancement distinction, and the health-disease distinction, turn out to have some shortcomings. However, upon closer scrutiny the concept of enhancement is based on vague conceptions of what is to be (...) enhanced. Explaining why it is better to become older, stronger, and more intelligent presupposes a clear conception of goodness, which is seldom provided. In particular, the qualitative better is frequently confused with the quantitative more. We may therefore not need “external” measures for setting its limits – they are available in the concept of enhancement itself. While there may be shortcomings in traditional sources of limit setting to human enhancement, such as nature, therapy, and disease, such approaches may not be necessary. The specification-of-betterment problem inherent in the conception of human enhancement itself provides means to restrict its unwarranted proliferation. We only need to demand clear, sustainable, obtainable goals for enhancement that are based on evidence, and not on lofty speculations, hypes, analogies, or weak associations. Human enhancements that specify what will become better, and provide adequate evidence, are good and should be pursued. Others should not be accepted. (shrink)

In this article we examine four objections to the genetic modification of human beings: the freedom argument, the giftedness argument, the authenticity argument, and the uniqueness argument. We then demonstrate that each of these arguments against genetic modification assumes a strong version of genetic determinism. Since these strong deterministic assumptions are false, the arguments against genetic modification, which assume and depend upon these assumptions, are therefore unsound. Serious discussion of the morality of genetic modification, and the development of sound science (...) policy, should be driven by arguments that address the actual consequences of genetic modification for individuals and society, not by ones propped up by false or misleading biological assumptions. (shrink)

The ongoing revolution in molecular genetics has led many to speculate that one day we will be able to change the expression or phenotype of numerous complex traits to improve ourselves in many different ways. The prospect of genetic enhancements has generated heated controversy, with proponents advocating research and implementation, with caution advised for concerns about justice, and critics tending to see the prospect of genetic enhancements as an assault on human freedom and human nature. Both camps base their arguments (...) on the unquestioned assumption that the science will realize either their dreams or nightmares. In this paper, I show that their beliefs are based upon two fundamental mistakes. First, they are based upon an unwarranted reliance in a genetic determinism that takes for granted that the traits that we might most want to enhance, like intelligence, aggression, shyness, and even athletic ability, can be causally directed by specific genes. In so doing, character descriptions are reified to be concrete and discrete entities, in this case, genes. Second, they have accepted on faith that there is, or will be, a science to translate their hopes or worries into reality when, in fact, that is unlikely to occur because of the irreducible complexity of phenotypic expression. (shrink)

The treatment-enhancement distinction draws a line between services or interventions meant to prevent or cure conditions that we view as diseases or disabilities and interventions that improve a condition that we view as a normal function or feature of members of our species. The line drawn here is widely appealed to in medical practice and medical insurance contexts, as well as in our everyday thinking about the medical services we do and should assist people in obtaining.

A common worry about the genetic engineering of human beings is that it will reduce human genetic diversity, creating a biological monoculture that could not only increase our susceptibility to disease but also hasten the extinction of our species. Thus far, however, the evolutionary implications of human genetic modification remain largely unexplored. In this paper, I consider whether the widespread use of genetic engineering technology is likely to narrow the present range of genetic variation, and if so, whether this would (...) in fact lead to the evolutionary harms that some authors envision. By examining the nature of biological variation and its relation to population immunity and evolvability, I show that not only will genetic engineering have a negligible impact on human genetic diversity, but also that it will be more likely to ensure rather than undermine the health and longevity of the human species. (shrink)

In this article I critically examine Adam Moore’s claim that the threshold for overriding intangible property rights and privacy rights is higher, in relation to genetic enhancement techniques and sensitive personal information, than is commonly suggested. I argue that Moore fails to see how important advances in genetic research are to social justice. Once this point is emphasised one sees that the issue of how formidable overriding these rights are is open to much debate. There are strong reasons, on grounds (...) of social justice, for thinking the importance of such rights is likely to be diminished in the interests of ensuring a more just distribution of genes essential to pursuing what John Rawls calls a person’s ”rational plan of life’. (shrink)

This paper argues that the medical conception of health as absence of disease is a value-free theoretical notion. Its main elements are biological function and statistical normality, in contrast to various other ideas prominent in the literature on health. Apart from universal environmental injuries, diseases are internal states that depress a functional ability below species-typical levels. Health as freedom from disease is then statistical normality of function, i.e., the ability to perform all typical physiological functions with at least typical efficiency. (...) This conception of health is as value-free as statements of biological function. The view that health is essentially value-laden, held by most writers on the topic, seems to have one of two sources: an assumption that health judgments must be practical judgments about the treatment of patients, or a commitment to "positive" health beyond the absence of disease. I suggest that the assumption is mistaken, the commitment possibly misdescribed. (shrink)

: The current difference in attitude toward germ-line enhancement in humans and nonhumans is unjustified. Society should be more cautious in modifying the genes of nonhumans and more bold in thinking about modifying our own genome. I identify four classes of arguments pertaining to germ-line enhancement: safety arguments, justice arguments, trust arguments, and naturalness arguments. The first three types are compelling, but do not distinguish between human and nonhuman cases. The final class of argument would justify a distinction between human (...) and nonhuman germ-line enhancement; however, this type of argument fails and, therefore, the discrepancy in attitude toward human and nonhuman germ-line enhancement is unjustified. (shrink)

Why potential parents should select the best child of possible children, and the necessity of a dialogue about the context of a reproductive decision.The principle of Procreative Beneficence is the principle of selecting the best child of the possible children one could have. This principle is elaborated on and defended against a range of objections. In particular, focus is laid on four objections that Michael Parker raises: that it is underdetermining, that it is insensitive to the complex nature of the (...) good, that it is self-defeating and that it is overly individualistic. Procreative Beneficence is a useful principle in reproductive decision-making. It is necessary to be more active in making selection decisions about what kind of child to have.Parker1 raises four objections to the principle of Procreative Beneficence . I will address these in turn. Procreative Beneficence is underdeterminingParker claims that Procreative Beneficence is underdetermining. By “underdetermining”, he means that the principle will not give clear and determinate answers as to which lives are better or best. Parker argues that “ranking possible lives as “better” or “worse” is “highly problematic”.Ranking lives is a very complex matter. Let us distinguish between: the value of a whole life and the value of an individual feature of a life .We should also distinguish between valuation ex ante and ex post . In Procreative Beneficence, I likened genetic testing to playing the wheel of fortune.2 Just because we have a weak chance of winning, does not mean we should not play the game. The only reason not to play a game that …. (shrink)

In a first major study, the UK’s Royal Society found that 76% of people in the UK are in favour of therapeutic germline genomic editing to correct genetic diseases in human embryos, but found there was little appetite for germline genomic editing for non‐therapeutic purposes. Assuming the UK and other governments acted on these findings, can lawmakers and policymakers coherently regulate the use of biomedical innovations by permitting their use for therapeutic purposes but prohibiting their use for enhancement purposes? This (...) paper examines the very common claim in the enhancement literature that the therapy v enhancement distinction does little meaningful work in helping us think through the ethical issues, a claim that has significant implications for these lawmakers and policymakers who may wish to regulate genomic editing techniques to reflect the findings of this important study. The focus of this paper is on germline genomic editing as one of the main themes in this special issue. (shrink)

The normative significance of the distinction between therapy and enhancement has come under sustained philosophical attack in recent discussions of the ethics of shaping future persons by means of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and other advanced genetic technologies. In this paper, I argue that giving up the idea that the answer to the question as to whether a condition is “normal” should play a crucial role in assessing the ethics of genetic interventions has unrecognized and strongly counterintuitive implications when it comes (...) to selecting what sort of children should be brought into the world. According to standard philosophical accounts of the factors one should take into account when making such .. (shrink)