Rively 1

Bleu Rively
Adam Padgett
ENGL 102
September 22 2016
Ethical Path of Biomedical Enhancement
Modern society revolves around rapid technological advancement. Technology extends
from entertainment to convenience, all the way to life saving innovation. A broad, ever-changing
field of technology based innovation comes from the branch of biomedical enhancement.
Biomedical enhancement encompasses both vital and non-vital ways of changing the human
body for improving illness, recovery, and stamina. In the known universe, the human is the most
advanced species, yet there are so many engineering flaws in the midst of our greatness. From
a purely biological standpoint, abnormalities seem to have become engrained into our DNA. It is
only by random order that some experience the abnormalities, and some do not. It fascinates me
that beings that discover, create, innovate, and sometimes destroy, need just one skewed gene
sequence to distinguish one who lives a normal healthy life, and one who is attached to an illness
for their entire existence. We may never figure out why this happens to certain people but we are
on the path to preventing it from happening to anybody. Most people believe that science is a
force so powerful that it could change the world forever with one discovery. Most, however, are
not aware of how much innovation is actually happening right now. The most significant of
modern bio-enhancement is still in the early stages of development, so it is important to know
the current trends of what people believe before the work is done, in case society rejects it. This
is not to say that a poll with negative results will halt medical research, but it gives people a

Rively 2

chance to see new perspective about the world of science, and how their contemporaries feel on
the same subject. The perfect human does not yet exist, and may not exist in my lifetime, but
one may be on the horizon, and it is important for people know how they feel about their role in
the universe and if there are some things they have the right to control or if there are things that
should be left alone.
One article perfectly captures the held beliefs of biomedical
enhancement from an American perspective is entitled U.S. Public Wary of
Biomedical Technologies to Enhance Human Abilities. This article concludes
that the American people are more worried about the prospect of human
enhancement than enthusiastic. Several surveys were conducted in which
people were asked how they feel about three specific types of bioenhancement. These include gene editing, brain chip implants for better
cognitive performance, and synthetic blood for greater speed, strength, and
stamina. A wide variety of characteristics were taken into consideration,
including a scale of religiosity that may help to establish a relationship
between religious beliefs and the perception of human enhancement. Nearly
5000 respondents from across the US participated in the polls. The major
interest of this article was to examine what American society believes about
the potential of human enhancing technologies. The goal was to isolate a
general mindset about bio-engineering and establish relationships between
lifestyles and biomedical enhancement perception. Overall, the article
introduced excellent insight into the world of modern biological science and
combined this with a broad sociological perspective. The writers of this

Rively 3

article, although experienced, are not biology focused individuals. They are,
however, long time members of a well respected research institute, and they
have all done many previous studies on a wide variety of topics. They had to
rely on the expertise of others to help stimulate ideas. They chose to go from
a more psychological / sociological based perspective which may have
clouded the cut and dry approach of explaining the biological innovations.
The next article, entitled When is diminishment a form of
enhancement? Rethinking the enhancement debate in biomedical ethics,
will be used to add dimension to the definition of biomedical enhancement.
This article allows for an introduction to the philosophical side of biomedical
enhancement. This article argues that enhancement should be applied to a
biological or psychological change that has the potential to increase wellbeing in certain circumstances after the treatment is done. The article also
argues that diminishment should also be considered a form of
enhancement. This is to say that any treatment that diminishes the
concentration of a mechanism could be considered an enhancement. An
example of diminishing enhancement is Ritalin, which decreases the uptake
of neurotransmitters, therefore leading to better focus and concentration.
One of the goals of this article was to show there is something to be gained
by distinguishing functional enhancement from enhancement of well-being
(Earp et al.). This article will help to strengthen my defense of why it is
important to understand how people feel about enhancement. This will also
help me to introduce more philosophical complexity to an innately biological

Rively 4

topic. The lead author of this article is an expert in philosophy and

neuroethics. The authors are very credible and possess PhDs in philosophy,
ethics, and psychology.
The final article I chose is entitled One Danger of Biomedical
Enhancements. This article proposes that the current trend of biomedical
enhancements may lead to an over valuing and an allocation of resources
that could otherwise be used for other things. The author argues that
enhancements could lead to unnecessary unhappiness and misappropriation
of funds. He also enhancements could become so prevalent that it would add
meaning to ones life. The article even dives into the realm of over
marketing by large businesses if bio enhancements become available to the
public. The author discusses the idea that humans place great value on new
innovations and how humans are bad at estimating if a means will lead to a
desired end. This article would be helpful in defining perception, and how
outside factors influence our perception of things.
There are three questions that I can use to broaden my perspective on
my question/ topic. They are as follows: What is the perceived line of human
enhancement? , What does the future of biological enhancement hold for us?
, What do people think about biomedical enhancement from an ethical
perspective? My questions are very researchable. They are not too broad or
too specific and a wide variety of disciplines and perspectives that analyze
these questions. I found sources from a biologically, sociologically,

Rively 5

philosophically, and psychologically centered discussion. My questions are

also unbiased. I do not have any pre conceived ideas of what the answer is
nor do I have any extensive knowledge on the topic or answers to the
questions. I found a wide array of assertions to these questions. Some
sources believe that there should be a clear, defined limit to biomedical
enhancement and some believed that there is no limit and it is human
responsibility to push the boundaries of science. Some sources assert that
biomedical enhancement is going to lead to de-humanization and some
believe that it is just another scientific innovation that should be appreciated
and perfected. These different perspectives add depth to my understanding
of the topic and will allow me to build a multi-dimensional question that
covers all the facets of bioethics. In order to become an authority on the
subject, I must continue to read and do research to add to my knowledge
and understanding on the topic.
Works Cited
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/26/u-s-public-wary-of-biomedical-technologies-to-enhancehuman-abilities/
Earp, Brian D; Sandberg, Anders; Kahane, Guy; Savulescu, Julian; National Library of
Medicine. Frontiers in systems neuroscience

(2014): 12.

RAJCZI, ALEX, Bioethics. Jul 2008, Vol. 22 Issue 6, p328-336. 9p