Cyborg identities and contemporary techno-utopias: adaptations and transformations of the body in the age of nanotechnology

The possibility of improving the human body through a closer relationship with technology in order to overcome the human species toward new stages of evolution is a constant element of techno-utopian visions, among other transhumanism. This projection to a radical transformation of the body - and mind - as a result of technological action is based on the concepts of adaptation, or non adaptation, of a human being to a world constantly changed by technoscience. The belief is that not only the body has to change, but that identity is not a stable concept. This mobility in the relationship between body and identity is typical of the post human thought, which inherits from the informational model the conviction that the biological embodiment of human is to be regarded as an accident of history rather than as an essential condition of life. Hybridization is therefore valued by the post human thought as a condition which has "made" the human as he is today, and it appears as a fundamental topic in any discourse on nanotechnology, biotechnology and development of human-machine interfaces.     

The ethics of biometrics: the risk of social exclusion from the widespread use of electronic identification

Discussions about biotechnology tend to assume that it is something to do with genetics or manipulating biological processes in some way. However, the field of biometrics-the measurement of physical characteristics-is also biotechnology and is likely to affect the lives of more people more quickly than any other form. The possibility of social exclusion resulting from the use of biometrics data for such uses as identity cards has not yet been fully explored. Social exclusion is unethical, as it unfairly discriminates against individuals or classes of people. Social exclusion is unethical, as it unfairly discriminates against individuals or classes of people. This article looks at some of the ways in which social exclusion might arise from the use of biometric data, and introduces a model of balancing individual interests with which to analyse whether it is justified to run the risk of excluding some members of society for the benefit of others.     

Drawing Limits: contemporary views on biotechnology

Biotechnology deals with the stuff of life; living things can be changed and barriers between species broken down. Through biotechnology human beings are ‘playing god’ in ways that have not been possible before. This article discusses some findings of the Biocult project, which investigated the views of 956 young people on risk and safety in relation to biotechnology [1]. The article focuses on the responses of young people aged 11 to 18 to the statement ‘human beings can use science and technology to do what they want’ set in the context of answers to other questions on specific applications. Despite the emphasis on individual freedom of choice found in surveys of personal morality, most young people spontaneously brought in notions of limits and barriers to human action in the field of biotechnology. The ways these limits are justified are of interest as they uncover ethical thinking which may or may not be religious or spiritual.     

Animal Disenhancement in Moral Context

To mitigate animal suffering under industrial farming conditions, biotechnology companies are pursuing the development of genetically disenhanced animals. Recent advances in gene editing biotechnology have brought this to reality. In one of the first discussions of the ethics of disenhancement, Thompson argued that it is hard to find compelling reasons to oppose it. We offer an argument against disenhancement that draws upon parallels with human disenhancement, ecofeminism’s concern with the “logic of domination,” and a relational ethic that seeks to preserve a meaningful relationship between farmers and their animals. In addition, we respond to two arguments in favor of animal disenhancement—one grounded in the non-identity problem and one that argues disenhancement is the best we can do to protect animal well-being right now. We argue that animal disenhancement does not address the fundamental issue of oppression of animals in the context of contemporary animal agriculture. Therefore, we conclude that animal disenhancement is not nearly as valuable as it might appear initially.     

哈贝马斯关于基因技术应用的人性论论证

现代生物工程技术的迅猛发展使人类对自身生命过程的干预和控制成为可能,与此同时也对人的尊严和价值构成了极大的挑战和冲击。在新的情势下,怎样利用技术才能避免伤害,体现尊重人的精神?哈贝马斯从人性论的角度出发,认为每个人只有将自己看作是人类当中的一个平等的成员,是人种当中的一个份子,才能避免对其他生命控制和操纵,才能避免对待他人的工具化态度。只有从人类学的广阔视野出发,变人与人之间的主客体关系为主体间性关系,才能深刻理解生命伦理学尊重原则的哲学基础和人文内涵,从而为技术的道德化使用指明了方向。     

Natural ways are better: Adolescents and the ‘anti-obesity’ gene

Empirical research with young people in Finland, Germany, Spain and Britain was carried out as part of the BIOCULT project funded by the European Union. The project focused on their attitudes to biotechnology and, in particular, the formation of arguments about risk and safety. This paper looks at the responses of 14–18 year olds to a story about the so called anti-obesity gene, in the form of advice to a friend who is taking it. The majority advised against taking it with some differences by gender and country. Most reservations were on grounds of safety and the feeling that ‘natural’ ways to lose weight are better: A minority questioned the idea of striving for a ‘perfect’ body. The types of arguments used by the young people reveal underlying perspectives on the place of human beings in the world and whether they have a right to manipulate nature and their own bodies. Marie Levitt is a sociologist with research interests in attitudes and values in relation to biotechnology, health and religion.     

Protecting God from Science and Technology: How Religious Criticisms of Biotechnologies Backfire

Many religious critics argue that biotechnology (such as cloning and genetic engineering) intrudes on God's domain, or plays God, or revolts against God. While some of these criticisms are standard complaints about human hubris, I argue that some of the recent criticism represents a "Promethean" concern, in which believers unreflectively seem to fear that science and technology are actually replicating or stealing God's special deity–defining powers. These criticisms backfire theologically, because they diminish God, portraying God as an anthropomorphic superbeing whose relevance and special nature are increasingly rivaled by human power.     

How Japanese students reason about agricultural biotechnology

Many have claimed that education of the ethical issues raised by biotechnology is essential in universities, but there is little knowledge of its effectiveness. The focus of this paper is to investigate how university students assess the information given in class to make their own value judgments and decisions relating to issues of agricultural biotechnology, especially over genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Analysis of homework reports related with agricultural biotechnology after identification of key concepts and ideas in each student report is presented. The ideas were sorted into different categories. The ideas were compared with those in the reading materials using the same categories. These categories included: concern about affects on humans, affects on the environment, developing countries and starvation, trust in industry, responsibility of scientists, risk perception, media influence, need for (international) organizations or third parties, and information dissemination. What was consistent through the different years was that more than half of the students took a “neutral” position. A report was scored as “neutral” when the report included both the positive and negative side of an issue, or when the student could not make a definite decision about the use of GMOs and GM food. While it may be more difficult to defend a strong “for” or “against” position, some students used logical arguments successfully in doing so. Sample comments are presented to depict how Japanese students see agricultural technology, and how they value its application, with comparisons to the general social attitudes towards biotechnology.     

试论中国对生物技术的专利保护

人体基因是否属于科学发现、关于运动和植物品种的概念、关于基因治疗方法的专利保护、关于伦理道德标准、关于微生物菌种的保藏和发放、关于实用性和专利的授权范围以及关于遗传资源的保护等生物技术领导专利保护所面临的挑战,分析了国内外现有的观点和作法,并提出了笔者的粗浅看法,另外,还对如何解决基因资源的保护问题、生物技术领域是否需要专利保护和怎样防止生物技术的滥用等问题,介绍了自己的体会和建议。     

How Japanese students reason about agricultural biotechnology

Many have claimed that education of the ethical issues raised by biotechnology is essential in universities, but there is little knowledge of its effectiveness. The focus of this paper is to investigate how university students assess the information given in class to make their own value judgments and decisions relating to issues of agricultural biotechnology, especially over genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Analysis of homework reports related with agricultural biotechnology after identification of key concepts and ideas in each student report is presented. The ideas were sorted into different categories. The ideas were compared with those in the reading materials using the same categories. These categories included: concern about affects on humans, affects on the environment, developing countries and starvation, trust in industry, responsibility of scientists, risk perception, media influence, need for (international) organizations or third parties, and information dissemination. What was consistent through the different years was that more than half of the students took a “neutral” position. A report was scored as “neutral” when the report included both the positive and negative side of an issue, or when the student could not make a definite decision about the use of GMOs and GM food. While it may be more difficult to defend a strong “for” or “against” position, some students used logical arguments successfully in doing so. Sample comments are presented to depict how Japanese students see agricultural technology, and how they value its application, with comparisons to the general social attitudes towards biotechnology.     

Immortality

In December, the President's Council on Bioethics released Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Here, Lustig discusses the six-part report that provides a balanced but critical assessment of actual and prospective developments in biotechnology and seeks to anchor its discussion in shared moral and metaphysical concerns--the nature of human nature, and the social and political implications of unfettered choices in altering the human prospect through biotechnology.     

Biotechnology and the New Right: Neoconservatism's Red Menace

Although the neoconservative movement has come to dominate American conservatism, this movement has its origins in the old Marxist Left. Communists in their younger days, as the founders of neoconservatism, inverted Marxist doctrine by arguing that moral values and not economic forces were the primary movers of history. Yet the neoconservative critique of biotechnology still borrows heavily from Karl Marx and owes more to the German philosopher Martin Heidegger than to the Scottish philosopher and political economist Adam Smith. Loath to identify these sources—or perhaps unaware of them—neoconservatives do not acknowledge these intellectual underpinnings or their implications. Thus, in the final analysis, their critique is incoherent and even internally inconsistent. By not acknowledging and embracing their intellectual roots, neoconservatives are left with a deeply ambivalent and often confused view of biotechnology and the society that gives rise to it.     

Respecting difference and moving beyond regulation: tasks for U.S. bioethics commissions in the twenty-first century

This article focuses on two possible missions for a national bioethics commission. The first is handling differences of worldview, political orientation, and discipline. Recent work in political philosophy emphasizes regard for the dignity of difference manifested in "conversation" that seeks understanding rather than agreement. The President's Council on Bioethics gets a mixed review in this area. The second is experimenting with prophetic bioethics. "Prophetic bioethics" is a term coined by Daniel Callahan to describe an alternative to compromise-seeking "regulatory bioethics." It involves a critique of modern medicine. In the contemporary context, the areas of biotechnology and access to health care cry out for prophetic attention. The Council has addressed biotechnology; unfortunately, that experience suggests that the kind of prophecy that it practices poses risks to conversation. With regard to access issues, the article proposes an effort that unites themes of human dignity, solidarity, and limits in support of reform, while highlighting, rather than papering over, differences.     

Panel report: Biotechnology Resources Program (BRP)

During the past few years it has become increasingly apparent that even some of the most distinguished biomedical research institutions throughout the country are unable to provide their member scientists with either up-to-date health-relevant research tools or the opportunity to collaborate with innovative experts at the technology/medicine interface. Accordingly, a concerted effort in Biotechnology Resource Sharing was initiated and promoted during fiscal year 1974 and will continue for the forseeable future. The objective is to effect a more nearly equitable distribution of highly specialized research support capabilities in the nation, including especially those institutions having limited biotechnology capabilities but strong biomedical research programs and compelling biotechnology needs.     

Biotechnology and the new right: neoconservatism's red menace

Although the neoconservative movement has come to dominate American conservatism, this movement has its origins in the old Marxist Left. Communists in their younger days, as the founders of neoconservatism, inverted Marxist doctrine by arguing that moral values and not economic forces were the primary movers of history. Yet the neoconservative critique of biotechnology still borrows heavily from Karl Marx and owes more to the German philosopher Martin Heidegger than to the Scottish philosopher and political economist Adam Smith. Loath to identify these sources--or perhaps unaware of them--neoconservatives do not acknowledge these intellectual underpinnings or their implications. Thus, in the final analysis, their critique is incoherent and even internally inconsistent. By not acknowledging and embracing their intellectual roots, neoconservatives are left with a deeply ambivalent and often confused view of biotechnology and the society that gives rise to it.     

A dualistic identity theory

Whilst it is accepted that humankind has been responsible for a considerable amount of environmental change, it is only recently that quantitative measures have been devised to express this. Such measures include a habitat index, the ecological footprint and the Living Planet Index. The applications and implications of these measures are discussed along with direct measures of changing atmospheric composition. All indicate that Europe is the most anthropogenically transformed continent and Australasia the least altered. In so far as a population increase of c. 36 per cent is likely to occur in the next 25 years, human induced environmental change is set to continue at a rapid pace. It is likely to be exacerbated by rapid industrialisation in some nations and increasing standards of living. Local, regional and international measures to curb environmental deterioration may temper this to a degree but new technologies e.g. biotechnology, may bring disadvantages as well as advantages.     

Infrastructure and Scaffolding: Interpretation and Change of Research Involving Human Genetic Information

This essay addresses the relationship of interpretation to change, at two levels. One level concerns the revolutionary claims of molecular biology and biotechnology about using genetic information, read literally or with a minimum of interpretation, to reshape human life. The other level concerns the relationship in social studies of science and technology (STS) between interpreting projects in the life sciences and influencing their direction. On that level, the essay is experimental, employing a series of vignettes that introduce themes and questions—scaffolding—intended to stimulate readers to make their own connections between interpretation and change, in science, STS, and society. The vignettes in Part 1, which range from treatment of individuals with PKU or MAOA genes to personalized medicine and biobanks, indicate in different ways that the use of genetic information always requires social infrastructure. Once attention is given to the actual or implied social infrastructure, the prospect of reshaping life using human genetic information raises more questions than it answers. This thread carries over into Part 2, which speaks to an area of STS that needs more development, namely, conceptualizing the structure of the social context of scientific and technological developments and the nature of human agency in the ongoing restructuring of that context. The vignettes create a picture in which the influence on science of an STS interpretation will, like any effort to produce change, depend on how it links with other engagements and with the heterogeneous components that make up ongoing, intersecting processes of science in society.     

The Tacit Epistemology of the GMO Debate: A Case Study

The issue of biotechnology has been chosen in the MIRRORS project in order to analyze the sometimes uneasy relationship between science and society. After analyzing the situation of biotechnology regarding the GMO debate in Spain, France and Italy during a previous MIRRORS Workshop (This MIRRORS Workshop is entitled European Policies and Knowledge Society, held in Catania on December 15th 2008, during the which the undersigned, Anna Benedetta Francese and Cinzia Rizza discussed three papers about this topic [see the MIRRORS website www.mirrors-project.it]), in this essay I have tried to tackle the relationship science–society, focalizing my attention on the epistemological and methodological problems behind the biotechnology debate that are often not clearly expressed, remaining mainly tacitly presupposed. I will take as a starting point some questions about the role of science in society and about the way science is used by policy makers in decision-making processes. These questions are fundamental in order to analyze (and possibly to propose salvation strategies) the existing problems of the relationship between science and society which has assumed, especially nowadays, more conflictual aspects. Our Research Team firmly holds that it is not possible to tackle this topic without an in-depth discussion of the most significant epistemological questions regarding research, discussions, and methods of biotechnology.     

Genetics, commodification, and social justice in the globalization era.

The commercialization of biotechnology, especially research and development by transnational pharmaceutical companies, is already excessive and is increasingly dangerous to distributive justice, human rights, and access of marginal populations to basic human goods. Focusing on gene patenting, this article employs the work of Margaret Jane Radin and others to argue that gene patenting ought to be more highly regulated and that it ought to be regulated with international participation and in view of concerns about solidarity and the common good. The mode of argument called for on this issue is more pragmatic than logical, emphasizing persuasion based on evidence about the reality and effects of control of genetic research by profit-driven biotech companies.