Defeaters to best interests reasoning in genetic enhancement

Pre-natal genetic enhancement affords us unprecedented capacity to shape our skills, talents, appearance and perhaps subsequently the quality of our lives in terms of overall happiness, success and wellbeing. Despite its powerful appeal, some have raised important and equally persuasive concerns against genetic enhancement. Sandel has argued that compassion and humility, themselves grounded in the unpredictability of talents and skills, would be lost. Habermas has argued that genetically altered individuals will see their lives as dictated by their parents’ design and therefore will not acquire an appropriate self-understanding. How should we view enhancement efforts in light of these concerns? I propose that we begin by adopting a defeasibility stance. That is, I ask whether our belief that genetic enhancements serve in the best interests of the child is reason to genetically enhance, underscoring a sort of epistemic vulnerability. I utilize the epistemological notions of defeasible reasons, undercutting (also called undermining) and overriding (or rebutting) defeaters in order to better understand and systematically evaluate the force of such concerns. I argue that close examination of both objections using this framework shows that we have reason to enhance, a reason that is defeasible but as yet, undefeated.     

A response to Penrose’s “Sandel on enhancement: A response to Van Niekerk”

In this article the author responds to Brian Penrose’s critical response to his (Van Niekerk’s) article “Biomedical enhancement and the pursuit of mastery and perfection: a critique of the views of Michael Sandel” that appeared in the PSSA conference edition of the SAJP 33(2), 2014. While Van Niekerk is appreciative of the opportunity for spirited dialogue that Penrose’s response provides, he nevertheless takes issue with several charges Penrose raises. He responds to Penrose’s claims that Van Niekerk does not fully understand “the Sandel project” and thus that Van Niekerk creates and shoots down a straw man in his argument against Sandel. Van Niekerk argues that Penrose’s claims are indicative of significant methodological differences between their respective approaches. Penrose acknowledges the “fuzziness” of Sandel’s arguments with regards to biomedical enhancement. He then develops an interpretation of Sandel’s views that claims to have “filled in the complete picture” of what Sandel attempts to do, and then reproaches Van Niekerk for not responding to that “completed picture”, i.e. the “Sandel project”. Van Niekerk finds this to be an unreasonable and methodologically highly problematic demand on him. Van Niekerk responds to a number of Penrose’s arguments, and then concludes that while there are, of course, good reasons to exercise caution at the prospect of biomedical enhancement with regard to its risks, the possibilities offered by enhancement need not elicit a prima facie reaction of pessimism. Rather, such prospects can also be regarded in a positive light as an exciting opportunity to take our own evolution in hand.     

Biomedical enhancement and the pursuit of mastery and perfection: a critique of the views of Michael Sandel

This article is a comprehensive critical analysis of the objections of Michael Sandel to the possibilities of human enhancement as foreseen by recent developments in new (particularly genetic) biotechnologies. It is shown that enhancement has always been a feature of human development. The nature and possibilities of these new technologies are briefly discussed, followed by an explanation of Sandel's views. In critical response to Sandel, the author raises three arguments that are discussed in detail, followed by a conclusion that contains wrap-up arguments. The three main arguments relate, first, to Sandel's rejection of enhancement tout court, second to the (in)consistency of his argument about the ‘gifted’ nature of reality, and third to the problems raised by his idea that the striving for mastery is the main problem with enhancement. On the basis of an extensive analysis, the author finds Sandel's position untenable. It is shown that Sandel espouses the ‘simple conservative argument’ (Buchanan). The author concludes that science and technology are not value free, and that the critical evaluation of enhancements cannot lead to an overall judgment, but has to progress in a piecemeal manner. The author also concludes that the notion of ‘human nature’ cannot be regarded as a moral desideratum.     

Mastery Without Mystery: Why there is no Promethean Sin in Enhancement

Several authors have suggested that we cannot fully grapple with the ethics of human enhancement unless we address neglected questions about our place in the world, questions that verge on theology but can be pursued independently of religion. A prominent example is Michael Sandel, who argues that the deepest objection to enhancement is that it expresses a Promethean drive to mastery which deprives us of openness to the unbidden and leaves us with nothing to affirm outside our own wills. Sandel's argument against enhancement has been criticized, but his claims about mastery and the unbidden, and their relation to religion, have not yet received sufficient attention. I argue that Sandel misunderstands the notions of mastery and the unbidden and their significance. Once these notions are properly understood, they have surprising implications. It turns out that the value of openness to the unbidden is not just independent of theism, as Sandel claims, but is in fact not even fully compatible with it. But in any case that value cannot support Sandel's objection to enhancement.This is because it is not enhancement but certain forms of opposition to enhancement that are most likely to express a pernicious drive to mastery.     

Sandel on enhancement: A response to Van Niekerk

Michael Sandel has criticised recent developments in, and towards, the biomedical enhancement of human beings. His view is criticised by Anton A. van Niekerk in a recent issue of this journal. Van Niekerk takes Sandel to task for rejecting enhancement tout court, for advancing inconsistencies, and for regarding enhancement as a “drive for mastery”. In this paper I argue that Van Niekerk’s critique fails. After discussing what we should mean by “enhancement”, and presenting an overview of what I call “the Sandelian picture” (of enhancement), I go on to address Van Niekerk’s criticisms. The first, I argue, either begs the question or attacks a straw person. The second pays insufficient attention to things Sandel says which, once on the table, leave his “inconsistency” critique inadequately argued for. The third also rests on misunderstandings and, as such, attacks a straw person. While stopping short of defending Sandel’s position outright, and allowing that Van Niekerk makes some important critical points, I maintain the three central criticisms fall short as an argued-for critique of Sandel’s view.     

Is there a problem with enhancement?

This article examines arguments concerning enhancement of human persons recently presented by Michael Sandel (2004). In the first section, I briefly describe some of his arguments. In section two, I consider whether, as Sandel claims, the desire for mastery motivates enhancement and whether such a desire could be grounds for its impermissibility. Section three considers how Sandel draws the distinction between treatment and enhancement, and the relation to nature that he thinks each expresses. The fourth section examines Sandel's views about parent/child relations and also how enhancement would affect distributive justice and the duty to aid. In conclusion, I briefly offer an alternative suggestion as to why enhancement may be troubling and consider what we could safely enhance.     

Human Enhancement,Social Solidarity and the Distribution of Responsibility

This paper tries to clarify, strengthen and respond to two prominent objections to the development and use of human enhancement technologies. Both objections express concerns about the link between enhancement and the drive for hyperagency (i.e. the ability to control and manipulate all aspects of one’s agency). The first derives from the work of Sandel and Hauskeller—and is concerned with the negative impact of hyperagency on social solidarity. In responding to their objection, I argue that although social solidarity is valuable, there is a danger in overestimating its value and in neglecting some obvious ways in which the enhancement project can be planned so as to avoid its degradation. The second objection, though common to several writers, has been most directly asserted by Saskia Nagel, and is concerned with the impact of hyperagency on the burden and distribution of responsibility. Though this is an intriguing objection, I argue that not enough has been done to explain why this is morally problematic. I try to correct for this flaw before offering a variety of strategies for dealing with the problems raised.     

Genetic modification and genetic determinism

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.     

Theory and Practice: Assessing the psychological presentation of gifted and talented clients: a multicultural perspective

Researchers suggest that gifted individuals have both strengths and areas of intrapersonal and interpersonal concerns as a result of their talents. The purpose of this paper is to apply a multicultural model of psychological assessment, the Multicultural Assessment Procedure (MAP), to better understand the social and emotional needs of gifted clients. This application is based on the following assumptions: a) giftedness is a sub-culture, b) people with special gifts also identify with and operate in multiple cultural contexts, and c) in order to be effective in working with gifted clients, one must accurately understand the interaction of the client’s multiple cultural identities. Implications for counselling practice are discussed.     

Bivariate estimates of giftedness

The bivariate normal probability distribution is presented as a method for estimating the prevalence of giftedness. The bivariate model requires the specification of two cutoff values for two selection variables and information regarding the size of the correlation between variables. The use and interpretation of bivariate estimates of the prevalence of giftedness is discussed.     

Haut potentiel intellectuel et développement social

The first part of this article presents a theoretical and empirical review on the issue of gifted children's social development. As a whole, data does not allow for straightforward conclusion as to whether gifted children may be socially at risk. Conflicting results may be due in part to heterogeneity across studies in sampling procedures and in assessing social adjustment. Next, we will examine how social skills development could be viewed as a potential domain for the expression of intellectual giftedness, in the light of theories that posit a multi-factorial view of intelligence or creativity. Accordingly, there may be a need to reconsider the notion of giftedness and thus take into account social giftedness, both for identification and education purposes.     

Brilliant: But What For? Meaning and Subjective Well-Being in the Lives of Intellectually Gifted and Academically High-Achieving Adults

Not much is known today about relationships between giftedness and well-being, particular among adults. The present article examined if highly gifted people manage to live meaningful and happy lives in their adult years. Two aspects of giftedness were taken into account: intellectual giftedness, and academically high achievement. Representatives of both groups were compared with each other and a control group with regard to meaningfulness and subjective well-being, respectively. Furthermore, predictors for both facets of well-being were examined. The sample consisted of 198 Intellectually Gifted, 141 academically High Achievers, and 136 control subjects. Results: High Achievers showed degrees of meaningfulness and subjective well-being that were comparable to those of the control group. The Intellectually Gifted, however, reported significantly lower values in both facets of well-being. Results of hierarchical multiple regressions indicated that Intellectually Gifted and High Achievers follow a different path towards meaningfulness and subjective well-being. Among the Intellectually Gifted, generativity is the strongest predictor for meaningfulness, whereas for the High Achievers, meaningful work is most central to their meaningfulness. As regards subjective well-being, self-compassion was established as the strongest predictor for the Intellectually Gifted, whereas development was the most important predictor for the High Achievers.     

Sex, handedness, mathematical ability, and biological causation

An important part of Benbow's (1988) assertion that sex differences in mathematical ability are primarily due to biological factors is the link between a trait that is assumed to reflect differences in brain organization (left-handedness) and mathematical giftedness. It is shown that the link between mathematical giftedness and an increased prevalence of left-handedness is not convincing. However, Benbow's (1986) data do show a convincing link between strong right-handedness and the lack of mathematical giftedness, in agreement with Annett and Manning's (1990a, 1990b) recent work.     

« Mon enfant est-il surdoué ? » Que demande-t-on ?

Is it possible to identify the specific characteristics as well as the scope of the phenomenon of demands concerning giftedness? The author presents and comments a set of data reflecting the activity of a Parisian consultation center over two separate years: 2004 (12% of the demands concern giftedness) and 2006 (11% of the demands concern giftedness). The psychometrical investigations are based on the Wechsler Scales (WISC-III; WISC-IV). The percentage of demands related to giftedness is quite high as compared to other motives. It mainly concerns children who do not show what are called “very superior” intellectual abilities. The development of certain social stereotypes could be an explanation.     

Les caractéristiques émotionnelles des enfants à haut potentiel

Most theoretical accounts of giftedness now include an emotional as well as an intellectual component. Yet the multi-dimensional nature of giftedness has often been overlooked in the field of education. According to practitioners, gifted children not only think differently but also feel in other ways. From this point of view, the intellectual complexity interacts with emotional intensity to provide a qualitatively different way of experiencing the world, which leads to the production of the gifted child’s greater potential for high achievement. This paper will focus on emotional features of gifted individuals, and how they could be used to complete current measures and to enrich the concept of giftedness.     

L'identification des enfants à haut potentiel : Quelles perspectives pour l'approche psychométrique ?

The identification of gifted children is a paradoxical issue in the scientific literature. This topic is largely underrepresented, in spite of the complexity of the questions it raises. The concept of identification of giftedness is a multifaceted topic. From a theoretical point of view, the definitions of giftedness diverge. From a methodological point of view, the domains of measurement, the techniques of evaluation and the criteria used are also extremely variable. The limits of the “traditional” psychometric approach to giftedness are presented starting from the example of the WISC. Several questions are addressed: the value of the identification threshold, the relevance of available norms and psychometric qualities of this test. Finally, prospects offered by Item Response Models to renew the psychometric approach to the identification of giftedness are considered.     

The origins and ends of giftedness

Five issues about giftedness are discussed. First, the origins of giftedness are explored. The view that giftedness is entirely a product of training is critiqued. There is indirect evidence for atypical brain organization and innate talent in gifted children: Many gifted children and savants have enhanced right-hemisphere development, language-related difficulties, and autoimmune disorders. Second, the intense motivation of gifted children is discussed. Third, it is argued that gifted children have social and emotional difficulties that set them apart. Fourth, evidence for the often uneven cognitive profiles of such children is presented. Finally, the relationship between childhood giftedness and "domain" creativity in adulthood is discussed. Few gifted children go on to become adult creators because the skills and personality factors required to be a creator are very different from those typical of even the most highly gifted children.     

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students

ABSTRACT

This article offers a set of recommended best practices in the identification of students who are gifted and talented. The article recommends that school psychologists gain familiarity with gifted children and their families, recognize the multiple manifestations of giftedness and the developmental nature of talent development, link identification to intervention, employ multiple assessment measures, include the assessment of motivation, consider social and emotional needs, and monitor the recommended interventions. The article also reviews recurring issues that adversely impact upon the provision of gifted services in the public schools. These issues include society not viewing the gifted as a high-priority special needs group, definitions of giftedness that vary across states, differing expert opinions on what giftedness represents, uncertainty about prevalence rates, under-representation of certain groups of gifted students, the role of creativity, and whether gifted education should be a part of special education.     

Perceptions de la douance chez les élèves doués dans un centre de services scolaires québécois

This study aims to explore the perceptions of giftedness among 24 gifted students aged 6 to 11 from a Quebec School Board. Subject to an exploratory lexical analysis (using ALCESTE software) and a thematic analysis (using NVivo software), the results highlight the inherent plurality of perceptions of giftedness within a group of gifted students. In addition, the intellectual and socioaffective dimensions are at the heart of how these students perceive their status as gifted children/students. Questioning the perceptions of giftedness with this population allows us to consider the reality of these young people in all its diversity but also highlights their particular needs.     

Introduction : hauts potentiels et talents : la position actuelle du problème

In this introduction to the special issue on giftedness of the review Psychologie Française, the evolution of ideas on intelligence is first discussed. The broadening of the concept of intelligence and the distinction between different kinds of intelligence have indeed some consequences for the definition and for the assessment of giftedness. Some general remarks are then made on the current state of the art in the research on giftedness, in France and in the world, before introducing the various contributions gathered in this special issue.