This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/16/observer-editorial-biotechnology-ethics

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ethics: the questions posed by our bionic bodies Ethics: the questions posed by our bionic bodies
(4 months later)
In the cult 1970s television show, The Six Million Dollar Man, astronaut Steve Austin (Lee Majors) is shown crash-landing on Earth, then being whisked into an operating theatre. "Gentleman, we have the capability to make the world's first bionic man," intones the narrator over the opening credits. "Steve Austin will be that man… Better, stronger, faster."In the cult 1970s television show, The Six Million Dollar Man, astronaut Steve Austin (Lee Majors) is shown crash-landing on Earth, then being whisked into an operating theatre. "Gentleman, we have the capability to make the world's first bionic man," intones the narrator over the opening credits. "Steve Austin will be that man… Better, stronger, faster."
Today, as our profile in the New Review of Bertolt Meyer, a young Swiss man whose life has been transformed by a £30,000 prosthetic device, shows, this bionic future is fast becoming a reality – and for a lot less than $6m. From artificial hearts that greatly extend human life spans, to drugs such as modafinil that enhance cognitive function, to nano implants that can detect the presence of cancer-causing enzymes, to gene tests for Huntington's and other rare genetic disorders, we are approaching the point at which medical technology can not only rebuild us but may actually be able to make us "better than well". Science and technology are moving from repairing us to enhancing us.Today, as our profile in the New Review of Bertolt Meyer, a young Swiss man whose life has been transformed by a £30,000 prosthetic device, shows, this bionic future is fast becoming a reality – and for a lot less than $6m. From artificial hearts that greatly extend human life spans, to drugs such as modafinil that enhance cognitive function, to nano implants that can detect the presence of cancer-causing enzymes, to gene tests for Huntington's and other rare genetic disorders, we are approaching the point at which medical technology can not only rebuild us but may actually be able to make us "better than well". Science and technology are moving from repairing us to enhancing us.
The question is, should we embrace these posthuman futures or should we be worried about them? And what happens when these technologies and machines get so smart that humans can be written out of the equation altogether? Do we really want our iPhones to be our doctors, scanning our bodies for viruses, suggesting appropriate medication that can then be accessed via a 3D printer? This is a neat and frictionless way of interaction. But it might also be inadequate for the large number of patients who go to their GP looking for a social encounter and advice – the concerned teen, the stressed adult, the lonely and frail elderly, not to mention those with more severe emotional and psychological conditions. What price a real-life therapeutic encounter?The question is, should we embrace these posthuman futures or should we be worried about them? And what happens when these technologies and machines get so smart that humans can be written out of the equation altogether? Do we really want our iPhones to be our doctors, scanning our bodies for viruses, suggesting appropriate medication that can then be accessed via a 3D printer? This is a neat and frictionless way of interaction. But it might also be inadequate for the large number of patients who go to their GP looking for a social encounter and advice – the concerned teen, the stressed adult, the lonely and frail elderly, not to mention those with more severe emotional and psychological conditions. What price a real-life therapeutic encounter?
In Switzerland, which leads the way in human enhancement technologies and therapies, worries about the abuse of Ritalin – a drug marketed by the Swiss company Novartis for the treatment of ADD but now used by increasing numbers of adolescents to boost exam performance – have already prompted calls for greater regulation. In the UK, similar concerns about the ethical issues raised by enhancement technologies and their scope for exacerbating inequalities in the workplace have been voiced by the Academy of Medical Sciences. As Britain's population ages – there are currently 10 million Britons over the age of 65; by 2050 there could be 20 million – and people revise their expectations about the length of their working lives and their right to access health technologies in old age, these issues will only become more acute.In Switzerland, which leads the way in human enhancement technologies and therapies, worries about the abuse of Ritalin – a drug marketed by the Swiss company Novartis for the treatment of ADD but now used by increasing numbers of adolescents to boost exam performance – have already prompted calls for greater regulation. In the UK, similar concerns about the ethical issues raised by enhancement technologies and their scope for exacerbating inequalities in the workplace have been voiced by the Academy of Medical Sciences. As Britain's population ages – there are currently 10 million Britons over the age of 65; by 2050 there could be 20 million – and people revise their expectations about the length of their working lives and their right to access health technologies in old age, these issues will only become more acute.
At the heart of the concerns is the way that rapid advances in fields as diverse as robotics, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology are blurring the line between the restoration of healthy function and enhanced performance – whether that performance is measured in the workplace, on the sporting field, or in the bedroom (Botox and Viagra can also be considered forms of enhancement). It is one thing for someone with a hormonal imbalance to take an anabolic steroid to restore muscle function; quite another for an athlete to secretly take a performance-enhancing drug.At the heart of the concerns is the way that rapid advances in fields as diverse as robotics, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology are blurring the line between the restoration of healthy function and enhanced performance – whether that performance is measured in the workplace, on the sporting field, or in the bedroom (Botox and Viagra can also be considered forms of enhancement). It is one thing for someone with a hormonal imbalance to take an anabolic steroid to restore muscle function; quite another for an athlete to secretly take a performance-enhancing drug.
Then there is the question whether, as bionic technology improves, we would be comfortable with someone electing to amputate a functional but sub-optimal limb and replacing it with a "stronger" bionic one? At the moment, thankfully, technology has not reached that point, but it is not inconceivable that in the not too distant future it will. Meanwhile, lurking behind these ethical dilemmas, is the suspicion that tech and pharma companies stand to make millions from pushing these questionable technologies and therapies, thereby widening the gap between the "superhuman haves" and the "human have-nots". Or will the cost of enhancement create a gated community of "superbeings" who are, literally, better, stronger, faster. And brighter? We don't yet know the answers, but we can be sure that the science and technologies of the near future will present us with these ethical and moral dilemmas.Then there is the question whether, as bionic technology improves, we would be comfortable with someone electing to amputate a functional but sub-optimal limb and replacing it with a "stronger" bionic one? At the moment, thankfully, technology has not reached that point, but it is not inconceivable that in the not too distant future it will. Meanwhile, lurking behind these ethical dilemmas, is the suspicion that tech and pharma companies stand to make millions from pushing these questionable technologies and therapies, thereby widening the gap between the "superhuman haves" and the "human have-nots". Or will the cost of enhancement create a gated community of "superbeings" who are, literally, better, stronger, faster. And brighter? We don't yet know the answers, but we can be sure that the science and technologies of the near future will present us with these ethical and moral dilemmas.
Some transhumanist thinkers, such as Nick Bostrom, argue that we should not be overly concerned, pointing out, for instance, that we are still some way from creating a prosthesis that is better than the human version. "In the long run, technology will surpass our biological nature, but we should not underestimate the technical challenges in getting to that stage," he says.Some transhumanist thinkers, such as Nick Bostrom, argue that we should not be overly concerned, pointing out, for instance, that we are still some way from creating a prosthesis that is better than the human version. "In the long run, technology will surpass our biological nature, but we should not underestimate the technical challenges in getting to that stage," he says.
The real issue, he suggests, is fairness. Thus we can all see that it would be unfair if Oscar Pistorius were the only athelete permitted to wear carbon-flex blades. But in a future "Bionic Olympics", where every disabled athlete could avail themselves of the same technology, his positional advantage, and our objections, would disappear. Similarly, no one objects any longer to vaccination. Yet, when Edward Jenner unveiled his cowpox vaccine in 1797, it raised very similar dystopian fears about the border between human and non-human animals. The difference today is that, instead of worrying we might sprout cow heads, we are more likely to worry about being transformed into machines.The real issue, he suggests, is fairness. Thus we can all see that it would be unfair if Oscar Pistorius were the only athelete permitted to wear carbon-flex blades. But in a future "Bionic Olympics", where every disabled athlete could avail themselves of the same technology, his positional advantage, and our objections, would disappear. Similarly, no one objects any longer to vaccination. Yet, when Edward Jenner unveiled his cowpox vaccine in 1797, it raised very similar dystopian fears about the border between human and non-human animals. The difference today is that, instead of worrying we might sprout cow heads, we are more likely to worry about being transformed into machines.
But would this really be such a bad thing? After all, our waking lives are increasingly spent glued to iPhones and iPads because of the access they give us to the vast computing power of the internet. It is a short step from these prosthetic devices that reside on the borders of the body to neural implants and the transhuman future imagined in The Matrix, in which we become one with a machine by collapsing our consciousness into a digital substrate.But would this really be such a bad thing? After all, our waking lives are increasingly spent glued to iPhones and iPads because of the access they give us to the vast computing power of the internet. It is a short step from these prosthetic devices that reside on the borders of the body to neural implants and the transhuman future imagined in The Matrix, in which we become one with a machine by collapsing our consciousness into a digital substrate.
Such questions are likely to be hotly debated at FutureFest in September, the bioscience and technologies conference hosted by Nesta (and with the Observer as media partner). As one of the invited speakers, the transhumanist thinker Andy Miah, puts it, the revolution in human enhancement technologies is showing us that, like Bertolt Meyer, "we are all disabled" to some extent. That is why he thinks we should not assume the future will be all bad. On the contrary, he says, it could prove a profoundly humbling experience. And, while those who can afford the new enhancement technologies may gain a short-term advantage, he expects that there will be a strong public health argument to make them available to everyone. But that assumes that the debate about the undoubted benefits of the advances in robotics, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology takes place at the intersection of public and private interests, and is not one driven solely by corporate ambition and shareholder interest.Such questions are likely to be hotly debated at FutureFest in September, the bioscience and technologies conference hosted by Nesta (and with the Observer as media partner). As one of the invited speakers, the transhumanist thinker Andy Miah, puts it, the revolution in human enhancement technologies is showing us that, like Bertolt Meyer, "we are all disabled" to some extent. That is why he thinks we should not assume the future will be all bad. On the contrary, he says, it could prove a profoundly humbling experience. And, while those who can afford the new enhancement technologies may gain a short-term advantage, he expects that there will be a strong public health argument to make them available to everyone. But that assumes that the debate about the undoubted benefits of the advances in robotics, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology takes place at the intersection of public and private interests, and is not one driven solely by corporate ambition and shareholder interest.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.