About this topic
Summary The concept of human biological enhancement has been used to describe the augmentation of human capacities based on some sort of biological manipulation. By and large, most philosophers work with one or the other of the following two definitions of human biological enhancement: (A) improving the well-being of persons, including the removal of disabilities defined as bio-social obstacles that reduce human well-being; (B) expanding or augmenting human capacities. These two definitions have different intentions and (arguably) different extensions since many people deny that expanding or augmenting human capacities (especially in the normal range) improves well-being and has much in common with removing disability. Some authors and authorities use "enhancement" and "therapy" as mutually excluding categories ("enhancement" being the biomedical improvement of normal or healthy human traits), others do not. Most of the arguments in this area have been initially developed within the debate on eugenics and human genetic enhancement, and some of them also belong to the broader emerging field of "neuroethics". (Hence the reader will notice a significant overlap between these phil-paper categories). Beside the genetic case, enhancement ranges from everyday cognitive stimulants (coffee), to doping in sport competitions, and off label drugs, such as methylphenidate (to prolong the attention span). Social network, education, and brain stimulation have also all been regarded as enhancements. More controversially, bioethicists have discussed "affective enhancement" (the use of oxytocin to improve relationships) and "moral enhancement", i.e. the use of all possible means (including pharmacological stimulants) to improve the moral quality of human choices. Part of the current debate elaborates the concerns of the ideology of "transhumanism" (with non strictly academic ramifications), advocating the use of biotechnology to radically transcend the present human condition.  
Key works The early literature on biological enhancement overlaps with that on eugenic selection (Savulescu 2001) and human genetic enhancement (Harris 1992Buchanan et al 2000Fukuyama 2002Habermas 2003). In the most recent literature, the ideas of moral enhancement (Douglas 2008), the relation between enhancement, Darwinian evolution, and moral status (Buchanan 2011, Douglas 2013), justice and human development (Buchanan 2008), the issue of enhancement in sport (Tamburrini & Tännsjö 2005, Miah ms) are developed further. The idea of enhancement is also used to advance the conceptual debate on disability, normal functioning, and well-being (Kahane & Savulescu 2012, Savulescu 2009, Kahane & Savulescu 2009). For a discussion of transhumanism and radical enhancement (creating abilities that do not belong to the biological repertoire of the species homo sapiens), see, respectively, Bostrom 2003, Miah 2008
Introductions Bostrom & Roache 2007 Buchanan 2009 Chadwick 2011 Miah unknown
  Show all references
Related categories
Siblings:See also:
151 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 151
  1. Keith Abney (2008). Review of The Case Against Perfection. [REVIEW] Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 2 (3).
    Sandel's book argues against genetic enhancement as an illegitimate expression of a drive to human mastery and a rejection of the proper appreciation of the gift of life. His view combines bad theology with bad virtue ethics, and exemplifies the problem of status quo bias in ethics.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. N. Agar (2015). Moral Bioenhancement is Dangerous. Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (4):343-345.
  3. N. Agar (2014). A Question About Defining Moral Bioenhancement. Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (6):369-370.
    David DeGrazia1 offers, to my mind, a decisive response to the bioconservative suggestion that moral bioenhancement threatens human freedom or undermines its value. In this brief commentary, I take issue with DeGrazia's way of defining MB. A different concept of MB exposes a danger missed by his analysis.Two ways to define MBDeGrazia presents MB as a form of enhancement directed at moral capacities. There are, in the philosophical literature, two broad approaches to defining human enhancement. Simplifying somewhat, one account identifies (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. N. Agar (2013). Why is It Possible to Enhance Moral Status and Why Doing so is Wrong? Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (2):67-74.
    This paper presents arguments for two claims. First, post-persons, beings with a moral status superior to that of mere persons, are possible. Second, it would be bad to create such beings. Actions that risk bringing them into existence should be avoided. According to Allen Buchanan, it is possible to enhance moral status up to the level of personhood. But attempts to improve status beyond that fail for want of a target - there is no category of moral status superior to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. N. Agar (2013). Still Afraid of Needy Post-Persons. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (2):81-83.
    I want to thank all of those who have commented on my article in the Journal of Medical Ethics.1 The commentaries address a wide cross-section of the issues raised in my article. I have organised my responses thematically.The state of playAllen Buchanan's scepticism2 about moral statuses higher than personhood derives, in part, from our apparent inability to describe them. We seem to have little difficulty in imagining what it might be to have scientific understanding far beyond that of any human (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. N. Agar (2012). Why We Can't Really Say What Post-Persons Are. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (3):144-145.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Nicholas Agar (2015). Moral Bioenhancement and the Utilitarian Catastrophe. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (1):37-47.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Nicholas Agar (2013). We Must Not Create Beings with Moral Standing Superior to Our Own. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (11):709-709.
    Ingmar Persson challenges1 an argument in my book Humanity's End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement2 that harms predictably suffered by unenhanced humans justify banning radical enhancement. Here I understand radical enhancement as producing beings with mental and physical capacities that greatly exceed those of the most capable current human. I called these results of radical enhancement posthumans, though I think that Persson may be right that this is not the most felicitous name for them.The focus of my argument was (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Nicholas Agar (2011). Sport, Simulation, and EPO. In Gregory E. Kaebnick (ed.), The Ideal of Nature: Debates About Biotechnology and the Environment. Johns Hopkins University Press 149.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Nicholas Agar (2008). Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. John Wiley & Sons.
    In this provocative book, philosopher Nicholas Agar defends the idea that parents should be allowed to enhance their children’s characteristics.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   28 citations  
  11. Nicholas Agar (2007). Human Vs. Posthuman-Reply. Hastings Center Report 37 (5):5-6.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Nicholas Agar (2007). Whereto Transhumanism? The Literature Reaches a Critical Mass. Hastings Center Report 37 (3):12-17.
  13. Nicholas Agar (2002). The Problem with Nature. Hastings Center Report 32 (6):39-40.
  14. Fritz Allhoff (2005). Germ-Line Genetic Enhancement and Rawlsian Primary Goods. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (1):39-56.
    : Genetic interventions raise a host of moral issues and, of its various species, germ-line genetic enhancement is the most morally contentious. This paper surveys various arguments against germ-line enhancement and attempts to demonstrate their inadequacies. A positive argument is advanced in favor of certain forms of germ-line enhancements, which holds that they are morally permissible if and only if they augment Rawlsian primary goods, either directly or by facilitating their acquisition.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  15. Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin & Jesse Steinberg (2011). Ethics of Human Enhancement: An Executive Summary. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (2):201-212.
    With multi-year funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), a team of researchers has just released a comprehensive report detailing ethical issues arising from human enhancement (Allhoff et al. 2009). While we direct the interested reader to that (much longer) report, we also thank the editors of this journal for the invitation to provide an executive summary thereof. This summary highlights key results from each section of that report and does so in a self-standing way; in other words, this (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  16. Mahesh Ananth (2016). Gregory E. Kaebnick and Thomas H. Murray, Eds., Synthetic Biology and Morality: Artificial Life and the Bounds of Nature. [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 50 (1):241-248.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Jonny Anomaly (2014). Public Goods and Procreation. Monash Bioethics Review 32:172-188.
    Procreation is the ultimate public goods problem. Each new child affects the welfare of many other people, and some (but not all) children produce uncompensated value that future people will enjoy. This essay addresses challenges that arise if we think of procreation and parenting as public goods. These include whether private choices are likely to lead to a socially desirable outcome over the long run, and whether changes in laws, social norms, or access to genetic engineering and embryo selection might (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Jonny Anomaly (2013). Review of Michael Hauskeller, Better Humans? Understanding the Enhancement Project. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Jonny Anomaly (2012). Review of Allen Buchanan, Beyond Humanity? The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement. [REVIEW] Bioethics 26 (7):391-392.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Y. S. J. Aquino & N. Steinkamp (2016). Borrowed Beauty? Understanding Identity in Asian Facial Cosmetic Surgery. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy (3):1-11.
    This review aims to identify (1) sources of knowledge and (2) important themes of the ethical debate related to surgical alteration of facial features in East Asians. This article integrates narrative and systematic review methods. In March 2014, we searched databases including PubMed, Philosopher’s Index, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, and Communication Abstracts using key terms “cosmetic surgery,” “ethnic*,” “ethics,” “Asia*,” and “Western*.” The study included all types of papers written in English that discuss the debate on rhinoplasty and blepharoplasty (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Alfred Archer (2016). Moral Enhancement and Those Left Behind. Bioethics 30 (7):500-510.
    Opponents to genetic or biomedical human enhancement often claim that the availability of these technologies would have negative consequences for those who either choose not to utilize these resources or lack access to them. However, Thomas Douglas has argued that this objection has no force against the use of technologies that aim to bring about morally desirable character traits, as the unenhanced would benefit from being surrounded by such people. I will argue that things are not as straightforward as Douglas (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. M. Ángeles Arráez, Miguel Moreno, Francisco Lara, Pedro Francés & Javier Rodríguez Alcázar (2010). Bioethics and Human Enhancement: An Interview with Julian Savulescu. Dilemata 3:15-25.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. John Banja (2011). Virtue Essentialism, Prototypes, and the Moral Conservative Opposition to Enhancement Technologies: A Neuroethical Critique. AJOB Neuroscience 2 (2):31-38.
    Moral conservatives such as the ones who served on George W. Bush’s President’s Councils on Bioethics are known to be cautious about if not categorically opposed to enhancement technologies. This article examines the argumentative styles of two of the best known of these scholars, Leon Kass and Michael Sandel, as gleaned from essays they authored while serving on Bush’s councils. The goal of this essay is to evaluate their argumentative approach opposing enhancement, which I call “virtue essentialism.” Using a critical (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Theodore M. Benditt (2007). Normality, Disease, and Enhancement. In Harold Kincaid & Jennifer McKitrick (eds.), Establishing Medical Reality: Essays in the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Biomedical Science. Springer 13-21.
    The vagueness or imprecision of ‘the normal’ allows it to be exploited for various purposes and political ends. It is conspicuous in both medicine and athletics; I am going to try to say something about the normal in each of these areas. In medicine the idea of the normal is often deployed in understanding what constitutes disease and hence, as some see it, in determining the role of physicians, in determining what is or ought to be covered by insurance, and (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. G. Bognar (2012). Human Enhancement, Edited by Julian Savulescu and Nick Bostrom. [REVIEW] Mind 121 (481):225-229.
  26. Nick Bostrom (2003). Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective. [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 37 (4):493-506.
    Transhumanism is a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually over the past two decades. It promotes an interdisciplinary approach to understanding and evaluating the opportunities for enhancing the human condition and the human organism opened up by the advancement of technology. Attention is given to both present technologies, like genetic engineering and information technology, and anticipated future ones, such as molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   17 citations  
  27. Nick Bostrom & Rebecca Roache (2007). Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement. In J. Ryberg, T. Petersen & C. Wolf (eds.), New Waves in Applied Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan 120--152.
    Human enhancement has emerged in recent years as a blossoming topic in applied ethics. With continuing advances in science and technology, people are beginning to realize that some of the basic parameters of the human condition might be changed in the future. One important way in which the human condition could be changed is through the enhancement of basic human capacities. If this becomes feasible within the lifespan of many people alive today, then it is important now to consider the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  28. Nick Bostrom & Anders Sandberg (2009). The Wisdom of Nature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement. In Julian Savulescu & Nick Bostrom (eds.), Human Enhancement. OUP Oxford 375--416.
  29. Nick Bostrom & Julian Savulescu (2009). Human Enhancement Ethics: The State of the Debate. In . Oxford University Press 1--22.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  30. Iain Brassington (2010). Enhancing Evolution and "Enhancing Evolution". Bioethics 24 (8):395-402.
    It has been claimed in several places that the new genetic technologies allow humanity to achieve in a generation or two what might take natural selection hundreds of millennia in respect of the elimination of certain diseases and an increase in traits such as intelligence. More radically, it has been suggested that those same technologies could be used to instil characteristics that we might reasonably expect never to appear due to natural selection alone. John Harris, a proponent of this genomic (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Allen Buchanan (2009). Human Nature and Enhancement. Bioethics 23 (3):141-150.
    Appeals to the idea of human nature are frequent in the voluminous literature on the ethics of enhancing human beings through biotechnology. Two chief concerns about the impact of enhancements on human nature have been voiced. The first is that enhancement may alter or destroy human nature. The second is that if enhancement alters or destroys human nature, this will undercut our ability to ascertain the good because, for us, the good is determined by our nature. The first concern assumes (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  32. Allen Buchanan (2008). Enhancement and the Ethics of Development. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (1):pp. 1-34.
    Much of the debate about the ethics of enhancement has proceeded according to two framing assumptions. The first is that although enhancement carries large social risks, the chief benefits of enhancement are to those who are enhanced (or their parents, in the case of enhancing the traits of children). The second is that, because we now understand the wrongs of state-driven eugenics, enhancements, at least in liberal societies, will be personal goods, chosen or not chosen in a market for enhancement (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  33. Allen E. Buchanan (2011). Beyond Humanity?: The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement. Oxford University Press.
    In Beyond Humanity a leading philosopher offers a powerful and controversial exploration of urgent ethical issues concerning human enhancement.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   24 citations  
  34. Laura Y. Cabrera, Nicholas S. Fitz & Peter B. Reiner (2015). Empirical Support for the Moral Salience of the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction in the Debate Over Cognitive, Affective and Social Enhancement. Neuroethics 8 (3):243-256.
    The ambiguity regarding whether a given intervention is perceived as enhancement or as therapy might contribute to the angst that the public expresses with respect to endorsement of enhancement. We set out to develop empirical data that explored this. We used Amazon Mechanical Turk to recruit participants from Canada and the United States. Each individual was randomly assigned to read one vignette describing the use of a pill to enhance one of 12 cognitive, affective or social domains. The vignettes described (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35. J. Adam Carter & Duncan Pritchard (forthcoming). The Epistemology of Cognitive Enhancement. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.
    A common epistemological assumption in contemporary bioethics held b y both proponents and critics of non-traditional forms of cognitive enhancement is that cognitive enhancement aims at the facilitation of the accumulation of human knowledge. This paper does three central things. First, drawing from recent work in epistemology, a rival account of cognitive enhancement, framed in terms of the notion of cognitive achievement rather than knowledge, is proposed. Second, we outline and respond to an axiological objection to our proposal that draws (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Ruth Chadwick (2011). Enhancements: Improvements for Whom? Bioethics 25 (4):ii-ii.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Sarah Chan & John Harris (2007). In Support of Human Enhancement. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1 (1).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  38. V. T. Cheshko, L. V. Ivanitskaya & V. I. Glazko (2016). EVOLUTIONARY RISK OF HIGH HUME TECHNOLOGIES. Article 3. EVOLUTIONARY SEMANTICS AND BIOETHICS. Integrative Annthropology (1):21-27.
    The co-evolutionary concept of three-modal stable evolutionary strategy of Homo sapiens is developed. The concept based on the principle of evolutionary complementarity of anthropogenesis: value of evolutionary risk and evolutionary path of human evolution are defined by descriptive (evolutionary efficiency) and creative-teleological (evolutionary correctness) parameters simultaneously, that cannot be instrumental reduced to other ones. Resulting volume of both parameters define the vectors of biological, social, cultural and techno-rationalistic human evolution by two gear mechanism — genetic and cultural co-evolution and techno-humanitarian (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Stephen R. L. Clark (1995). How to Live Forever: Science Fiction and Philosophy. Routledge.
    Immortality has long preoccupied everyone from alchemists to science fiction writers. In this intriguing investigation, Stephen Clark contends that the genre of science fiction writing enables the investigation of philosophical questions about immortality without the constraints of academic philosophy. He shows how fantasy accounts of phenomena such as resurrection, outer body experience, reincarnation or life extending medicines can be related to philosophy in interesting ways. Reading Western myths such as that of vampire, he examines the ways fear and hopes of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  40. Mark Coeckelbergh (2011). Human Development or Human Enhancement? A Methodological Reflection on Capabilities and the Evaluation of Information Technologies. Ethics and Information Technology 13 (2):81-92.
    Nussbaum’s version of the capability approach is not only a helpful approach to development problems but can also be employed as a general ethical-anthropological framework in ‘advanced’ societies. This paper explores its normative force for evaluating information technologies, with a particular focus on the issue of human enhancement. It suggests that the capability approach can be a useful way of to specify a workable and adequate level of analysis in human enhancement discussions, but argues that any interpretation of what these (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41. G. K. D. Crozier & Christopher Hajzler (2010). Market Stimulus and Genomic Justice: Evaluating the Effects of Market Access to Human Germ-Line Enhancement. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (2):161-179.
    In the debates surrounding the ethical dimensions of interventions in the human genome, much attention is paid to determining whether—and if so, how—market access to these technologies ought to be managed in order to maximize social benefit. There are those who advocate a “laissez-faire” free-market approach to the development and use of genetic and genomic interventions. We are sympathetic to this view insofar as we understand the workings of the market stimulus effect. We use the term “market stimulus effect” to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. Parker Crutchfield (2015). The Epistemology of Moral Bioenhancement. Bioethics 30 (5):n/a-n/a.
    Moral bioenhancement is the potential practice of manipulating individuals’ moral behaviors by biological means in order to help resolve pressing moral issues such as climate change and terrorism. This practice has obvious ethical implications, and these implications have been and continue to be discussed in the bioethics literature. What have not been discussed are the epistemological implications of moral bioenhancement. This article details some of these implications of engaging in moral bioenhancement. The argument begins by making the distinction between moral (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. Anthony Mark Cutter & Bert Gordijn (2007). Questions of Human Enhancement: An Editorial. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1 (1).
    Introducing a special issue of a journal is a difficult, but pleasurable task for any editor. One must chose what to say about the themes of the issue, and how to introduce the papers presented. However, this task becomes still more complex when the special issue in question forms the inaugural issue of a new journal. This is the case here as we find ourselves introducing "Questions in Human Enhancement" as the inaugural issue of Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. John Danaher (2016). Human Enhancement, Social Solidarity and the Distribution of Responsibility. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (2):359-378.
    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. 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 (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. John Danaher (2016). Should We Use Commitment Contracts to Regulate Student Use of Cognitive Enhancing Drugs? Bioethics 30 (7):568-578.
    Are universities justified in trying to regulate student use of cognitive enhancing drugs? In this article I argue that they can be, but that the most appropriate kind of regulatory intervention is likely to be voluntary in nature. To be precise, I argue that universities could justifiably adopt a commitment contract system of regulation wherein students are encouraged to voluntarily commit to not using cognitive enhancing drugs. If they are found to breach that commitment, they should be penalized by, for (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Norman Daniels (2000). Normal Functioning and the Treatment-Enhancement Distinction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9 (3):309--322.
    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.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   20 citations  
  47. Aubrey de Grey (2003). Fear of Misrepresentation Cannot Justify Silence About Foreseeable Life-Extension Biotechnology. Bioessays 25 (1):94-95.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Inmaculada de Melo-Martin & Arleen Salles (2015). Moral Bioenhancement: Much Ado About Nothing? Bioethics 29 (4):223-232.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  49. D. DeGrazia (2014). Moral Enhancement, Freedom, and What We (Should) Value in Moral Behaviour. Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (6):361-368.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  50. Candice Delmas (2012). Enhancing Human Capacities – Edited by J. Savulescu, R. Ter Meulen & G. Kahane. [REVIEW] Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (2):162-165.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 151