|Abstract||At a meeting of the American Society for Value Inquiry in Chicago last spring, and again at a conference on biomedical ethics last fall in London, Ontario, David J. Roy, Head of the Institute for Medical Humanities, University of Montreal, described a developing situation in the biomedical technologies about which he and many of his colleagues in the profession share an enormous apprehension. The biomedical sciences have in their possession, in development, and on the drawing boards a technology that has the potential of enabling us to alter much of what has to date been seen as fundamental givens and fixed points of the human situation, from the forms of human reproduction, through the frequency of distribution of various human characteristics, to those very characteristics themselves. His question , in the form of a plea, was this: it is becoming desperately urgent that scientists and technologists in these fields be given guidance about what they are doing; the sense is that what can be done ranges far beyond what should be done, and that the technological imperative (do what technology makes possible) and the epistemological imperative (find a use for what we know) are so strong that, in the absence of a normative consensus of what it is to be human, these sciences and technologies may well have a transforming impact upon a society that is not prepared to control them. When it becomes possible to eliminate the traditional and biological form of human reproduction, with the development of in vitro fertilization and the artificial placenta, shall we? When it becomes possible to eliminate deleterious genes from the human gene pool (or to limit their occurrence to the level of chance mutation), shall we? When it becomes possible to enable parents to select in advance characteristics of their offspring, from sex to hair and eye color, and perhaps even to influence the polygenic determinate and determinable characteristics of race, stature, aggressiveness, intelligence and talent, to the point that we can influence the distribution of propensities and abilities in the population to fit more closely the manpower needs of our society, shall we? Shall we breed astronauts, musicians..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Katinka Waelbers (2009). From Assigning to Designing Technological Agency. [REVIEW] Human Studies 32 (2):241 - 250.
Zsófia Ruttkay (2009). Cultural Dialects of Real and Synthetic Emotional Facial Expressions. AI and Society 24 (3):307-315.
Mark Rice (2011). The Institutional Review Board is an Impediment to Human Research: The Result is More Animal-Based Research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 6 (1):12-.
Dietrich Brandt & Janko Cernetic (1998). Human-Centred Appraoches to Control and Information Technology: European Experiences. [REVIEW] AI and Society 12 (1-2):2-20.
H. Tristram Engelhardt & Fabrice Jotterand (2004). The Precautionary Principle: A Dialectical Reconsideration. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3):301 – 312.
Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu (2010). Moral Transhumanism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (6):656-669.
David J. Chalmers (2010). The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis. Journal of Consciousness Studies 17 (9-10):9 - 10.
Alexander R. Cohen (2007). Truly Human Reproduction. Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):305-313.
Stephen Petersen (2007). The Ethics of Robot Servitude. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 19 (1):43-54.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #245,680 of 722,701 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?