Technologies and practices aimed at improving the physical, mental, intellectual, moral and other characteristics of a person are becoming increasingly popular today. What makes all this possible is the present stage of scientific and technological development of society, often referred to as technoscience. This article discusses two general contours of what constitutes a technoscience. The author argues that, internally, technoscience is associated with establishing increasingly close and diverse links between science and technology. Externally, technoscience incorporates other components, such as business, (...) financing the development of new technologies, a human as an individual person and, at the same time, as a mass consumer of new technologies, and society, through which the relations between all other blocks of the eireuit are carried out. What is claimed to be of crucial importance is the fact that very often becomes the target of a variety of technological interventions. For a long time, such interventions have been primarily medical, therapeutic in their nature. Gradually, however, the spectrum of applications of biomedical technologies has grown wider. A significant role in this widening ofthe spectrum during last few decades is claimed to be played by processes of medicalization of human life. The author considers the delineation between therapeutic interventions and those which are aimed at improving an individual. He addresses the problems of the connection between the projects of human enhancement, on the one hand, and their radical transformation, on the other. (shrink)

Starting bioethics in Russia we were motivated with the idea of the democratization of our society on a basic micro-social level. The country was swift enough to take several important steps in this direction on the macro-social level, i.e., to adopt a new constitution with guarantees of human rights and rights of ownership of private property, to elect the parliament and the president. But these modernizations in the Russian political facade did not sufficiently change the internal structure of the society–the (...) net of everyday relationships in the home, at work, at school, in hospitals and other places. One of the most brilliant philosophers of the Russian “silver age,” L.S. Frank, wrote in the beginning of the century that a tyrannical state grows out of tyrannical interpersonal relationships. Political revolution not grounded in a social evolution on the basic level of satisfying “simple” human economic, physical, and psychological needs could reproduce only the same totalitarian pattern under a new ideological label. Events resulting from the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 proved the wisdom of his statement. Russia could suffer the same fate today. (shrink)