Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Discourse, upstream public engagement and the governance of human life extension research

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Poiesis & Praxis

Abstract

Important scientific, ethical and sociological debates are emerging over the trans-humanist goal to achieve therapeutic treatments to ‘cure’ the debilitation of age-related illness and extend the healthy life span of individuals through “interventive biogerontological research”. The scientific and moral discourses surrounding this contentious scientific field are mapped out, followed by a normative argument favouring ‘strong’ deliberative democratic control of human life extension research. This proposal incorporates insights from constructive and participatory technology assessment, upstream public engagement and back-casting analysis; to outline a programme of participatory approaches to encourage two-way dialogue between scientific and citizen perspectives, and foster the long-term deliberative democratic governance of this developing field.

Résumé

D’importants débats scientifiques, éthiques et sociologiques, se font jour à propos de l’objectif transhumaniste de parvenir à des traitements thérapeutiques qui guérissent les dégénéressences liés à l’âge, afin de prolonger la durée de la vie en bonne santé des individus par le biais de la recherche en « biogérontologie interventive ». Les discours scientifique et moraux entourant ce champ scientifique contesté sont tracés et suivi d’un argument normatif en faveur d’un « fort » contrôle démocratique et participatif des recherches sur le prologement de la vie. Cette proposition intègre les points de vue des techniques d’évaluation constructive et participatives d’engagement du public en amont et d’analyse retrospective; pour définir un programme d’approche participative afin d’encourager un dialogue réciproque entre les perspectives des scientifiques et des citoyens et favoriser au long terme une gouvernance démocratique et déliberative de ce champ en développement.

Zusammenfassung

Wichtige wissenschaftliche, ethische und soziologische Debatten entstehen über das transhumanistische Ziel, therapeutische Behandlungen zur „Heilung” der Schwächung durch altersbedingte Krankheit zu erreichen und die gesunde Lebensspanne eine Individuums zu verlängern durch „intervenierende biogerontologische Forschung”. Der wissenschaftliche und moralische Diskurs um diesen umstrittenen wissenschaftlichen Bereich wird hier aufgezeichnet, gefolgt von einem normativen Argument, welches eine „starke” deliberativ-demokratische Kontrolle über die Forschung zur menschlichen Lebensverlängerung befürwortet. Dieser Vorschlag vereinigt Erkenntnisse aus Begutachtungen konstruktiver und partizipatorischer Technologie, sowie von vorgelagerter Einbeziehung der Öffentlichkeit und aus rückblickender Analyse, um ein Programm für partizipatorische Ansätze, welche einen wechselseitigen Dialog zwischen der wissenschaftlichen und der Perspektive der Bürger ermutigt, zu umreißen und um langfristig deliberativ-demokratisches Regieren dieses sich entwickelnden Bereichs zu fördern.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Estep PW et al. (2006) Preston Estep et al. Dissent. Technol Rev online pp 1–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Allum N, Boy D, Bauer MW (2002) European regions and the knowledge deficit model. In: Bauer MW, Gaskell G (eds) Biotechnology: the making of a global controversy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber B (1984) Strong democracy: participation politics for a new age. University of California Press, Berkley CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman KB, Ames BN (1998) The free radical theory of aging matures. Physiol Rev 78(2):547–581

    Google Scholar 

  • Binstock RH (2003) The war on “anti-aging medicine”. Gerontologist 43:4–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binstock RH, Fishman JR, Jeungst ET (2006) Boundaries and labels: anti-aging medicine and science. Rejuvenation Res 9(4):433–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn EH (2000) Telomere states and cell fates. Nature 408(6808):53–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom N (2005a) The fable of the dragon tyrant. J Med Ethics 31(5):273–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom N (2005b) Recent developments in the ethics, science, and politics of life extension. In: Tandy C (ed) Death and anti-death, volume 3: fifty years after Einstein, one hundred fifty years after Kierkegaard. Ria University Press, Palo Alto, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer MB, Dull V, Lui L (1981) Perceptions of the elderly: stereotypes as prototypes. J Pers Soc Psychol 41:656–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (2000) Contested futures: a sociology of prospective techno-science. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess J, Stirling A, Clark J, Davies G, Eames M, Staley K, Williamson S (2007) Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions. Public Underst Sci 16(3):299–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron N (2007) Preserving humanity—and technology? A response to de Grey. Stud Ethics Law Technol 1(1):11

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan A, Elliott C (2004) Is it ethical to use enhancement technologies to make us better than well? PLoS Med 1(3):e52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Civitarese A E, Carling S, Heilbronn L K, Hulver M H, Ukropcova B, Deutsch W R, Smith S R, Ravussin E (2007) Calorie restriction increases muscle mitochondrial biogenesis in healthy humans. PLoS Med 4(3): Article e76

  • Clarke LH, Griffin M (2007) The body natural and the body unnatural: beauty work and aging. J Aging Stud 21(3):187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton M (2009) Ethical assessment in radioactive waste management: a proposed reflective equilibrium-based deliberative approach. J Risk Res 12(5):603–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Grey ADNJ (2003) The foreseeability of real anti-aging medicine: focusing the debate. Exp Gerontol 38(9):927–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Grey ADNJ (2004) Three self-evident life-extension truths. Rejuvenation Res 7(3):165–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Grey A (2006) Ethics of a cure for aging. http://www.longevitymeme.org/topics/strategies_for_engineered_negligible_senescence.cfm. Accessed March 2007)

  • de Grey ADNJ (2007) Life span extension research and public debate: societal considerations. Stud Ethics Law Technol 1(1):5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Grey ADNJ, Ames BN, Andersen JK, Barthe A, Campisi J, Heward CB, McCarter RJM, Stock G (2002a) Time to talk SENS: critiquing the immutability of human aging. Ann N Y Acad Sci 959:452–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Grey ADNJ, Baynes JW, Berd D, Heward CB, Pawelec G, Stock G (2002b) Is human aging still mysterious enough to be left only to scientists? BioEssays 24:667–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Grey ADNJ, Gavrilov L, Olshansky SJ, Coles S, Cutler RG, Fossel M, Mitchell Harman S (2002c) Antiaging technology and pseudoscience. Science 296:656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreborg KH (1996) Essence of backcasting. Futures 28(9):813–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumas A, Turner BS (2007) The life-extension project: a sociological critique. Health Sociol Rev 16(1):5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durant J (1999) Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Sci Public Policy 26(5):313–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eames M, McDowel W (2007) Towards a sustainable energy future: participatory foresight and appraisal as a response to managing uncertainty and contested social values. In: Flynn R, Bellamy P (eds) Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott C (2006) Adventure! comedy! tragedy! robots! How bioethicists learned to stop worrying and embrace their inner cyborgs. J Bioeth Inq 2(1):18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel T, Holbrook NJ (2000) Oxidants, oxidative stress and the biology of ageing. Nature 408:239–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin J (1995) The voice of the people. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanary B (2002) The quest to extend life and overcome aging and death: past, present, and future attempts. J Anti Aging Med 5:161–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freitas RA (2002) Death is an outrage. http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/DeathIsAnOutrage.htm. Accessed March 2007

  • Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl L (2003) Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Anal 23(6):1113–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer L, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1181–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fries JF (1980) Aging, natural death, and the compression of morbidity. N Engl J Med 303(3):130–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genus A, Coles AM (2005) On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in technology assessment. Technol Anal Strateg Manage 17(4):433–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruman G (2003) A history of ideas about prolongation of life. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald A (2004) Participation as a means of enhancing the legitimacy of decisions on technology? A sceptical analysis. Poiesis Prax 3(1–2):106–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston D (2004) Forget politicizing science. Let’s democratize science! Issues Sci Technol Fall Edition:25–28

  • Hagendijk R, Kallerud E (2003) Changing practices of governance in science and technology in Europe: a framework for analysis. Science technology and governance in Europe (STAGE) discussion paper. European Commission, Brussels

  • Harris J (2000) Intimations of immortality. Science 7(288):59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris J (2004) Immortal ethics. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1019:527–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayflick L (2000) The future of aging. Nature 408:267–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häyry M (2007) Generous funding for interventive aging research now? Stud Ethics Law Technol 1(1):13

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg J, Robèrt KH (2000) Backcasting from non-overlapping sustainability principles: a framework for strategic planning. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 74:291–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, Rowe G, Pidgeon N, Poortinga W, O’Riordan T (2006) On evaluating the GM nation? Public debate about the commercialisation of transgenic crops in Britain. New Genet Soc 25(3):265–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram DK, Zhu M, Mamczarz J, Zou S, Lane MA, Roth GS, de Cabo R (2005) Calorie restriction mimetics: an emerging research field. Aging Cell 5(2):97–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juengst ET, Binstock RH, Mehlman MJ, Post SG (2003) Anti-aging research and the need for public dialogue. Science 299:1323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser M, Millar K, Forsberg EM, Thorstensen E, Tomkins S (2007) Developing the ethical matrix as a decision support framework: GM fish as a case study. J Agric Environ Ethics 20(1):53–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kass LR (2003) Ageless bodies, happy souls. New Atlantis 1(Spring):9–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Kass L (2004) L’Chaim and its limits: why not immortality? In: Post SG, Binstock RH (eds) The fountain of youth: cultural scientific and ethical perspectives on a biomedical goal. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman DL (ed) (2000) Science, technology and democracy. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Law J, Hassard J (1999) Actor network theory and after. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett BA (1983) Aging, politics, and research: setting the federal agenda for research on aging. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucke JC, Hall W (2005) Who wants to live forever? EMBO Rep 6(2):98–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May R (1999) Genetically modified foods: faults, worries, policies and public confidence. Office of Science and Technology, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller RA (2002) Extending life: scientific prospects and political obstacles. Milbank Q 81(1):155–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr A (2007) Against the stream: moving public engagement on nanotechnologies upstream. In: Flynn R, Bellamy P (eds) Risk and the acceptance of new technologies. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyer K (1996) Scenario planning at British airways—a case study. Long Range Plann 29(2):172–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olshansky SJ, Hayflick L, Carnes BA (2002a) No truth to the fountain of youth. Sci Am 286(6):92–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olshansky SJ, Hayflick L, Carnes BA (2002b) Position statement on human aging. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 57(8):292–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orentreich N, Matias JR, De Felice A, Zimmerman JA (1993) Low methionine ingestion by rats extends life span. J Nutr 123(2):269–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Overall C (2005) Aging, death and human longevity: a philosophical inquiry. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelan JP, Rose MR (2005) Why dietary restriction substantially increases longevity in animal models but won’t in humans. Ageing Res Rev 4(3):339–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9(2):191–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontin J (2006) Is defeating aging only a dream? Technol Rev. Available online at http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/

  • Quist J, Vergragt P (2006) Past and future of backcasting: the shift to stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures 38(9):1027–1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (1990) Futures under glass: a recipe for people who hate to predict. Futures 22(8):820–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schloendorn J (2006) Making the case for life extension: personal arguments. Bioethics 20(4):191–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sclove R (1995) Democracy and technology. Guilford Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon LD (2006) The quest for human longevity. Transaction Publishers, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling A (2004) Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science, citizenship and globalisation. Zed, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner L (2004) Is repugnance wise? Visceral responses to biotechnology. Nat Biotechnol 22(3):269–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer N (ed) (1996) Community strategic visioning programs. Praeger, Westport, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Wearing B (1995) Leisure and resistance in an ageing society. Leisure Stud 14(4):263–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. DEMOS, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolbring G (2007) Should we ‘cure’ aging? A reply to de Grey. Stud Ethics Law Technol 1(1):7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wonglimpiyara J (2007) National foresight in science and technology strategy development. Futures 39(6):718–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1985) From public perception of risk to technology as cultural process. In: Covello V (ed) Environmental impact assessment technology and risk analysis. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1988) Unruly technology: practical rules, impractical discourses and public understanding. Soc Stud Sci 18(1):147–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1993) Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Underst Sci 2(4):321–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yearley S (1997) The changing social authority of science. Sci Stud 11(1):65–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu BP (2006) Why caloric restriction would work for human longevity. Biogerontology 7(3):179–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Liam Heaphy for his comments on a previous draft and Laurent Fouillé and Jan Fisher for their help in translating the abstract.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Humanities Bridgeford Street, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Matthew Cotton

Authors
  1. Matthew Cotton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Cotton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cotton, M. Discourse, upstream public engagement and the governance of human life extension research. Poiesis Prax 7, 135–150 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-009-0072-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-009-0072-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation