Defining “human enhancement” is a challenging task and no consensus on a common definition has been reached so far. Basically, there are four main approaches that are commonly used to define this concept (Menuz et al., 2011):
i)the implicit approach which considers the result of some given technological interventions on human beings as a human enhancement, without providing nor addressing any explicit reasons to do so (e.g., ter Meulen, 2010; Sadler, 2010);
ii)the therapy-enhancement distinction approach according to which interventions aiming at healing or improving health enter into the ‘treatment’ category, while a contrario, all interventions that do not have such purposes would be human enhancements (e.g., Allhoff et al., 2009; Missa and Perbal, 2009);
iii)the improvement of general abilities approach according to which human enhancement is the result of the application of emerging technologies to individuals so as to improve their body, mind or any ability beyond the “species-typical normal functioning” of a human being (e.g., Coenen et al., 2009; Chadwick, 2009);
iv)the increase of individual well being approach which considers that “any change in the biology or psychology of a person which increases the chances of leading a good life” is a human enhancement (Savulescu, 2006, p.324-325; de Melo-Martin, 2010).
We have shown that these different approaches have several limitations. They rely on concepts such as "normality", "health", "species-typical normal functioning" and "human standard capacities", whose definitions are both controversial and challenging. Moreover, they tend to overlook the complexity and variability of the contexts in which the use of emerging technologies and human enhancement may occur. We suggest that in order to grasp such a complexity, a comprehensive definition of human enhancement cannot but focus on personal and subjective perceptions and the factors that may influence them. In other words, we propose an approach that emphasizes the outcome of a given intervention such as perceived by the individual that underwent it, on one side, and, on the other side, the many factors that may influence individual decisions to consider (or not) – for oneself – the results of a given intervention as a human enhancement (e.g., political and social norms, rules, values, environmental factors, passive coercion, unconscious goals, and/or statistically defined attributes, considered within a given society in a given historical period of time). For more details about this approach, please consult (Menuz et al., 2011).
Chadwick, R. (2009) Therapy, enhancement and improvement in B.Gordijn and R.Chadwick (eds) Medical Enhancement and Posthumanity (Springer, 2008): pp. 25-37 . ISBN 1402088515.
Coenen, C., Schuijff, M., Smits, M., Klaassen, P., Hennen, L., Rader, M., and Wolbring, G. (2009) Human Enhancement: study. S.a.T.O. Assessment, ed. (Brussel, European Parliament).
de Melo-Martin, I. (2010) Defending human enhancement technologies: unveiling normativity. Journal of medical ethics 36: 483-487.
Publication Inclusion and Exclusion in Nutrigenetics Clinical Research: Ethical and Scientific Challenges
An article by Hurlimann T, Stenne R, Menuz V and Godard B published in the Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics 2011; 4(6). Online first. There are compelling reasons to ensure the participation of ethnic minorities and... Read more
An article by Hurlimann T, Stenne R, Menuz V and Godard B published in the Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics 2011; 4(6). Online first. There are compelling reasons to ensure the participation of ethnic minorities and populations of all ages worldwide in nutrigenetics clinical research. If findings in such research are valid for some individuals, groups, or communities, and not for others, then ethical questions of justice – and not only issues of methodology and external validity – arise. This paper aims to examine inclusion in nutrigenetics clinical research and its scientific and ethical challenges. For more information, click here.
Publication Is Human Enhancement also a Personal Matter?
An article by Vincent Menuz, Thierry Hurlimann and Béatrice Godard, published in Science and engineering ethics, online first (2011) DOI:Read more
An article by Vincent Menuz, Thierry Hurlimann and Béatrice Godard, published in Science and engineering ethics, online first (2011) DOI:10.1007/s11948-011-9294-y. This paper proposes a timely and much needed examination of the various definitions of human enhancement found in the literature and proposes a definition of human enhancement that focuses on individual perceptions. While acknowledging that a definition that mainly depends on personal and subjective individual perceptions raises many challenges, the authors suggest that a comprehensive approach to define human enhancement could constitute a useful premise to appropriately address the complexity of the ethical and social issues it generates. For a full abstract and paper, click here.
