A Basis for Action - Commission de l'éthique de la science et de la ...

Position Statement of the Commission de l'éthique de la science et de la technologie
Human identity in a context of performance enhancement
The literature consulted signals that nanotechnology could help optimize certain physiological
characteristics of human beings. Potential developments are virtually limitless and can extend to
cognitive capacities. 261 Even though the extreme visions of nanotechnology’s potential applications
conveyed by such schools of thought as transhumanist philosophy—such as the possibility of
considerably prolonging life or separating human consciousness from the body to place it in a
computer—seem exaggerated in the eyes of a good number of scientists, these visions nonetheless
provide a backdrop for discussions on the impact of nanotechnology for intellectuals examining these
issues. 262
Certain developments—even if mostly involving physical interventions intended to offer therapeutic
benefits—raise a number of fundamental questions with regard to the personal and social aspects of
human identity: what we understand and consider to be human, what is deemed normal (or acceptable),
and what is not. Furthermore, the boundary between therapy (healing, treating, restoring to normal)
and the optimization of human performance (improving, boosting beyond the norm) can be tenuous
and hard to define. What is the difference between an intervention meant to enhance performance and
a therapeutic intervention designed to correct an acquired or innate disability? How is a disability
defined?
The Royal Society report notes that disability rights groups are against the kind of human optimization
nanotechnology could one day permit. They feel that this could lead to a situation where those whose
abilities are not improved would be stigmatized. 263 The Royal Society maintains that the real ethical
issue for those with disabilities is resource allocation and access to technology. The groups consulted also
stressed that persons with disabilities would rather resources be used to combat discrimination, for
example, than to develop specific therapies. It was also noted that medical technology is pointless
unless those in need of it have access to it or the means to take advantage of it. 264
The idea of improving physical or cognitive performance is a controversial one. Those consulted in the
abovementioned British consultation asserted that any improvement to a person’s health using gene
therapy was a form of eugenism; that genetic improvements to basic abilities, such as intelligence or
height, could only be acceptable if administered fairly among the various segments of the population.
However, others believe that if it is acceptable to increase individual abilities for education and physical
training, other types of improvements, like cosmetic surgery or cognitive drugs, should also be
acceptable. 265 Viewed from this perspective, this dilemma pits the self-determination of those who
261 Note that science did not wait for nanotechnology to develop before seeking to improve human physical or
mental performance, as demonstrated by the substances used to improve strength and resistance in elite
sports or concentration in intellectual work.
262 THE ROYAL SOCIETY & THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING (United Kindgom), op. cit., p. 55.
263 THE ROYAL SOCIETY & THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING (United Kingdom), op. cit., p. 54.
264 Ibid.
265 Ibid. A similar debate exists between those concerned about drug use by athletes (their arguments are usually
based on the principle that it is an unfair practice or that it may be harmful to the athletes’ health) and those
who think that if it is acceptable to improve one’s abilities through exercise, the same should go for
medication.
Chapter 3 – Nanotechnology: Ethical Concerns 65