Human Enhancement Technologies: Bringing the Regulation Debate into the Public Eye

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Increasingly, technological and medical developments are providing people with ways to enhance themselves. These include cognitive enhancement drugs (eg modafinil), devices (eg tDCS) and germline technologies (eg CRISPR). One good, current example is the use of cognitive enhancers (CEs) that can improve human mental capacities. One popular CE, modafinil, a drug used to treat narcolepsy, can combat decreases in cognitive capacity that occur due to fatigue. CEs are used by students to help them study longer, and by professionals who need to maintain wakefulness. The use of enhancements is becoming a practical reality, and use is likely to expand and increase given the benefits and competitive advantages they may offer. The Royal Society and others have even suggested some high-responsibility professions such as surgeons and pilots might even be obliged to enhance themselves. These developments raise important moral, legal and scientific questions about whether, and how, we should regulate such technologies of which the public needs to be aware. There has been considerable academic discussion around questions about the use of such enhancers, including: Is it fair to use CEs? Do cognitive enhancers precipitate an authentic life? Should the law regulate their use? How? Should certain professionals like doctors be required to take cognitive enhancers if it will prevent harm to others? The debate is currently played out mainly in the philosophical literature, and to an increasing extent, the legal literature. But it became clear during my Network project that the debate is still too philosophical. I found it was difficult to find many legal academics working on issues that will become pressing. It became evident that still less attention is being given to these matters by policy-makers, and that there is little public conversation about the issues. This is serious problem as the use of these highly useful, potentially dangerous technologies is increasing and widening. The likelihood is that our capacity to enhance ourselves will only grow. This will have complex impacts on society and the workplace, and will raise a multiplicity of regulatory questions. The answers policy-makers give to these questions will have a real impact on many people, and therefore they demand full, informed public debate. Yet despite this need for a well-informed public response and research output that takes account the views of non-academics, little has been done to engage with the public, inform them and also be informed by their views. Further, much of the information about the effects and side-effects of CEs online is academic and difficult for the public to access. This project will engage and inform the public on these issues via an interactive website and online engagement campaign. Its particular aim is to help site visitors to think through the ethical and legal issues raised by enhancement technologies to arrive at their own views about how we should regulate. It will also be a space in which the public can see what others think, and discuss with them. Consequently, it will therefore provide both a dataset about public attitudes for my research, and offer a means for policy-makers to gain an insight into the public's views. This needs to be done in a way that draws the public into the issue, presents them with clear, easy-to-understand information and gives them a chance to express their views about these. This will be achieved via a website hosting infographics and information about enhancement; talking heads videos of experts explaining and discussing the issues; forums and Twitter feed to enable public discussion; and a series of interactive animations that will present scenarios that explain the issues. Data from the site will be collected anonymously.