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

科技和医学的发展越来越多地为人们提供了提升自我的方法。这些包括认知增强药物(如莫达非尼)、设备(如tdcs)和生殖系技术(如CRISPR)。当前的一个很好的例子是使用认知增强剂(CES)，它可以改善人类的心理能力。一种受欢迎的CE，莫达非尼，一种用于治疗发作性睡病的药物，可以对抗因疲劳而导致的认知能力下降。学生使用CES来帮助他们学习更长时间，需要保持清醒的专业人士也使用CES。增强技术的使用正在成为现实，考虑到它们可能提供的好处和竞争优势，使用可能会扩大和增加。英国皇家学会和其他机构甚至建议，外科医生和飞行员等一些高责任感的职业甚至可能不得不提高自己的水平。这些发展提出了重要的道德、法律和科学问题，即我们是否应该以及如何监管公众需要了解的此类技术。关于使用这种增强剂的问题，学术界已经有了相当大的讨论，包括：使用CES公平吗？认知增强剂会催生真实的生活吗？法律应该规范它们的使用吗？多么?某些专业人士，如医生，是否应该被要求服用认知增强剂，如果它能防止对他人的伤害？目前，这场争论主要是在哲学文献中展开的，而且越来越多地在法律文献中展开。但在我的Network项目中，事情变得很明显，这场辩论仍然太过哲理。我发现很难找到许多法律学者在研究将变得紧迫的问题。很明显，政策制定者对这些问题的关注更少，关于这些问题的公开讨论也很少。这是一个严重的问题，因为这些高度有用、具有潜在危险的技术的使用正在增加和扩大。可能的情况是，我们提升自我的能力只会越来越强。这将对社会和工作场所产生复杂的影响，并将引发多种监管问题。政策制定者对这些问题的回答将对许多人产生真正的影响，因此他们要求进行充分的、知情的公开辩论。然而，尽管有必要做出知情的公众回应和考虑非学术界意见的研究成果，但在与公众接触、向他们提供信息以及听取他们的观点方面，几乎没有采取什么行动。此外，关于在线CES的效果和副作用的许多信息都是学术的，公众很难获得。该项目将通过互动网站和在线参与活动，让公众了解并了解这些问题。它的特别目的是帮助网站访问者思考增强技术带来的道德和法律问题，以得出他们自己对我们应该如何监管的看法。它也将是一个公众可以看到别人的想法，并与他们讨论的空间。因此，它将为我的研究提供关于公众态度的数据集，并为政策制定者提供一种洞察公众观点的手段。这需要以一种吸引公众参与这一问题的方式进行，向他们提供清晰、易于理解的信息，并让他们有机会表达他们对这些问题的看法。这将通过一个网站实现，该网站提供关于改进的信息图表和信息；专家解释和讨论问题的Talk Head视频；使公众能够进行讨论的论坛和推特订阅源；以及将展示解释问题的情景的一系列互动动画。来自该网站的数据将以匿名方式收集。

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.