Re-engineering Human Biology

Biotechnology will one day be used to enhance the human "condition," and I can't wait. Harvard recently held an invitation-only panel of bioethicists to discuss the legal and social implications of using biotechnology to enhance humanity.

The panelists for a discussion titled "Re-engineering Human Biology: What Should Be the Legal and Ethical Limits?" were Ronald M. Dworkin, Leon R. Kass, Richard A. Posner, and Michael Sandel.

Moderator Elena Kagan asks:

"Should biotechnology be used only to treat disease," Kagan added, "or also to enhance" people?

Video of the panel discussion should be available online next week, according to Harvard Law School news coordinator Emily Dupraz. Until then, the Harvard Gazette leaves us with a few small teases of the discussion.

Dworkin: the "line between treatment and enhancement is a very fragile one, and it moves all the time."

Kass: "if things can enhance, they can degrade." It's impossible, he said, to "improve the lives" of people through genetic and pharmaceutical enhancement without some agreement on "what a good human being is."

Posner: "If you could increase the average IQ of the human race, it would probably be a very substantial advantage."

Sandel: "we choose our friends, and we choose our spouses, at least partially on the basis of traits we find attractive. But it's an important part of parenting that we don't choose our children."

My opinion? For kids, bioengineering should be left to fixing diseases. Adults should be able to get whatever "upgrades" they want.

Well, anything shy of germ-line tweaking.

An implantable exoskeleton? (endoskeleton?) Neural or occular implants? Become a cyborg? Veg all day on your couch?

What limits do you think should be enforced on bioengineering?

Legal, Ethical Limits to Bioengineering Debated [Harvard Gazette Online]