Nature, August 22, 2006
Scientists and philosophers gathered in Helsinki last week for TransVision,
a conference about 'enhancing' humans. Kerri Smith talks to Nick
Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University
of Oxford, UK, about what's on the table.
Kerri Smith
What kinds of human enhancement are we capable of now?
Nick Bostrom
There's the obvious example of performance-enhancing drugs for
sport, such as anabolic steroids and erythropoietin. We have alertness
and wakefulness enhancers — modafinil,
caffeine — that can at least temporarily reduce the need for sleep,
although you might be wary of permanently reducing the amount
of sleep you get. If it were such a good thing, why wouldn't evolution
already have built us to need less sleep?
Memory-enhancing drugs are currently under development. They
seem to be effective not only in people they are designed for
— people with dementia — but also for healthy subjects.
What about the more sci-fi notion of implants?
There's a lot of research in prosthetics and implants, and brain-computer
interfaces. Some of this research has great promise for people
with specific disabilities: cochlear implants have helped many
deaf people. But I don't think healthy people are going to be
attracted by mechanical or electronic enhancements in the near
future.
You can get most or all of the same benefits from having the
same device outside the body. If you want to access Google, you
don't have to have a fibre-optic cable wired into your visual
cortex. You can just have a computer screen. That saves you a
trip to the surgeon, and it's easier to upgrade.
So what kinds of enhancement are people thinking about?
There was a talk at this conference on 'virtue engineering' by
James Hughes of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
in Hartford, Connecticut. He spoke about the idea of using technology
to enhance moral behaviour. A lot of people have trouble with
impulse control, for example, and they might benefit from pharmaceutical
help.
In the context of marriage, an interesting possibility is the
use of pharmaceuticals to regulate the pair-bonding mechanism.
There are a small number of hormones, such as vasopressin and
oxytocin, that might help us form bonds with others. It could
be possible to prevent the levels of these chemicals from trailing
off, and to infuse romance into fading marriages — like a technological
form of counselling.
This sort of thing must be fraught with ethical concerns.
What sorts of issues come up?
One issue that always comes up is: will it lead to inequality
between those who have access to it and those who don't? Price
makes a huge difference to accessibility, and one presentation
at the conference tried to estimate the costs of different kinds
of cognitive enhancements. These depend very much on the form
the enhancement takes. If it's a pill, it can be expected to get
cheaper quickly over time [as patents run out and materials get
easier to produce]. If it's a procedure, there's a limit to how
cheap that can be, at least until we get robots to do it for us.
Beyond ethics or fashion, what is likely to hold back
adoption of these sorts of things?
There are technical obstacles to getting things working. There's
a difference between, for example, enhancing performance on a
specific memory task in the lab and actually increasing people's
efficiency in ordinary life. So far, enhancements have been accidental
by-products of research to develop cures for diseases.
What can you see being the big news at future conferences?
One thing that has happened over the past five years or so is
that bioethics has begun to take enhancement issues seriously.
Bioethicists previously tended to ignore them or think of it as
science fiction. Now there's debate on a lot of ethical questions
related to human enhancement, and interest is still on the up.
These technologies are sufficiently likely that it is worth discussing
them now.
|