Toward a "post-posthuman dignity area" in evaluating emerging enhancement technologies

Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Department of Medical Ethics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
The American Journal of Bioethics (Impact Factor: 5.29). 07/2010; 10(7):55-7. DOI: 10.1080/15265161003686514
Source: PubMed


Available from: Rieke van der Graaf

  • The American Journal of Bioethics 07/2010; 10(7):W6-8. DOI:10.1080/15265161.2010.497388 · 5.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent preclinical studies have shown the feasibility of specific variants of nuclear transfer to prevent mitochondrial DNA disorders. Nuclear transfer could be a valuable reproductive option for carriers of mitochondrial mutations. A clinical application of nuclear transfer, however, would entail germ-line modification, more specifically a germ-line modification of the mitochondrial genome. One of the most prominent objections against germ-line modification is the fear that it would become possible to alter 'essential characteristics' of a future person, thereby possibly violating the child's right to an open future. As only the nuclear DNA would contain the ingredients for individual characteristics, modification of the mtDNA is often considered less controversial than modification of the nuclear DNA. This paper discusses the tenability of this dichotomy. After having clarified the concept of germ-line modification, it argues that modification of the mtDNA is not substantively different from modification of the nuclear DNA in terms of its effects on the identity of the future person. Subsequently the paper assesses how this conclusion affects the moral evaluation of nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders. It concludes that the moral acceptability of germ-line modification does not depend on whether it alters the identity of the future child-all germ-line modifications do-but on whether it safeguards the child's right to an open future. If nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders becomes safe and effective, then dismissing it because it involves germ-line modification is unjustified.
    Journal of medical ethics 11/2010; 37(2):97-100. DOI:10.1136/jme.2010.037481 · 1.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: What is the genealogy of the idea of cyborgization? To what extent is the contemporary man cyborgized? Is the birth of cyborgization accompanied with changes in the perception of education? The book is an attempt at replying these questions. A thesis is posed about cyborgization being an ideological hybrid of new eugenics and transhumanism, and that it reaches eugenics genealogically. It shows that the birth of cyborgization is accompanied with a concept of the dawn of education, or the idea of superfluity, from a traditional perspective, of education in the technoworld. The dawn of education is a sort of regularity in thinking about the role of education in the technoprogress of the man; it is a sort of order in viewing the future of the relations between the man and education. This regularity, or this order, is rarely explicit; most often it is implicit. It is explicit in the sense that texts on the systems of new eugenics and transhumanism sometimes talk directly about the fact that some technological activities replace education, and are more effective. On the other hand, it is implicit in the sense that these texts present detailed strategies for the stimulation of human progress, omitting educational effects completely; all stimulus types are exclusively of technological nature.
    01/2014; Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM., ISBN: 978-83-232-2733-5