Loading
What changed between revision 1 and revision 2, compared over the article's markdown source with its frontmatter — so a change to status, evidence or reversibility shows up as the edit it is.
Older · revision 1
Import· initial corpus import, not an edit
Initial import of content/bioethics-of-enhancement.md — the filesystem corpus, unchanged. Not an edit.
14.1 kB
Revision 1
Revision 2
lines 7–14 → 7–136 unchanged lines not shown
categories: ["society", "enhancement"]categories: ["society", "enhancement"]tags: ["bioethics", "enhancement", "philosophy", "autonomy", "justice", "therapy"]tags: ["bioethics", "enhancement", "philosophy", "autonomy", "justice", "therapy"]summary: "The philosophical and policy debate over whether biomedical means may legitimately be used to push human capacities beyond species-typical function."summary: "The philosophical and policy debate over whether biomedical means may legitimately be used to push human capacities beyond species-typical function."updated: "2026-07-27"updated: "2026-08-23"issues: ["Needs a source for the 2003 US approval of growth hormone for idiopathic short stature."]------ ```infobox```infoboxlines 31–37 → 30–3616 unchanged lines not shown
The organising distinction is between therapy, which restores or maintains normal function, and enhancement, which improves on it. The line does real institutional work. Insurers reimburse therapy; medical licensing is justified by therapeutic purpose; most genome-editing statutes permit intervention only for "serious disease" without defining the term.The organising distinction is between therapy, which restores or maintains normal function, and enhancement, which improves on it. The line does real institutional work. Insurers reimburse therapy; medical licensing is justified by therapeutic purpose; most genome-editing statutes permit intervention only for "serious disease" without defining the term. It also fails under examination. Vaccination does not restore function but adds immunity a person never had. Contraception disables a working system. Caffeine, corrective lenses, and literacy all improve on the unaided baseline. Growth hormone was approved in the United States in 2003 for idiopathic short stature, a condition defined by height alone rather than by any identified pathology — the same molecule, the same effect on the same trait, classified as therapy or enhancement depending on whether a cause was found. The same ambiguity now operates at scale with [[glp-1-receptor-agonists|GLP-1 weight-loss drugs]], approved for obesity and used cosmetically by people at or near typical weight.It also fails under examination. Vaccination does not restore function but adds immunity a person never had. Contraception disables a working system. Caffeine, corrective lenses, and literacy all improve on the unaided baseline. Growth hormone was approved in the United States in 2003 for idiopathic short stature, a condition defined by height alone rather than by any identified pathology — the same molecule, the same effect on the same trait, classified as therapy or enhancement depending on whether a cause was found.[^cuttler2004] The same ambiguity operates in the licensing of [[glp-1-receptor-agonists|GLP-1 weight-loss drugs]], approved in the United States in 2021 for chronic weight management in adults above a body-mass threshold, or above a lower threshold with a weight-related condition.[^fda2021] Where that second criterion is absent, the line between treating and improving is drawn by a number rather than by a diagnosis. Norman Daniels offered the most influential defence of the line: what justice requires medicine to provide is defined by species-typical normal functioning, because departures from it restrict the range of life plans a person can pursue.[^daniels2000] The distinction, on this account, is not about what is natural but about what a society owes. Critics respond that the boundary of the normal is itself statistical and shifting, and that an argument about the limits of entitlement has been repurposed as an argument about the limits of permission. [[human-enhancement]] surveys the modalities; this article concerns the arguments about them.Norman Daniels offered the most influential defence of the line: what justice requires medicine to provide is defined by species-typical normal functioning, because departures from it restrict the range of life plans a person can pursue.[^daniels2000] The distinction, on this account, is not about what is natural but about what a society owes. Critics respond that the boundary of the normal is itself statistical and shifting, and that an argument about the limits of entitlement has been repurposed as an argument about the limits of permission. [[human-enhancement]] surveys the modalities; this article concerns the arguments about them. lines 62–68 → 61–6724 unchanged lines not shown
## Fairness, coercion, and access## Fairness, coercion, and access The distributive objection is that enhancement bought at market prices entrenches advantage across generations, converting income inequality into biological inequality. It is the strongest argument in practice and the one most often answered with a promise that costs will fall. Prices for licensed cell and gene therapies have not fallen; several have been withdrawn from markets that refused to pay. [[access-and-inequality]] examines the record.The distributive objection is that enhancement bought at market prices entrenches advantage across generations, converting income inequality into biological inequality. It is the strongest argument in practice and the one most often answered with a promise that costs will fall. That promise remains unredeemed for the nearest existing analogue: the organising committee of the 2023 international summit on human genome editing described the cost of licensed somatic gene therapies as unsustainable and called for a commitment to affordable access,[^summit2023] and one manufacturer withdrew an approved therapy from the German market in 2021 after reimbursement negotiations failed, later winding down its European operations altogether.[^bluebird2021] [[access-and-inequality]] examines the record. The coercion objection is structurally different and does not require anyone to be excluded. Where an enhancement confers positional advantage, its availability changes the choice set of people who do not want it: surgeons whose colleagues take modafinil, students whose peers do, athletes competing against the pharmacologically prepared. Nobody is forced and everybody's options worsen. This is the subject of [[enhancement-arms-race]], and it is the mechanism the anti-doping regime described in [[enhancement-in-sport]] exists to interrupt.The coercion objection is structurally different and does not require anyone to be excluded. Where an enhancement confers positional advantage, its availability changes the choice set of people who do not want it: surgeons whose colleagues take modafinil, students whose peers do, athletes competing against the pharmacologically prepared. Nobody is forced and everybody's options worsen. This is the subject of [[enhancement-arms-race]], and it is the mechanism the anti-doping regime described in [[enhancement-in-sport]] exists to interrupt. lines 75–81 → 74–806 unchanged lines not shown
The literature's most striking feature is how little of it is constrained by evidence. Cognitive pharmacology has produced no agent with a reliable effect on healthy adults beyond wakefulness; the evidence base is reviewed in [[nootropics]]. Transcranial direct-current stimulation, for a decade the leading non-invasive enhancement candidate, has a poor replication record, as [[non-invasive-neuromodulation]] describes. [[polygenic-embryo-screening]] delivers expected gains that are real but small and poorly characterised outside the ancestry groups its predictors were trained on. [[genetic-enhancement-of-intelligence]] is limited by the fact that the trait is spread across thousands of variants of tiny effect, each with unknown pleiotropic consequences.The literature's most striking feature is how little of it is constrained by evidence. Cognitive pharmacology has produced no agent with a reliable effect on healthy adults beyond wakefulness; the evidence base is reviewed in [[nootropics]]. Transcranial direct-current stimulation, for a decade the leading non-invasive enhancement candidate, has a poor replication record, as [[non-invasive-neuromodulation]] describes. [[polygenic-embryo-screening]] delivers expected gains that are real but small and poorly characterised outside the ancestry groups its predictors were trained on. [[genetic-enhancement-of-intelligence]] is limited by the fact that the trait is spread across thousands of variants of tiny effect, each with unknown pleiotropic consequences. Two of the field's founding worries have meanwhile been tested. The [[he-jiankui-affair]] showed what happens when a researcher acts outside professional constraint — not a slippery slope but a single episode, prosecuted, with no imitators for years afterward. And the enhancement that did arrive at scale arrived through [[embryo-selection|selection]] rather than editing, which almost no pre-2010 framework anticipated and which most regulatory instruments still do not reach.Two of the field's founding worries have meanwhile been tested. The [[he-jiankui-affair]] showed what happens when a researcher acts outside professional constraint — not a slippery slope but a single episode, prosecuted, and not since repeated in any case that has become public. The organising committee of the 2023 summit reported that heritable editing remained unacceptable, on the ground that neither the safety standards nor the governance frameworks for it were in place.[^summit2023] And the enhancement that reached paying customers first arrived through [[embryo-selection|selection]] rather than editing, which almost no pre-2010 framework anticipated and which most regulatory instruments still do not reach. ## Open problems## Open problems lines 85–91 → 84–903 unchanged lines not shown
**Whether the therapy line can be replaced.** If it cannot be defended philosophically but is doing necessary institutional work, the alternative is a substantive account of which capacities societies should underwrite and which they should merely permit. No such account commands agreement, and regulators continue to use a distinction that most ethicists on both sides regard as incoherent.**Whether the therapy line can be replaced.** If it cannot be defended philosophically but is doing necessary institutional work, the alternative is a substantive account of which capacities societies should underwrite and which they should merely permit. No such account commands agreement, and regulators continue to use a distinction that most ethicists on both sides regard as incoherent. **Whether the debate has been about the right technologies.** Twenty-five years of argument concentrated on germline modification and cognitive drugs. The interventions that have actually changed human capability in that period are digital rather than biological, and the closest thing to a live enhancement question in 2026 concerns access to and dependence on external cognitive systems — the territory of [[human-ai-merger]], which the enhancement literature has barely begun to metabolise.**Whether the debate has been about the right technologies.** Twenty-five years of argument concentrated on germline modification and cognitive drugs. The interventions that have most visibly changed what people can do in that period are digital rather than biological, and the questions they raise — who has access to a capable external system, and what dependence on one does to the capacities it supplements — sit outside the vocabulary the literature built. That is the territory of [[human-ai-merger]], which the enhancement literature has barely begun to metabolise. ## See also## See also lines 108–112 → 107–11516 unchanged lines not shown
[^harris2007]: `book` Harris, J. *Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People*. Princeton University Press, 2007.[^harris2007]: `book` Harris, J. *Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People*. Princeton University Press, 2007.[^bs2009]: `book` Bostrom, N. and Sandberg, A. "The Wisdom of Nature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement." In *Human Enhancement*, Oxford University Press, 2009. {A book chapter arguing a heuristic from evolutionary reasoning rather than reporting experiments; it concerns what is plausible, not what has been shown to work.}[^bs2009]: `book` Bostrom, N. and Sandberg, A. "The Wisdom of Nature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement." In *Human Enhancement*, Oxford University Press, 2009. {A book chapter arguing a heuristic from evolutionary reasoning rather than reporting experiments; it concerns what is plausible, not what has been shown to work.}[^buchanan2011]: `book` Buchanan, A. *Beyond Humanity? The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement*. Oxford University Press, 2011.[^buchanan2011]: `book` Buchanan, A. *Beyond Humanity? The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement*. Oxford University Press, 2011.[^cuttler2004]: `paper` Cuttler, L. and Silvers, J.B. "Growth hormone treatment for idiopathic short stature: implications for practice and policy." *Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine*, 2004.[^fda2021]: `regulator` US Food and Drug Administration. "FDA Approves New Drug Treatment for Chronic Weight Management, First Since 2014." 4 June 2021. {A marketing approval, which records the indication and the eligibility criteria; it is not evidence about how the drug is used off-label.}[^summit2023]: `statement` Organising Committee of the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing. "Statement from the Organising Committee." London, March 2023. {A summary of the organisers' conclusions from a three-day meeting, not a consensus report reviewed by the convening academies.}[^bluebird2021]: `statement` bluebird bio. Announcement of the withdrawal of Zynteglo from the German market following reimbursement negotiations, April 2021, and of the wind-down of the company's European operations, October 2021. {A company speaking about its own commercial decision; it records that the withdrawal happened and the reason given, not an independent account of the negotiations.}[^elliott2003]: `book` Elliott, C. *Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream*. W. W. Norton, 2003. {Reporting and cultural criticism drawn from interviews and clinical anecdote, not a study of outcomes.}[^elliott2003]: `book` Elliott, C. *Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream*. W. W. Norton, 2003. {Reporting and cultural criticism drawn from interviews and clinical anecdote, not a study of outcomes.} removed, struck through added, underlinedLine numbers count the serialised markdown of each revision, frontmatter included.
106 lines are the same in both revisions, and 71 of them are not shown. Neither revision here is necessarily the current article — read Bioethics of enhancement for the text this wiki stands behind today.