Is Super Really Super?

The Ethics of Creating Superhumans

Alyssa Dyess-Tregre 10/31/12 There are many ethical issues within the biomedical engineering field. One such issue is the creation of beings that could be considered superhuman1 and how this might affect society. But what does it mean to be superhuman? If you ask any kid, they are probably going to say a superhero such as Superman, or Spiderman as will many people who were raised in the pulp fiction generation. However, pulp fiction aside, the technical definition according to Collins English dictionary defines superhuman as exceeding normal human ability or experience.2 With this definition in mind, any sort of improvement or addition to the human body would be considered superhuman. This includes extending peoples life spans, repairing organs by organic and artificial means, enhancing the senses or capabilities of people, etc Many people today agree that technologies such as the artificial heart, prosthetics, pace makers, the kidney dialysis machine, and other such devices are all great improvements to our daily lives. An artificial heart or pace maker may be the difference between someone living long enough to see his or her grandchildren or even great-grandchildren. Prosthetic limbs can allow a person to walk again after losing his or her leg(s). The kidney dialysis machine allows for people whose kidneys are not functioning properly to live mostly normal lives. These technologies are present all around us today, and are constantly being improved upon. There is even promising research being done on tadpoles that showed how *t+he tadpoles could regenerate their tails as late as 18 hours after amputationThis could have significant implications for treating wounds sustained in war and may be applicable to many complex organs and tissues.3 This is one type of research being done that deals with finding a way to allow people to regrow limbs. If this were the case, prosthetics would become obsolete.3 Researchers are also developing ways to halt or slow the aging process, so that we may be able to extend peoples life spans by ten, fifteen, or even a hundred years.4 It is also possible in the near future for scientists to be able to cure some diseases at the embryotic stage or manipulate genes to enhance peoples strength, speed, and mental abilities.1 However, at what point do you start crossing the line of creating superhumans? 1

Alyssa Dyess-Tregre 10/31/12 For example, the military is currently funding research into creating the soldier of the future5 also known as super soldiers.6 One example they give is of a soldier enhanced with smart drugs and prosthetics and encased in a suit with amazing abilities of its own.5 These soldiers would supposedly be able to run for several days without becoming tired or needing to stop and rest. Currently, researchers have found that genetically engineered mice that produce larger amounts of a specific enzyme called PEPCK-C, are able to run at a speed of twenty meters per minute on a treadmill for up to six hours before stopping.7 However, the mice are also more aggressive and need to eat a lot of food.7 If it were only the suit they were developing, there wouldnt be as much controversy over the issue; however, the drugs, prosthetics, and possible genetic modification add a whole new dimension to the issue. Is it really ethical to change what science defines as the very essence of a person? This brings up the question of what makes us human. Would a soldier who has been enhanced with smart drugs and prosthetics5 really be human anymore after all the changes to his or her genetic make-up, changes that could include cross-species manipulation, inhibiting some normal body functions to fit additions, and taking out genes that may not be considered necessary for a soldier as well as adding prosthetic limbs and possibly mechanical organs that will work more efficiently than their organic counterparts?1 From here, what is there to keep us from going another step into the realm of creating soldiers that cant refuse an order, or that dont feel pain? This was exactly the type of thing that researchers were working on during WWII, and at the time the public condemned it as an atrocity.8 However, every day we get closer and closer to being able to make that a reality, but should we? Some people would say that it is becoming necessary for us to go to these extremes because the technology is there and someone will use it. But how far can we allow ourselves to go? Should we act on the basis that someone will use the technology against us if we dont use it first? At what point are we simply justifying playing God9? Where do we draw the line between what is necessary and what is simply extra? And how do we decide what is necessary? It can be debated that physical survival needs 2

Alyssa Dyess-Tregre 10/31/12 are no longer all that is necessary to life as we know it today, and that we must also meet social norms and expectations as well as compete for a successful career in order to really survive in todays world. In addition, no one really understands the full implications and long-term repercussions of changing the gene pool to such a degree. There could be many unforeseen outcomes that could turn out to be positive or negative. The issue is that we simply dont know enough about what is possible in an area where impossibility no longer seems to exist. For example, there is research being done on creating bullet proof skin10 using spider web silk. The silk would be grown between the epidermis and the dermis of human skin.10 On the one hand, this sort of protection would save lives, but on the other hand, it would lead into the development of weapons that could penetrate the skin, and there is really no way to guarantee the same effect for everyone. For some people it may work like expected, but for others it is possible that it could go haywire and start growing on every tissue surface which may inhibit normal bodily functions, or some equally undesired outcome. Also, what if it accidently enters the gene pool? What could possibly happen to descendants a hundred or a thousand years from now? Furthermore, going back to the definition of what is superhuman, the definition is based upon what we consider to be normally within human capabilities. On the other hand, there is no set in stone definition of what normal is. It is simply an idea based upon our personal ideals, past experiences, and social influences. It is normal nowadays for someone to have an organ transplant, but only about fifty years ago it was considered impossible and very controversial. However, what if our idea of what is normal changes? Right now the idea of regrowing limbs is not considered normal, but what if in the years to come, that becomes the norm? Does that mean our definition of what it is to be human can change as well? And if so, what would the humans of today be considered compared to the superhumans we are proposing? How would this affect our social classes? Well first off, if we can create superhumans, we can certainly create subhumans which are defined as being less than human.11 Some people fear that we will one day 3

Alyssa Dyess-Tregre 10/31/12 create people with limited intelligence to do mundane and repetitive work such as working on an assembly line.9 Is this ethical in and of itself? Will we give them any will of their own? What will be their quality of life? Or will they simply be considered part of the machinery and not human at all. Moreover, what about the errors as they might be come to be called? The people that are supposed to be enhanced, but it goes all wrong and the result is something more out of a horror story than everyday life. What happens to them? Do we selectively destroy them? Do we outcast them as freaks? Do we put them in a subhuman class? Furthermore, not everyone can afford to make use of this kind of research, especially when it is first presented to the public, and some people may find it against their religion and refuse to make use of it.9 Would this create a new hierarchy of social classes? For example, would super soldiers if given no will of their own, be considered subhuman, while the people who cant afford to be enhanced or choose not to be considered human, and those who can afford it, superhuman? Will there be some sort of standard that each group is held to? What is there to keep one group from taking advantage of another? Or even letting social fads such as being super skinny decide what changes are made? Once we really start allowing some of this to become available to the public, the changes to our social orders may be drastic. In this light, even though the technology is there, perhaps society is not quite ready. Science is progressing at a much greater pace then the world around it, and until there is a set system to deal with all of the finer details of all the ethical issues and ways to prohibit people from using the technology in decidedly unethical ways, it should be kept out of public use to a degree. As wonderful many of these technologies would be in the short-term, there is still much that we do not know about the possible long-term effects or unwanted results. However, just because something could go wrong, doesnt mean that we should be afraid of continuing research, just that we should be careful. If for no other reason than that we would be making changes to our very genetic or physiological make-up, we should be cautious during every step to help prevent any unwanted affects. 4

Alyssa Dyess-Tregre 10/31/12 For this reason, we should move more into developing our society and creating a board of ethics specifically for this issue. That way, when this research is finally ready to be available to the public, perhaps our society will be ready to receive it in a well thought out and educated way. This research could be humanitys greatest blessing or its agonizing curse. In order to ensure the prosperity of our descendants, we must unite on this issue. No one small group can be in control if we are to avoid many of the unpleasant possible outcomes. Either we proceed for the benefit for all, or we will run ourselves to ruin. Then again, who can possibly decide what is best for humanity? We need more information and years and years of debate, before we can move forward on the matter. All in all, ninety-two percent of Americans were against the idea of superhumans.9 So even if researchers wish to continue on this path, they are going to have to really start convincing a lot of people that it is safe and that the benefits far outweigh any possible negative effects. The argument still stands, that this research will potentially save thousands of lives and will improve the quality of life for everyone. However, there are still many unforeseen issues that may come up as well as a plethora of ethical issues to be dealt with before it can really even be considered. We are no longer just creating new medicine or new imaging equipment. We are on the brink of changing the very fabric of our being. But should we risk everything for the hope of something greater? Some would argue that taking such risks is what really makes us human. But in this case would it perhaps be better if we force ourselves to be patient and grow at a moderate pace so that we have the time to be cautious?

Brey, P. (2009). Biomedical Engineering Ethics. Eds. Berg-Olsen, J., Pedersen, S., Hendricks, V. (eds.), A Companion to Philosophy of Technology. Blackwell.
1

Superhuman. Def. 2. Collins English Dictionary-Complete and Unabridged. 5th ed. 2003.
2

Alyssa Dyess-Tregre 10/31/12 Salamon, M. (2010, September 28). Frog may teach humans how to regrow limbs. LiveScience, Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/10132-frog-teachhumans-regrow-limbs.html
3

Glannon, W. (2002). Extending the human life span.Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 27(3), 339-354. Retrieved from http://www.welie.net/gregcourse/Literature/Glan339.pdf
4

Weinberger, S. (2009, May 23). Soldier of the future: How the military is planning for the wars of tomorrow. New York Post. Retrieved from http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cRlyg31sJH4jTFhCA3XF XF;jsessijses=42042E7BA88CC3BC563593E4
5

Genetic engineering: Toward the super human. (2011, November 22). Koinonia House eNews. Retrieved from http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2011/1863/
6

Case Western Reserve University (2007, November 2). Genetically Engineered 'Mighty Mouse' Can Run 6 Kilometers Without Stopping. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071101162739.htm
7

Patton, R. (1999). Nazi mind control. Citadel Press, Retrieved from http://www.whale.to/b/patton.html
8 9

David, M. (2001, May 18). "Designer" humans. CQ Researcher, 11(19), 425-440.

Halverson, N. (2011, August 10). Artificial skin made from spider silk. Retrieved from http://news.discovery.com/tech/artificial-skin-spider-silk-110810.html
10

Subhuman. Def. 2. Collins English Dictionary-Complete and Unabridged. 5th ed. 2003.
11