“Improvement of Human” and Neuroethics

Genome Editing: the Danger of Stigmatization and Society Stratification

Abstract

We analyze bioethical problems associated with intentions and attempts at “human improvement”— mostly, within the framework of psycho-neuro-genetics: at the level of genome editing, genetic manipulations, and the implementation of the latest achievements of NBIC technologies. We point out associated dangers and risks, and the controversial character of the non-therapeutic improvement of a human. We note that the discovery of genetic predisposition to alcohol and drug addiction not only makes it possible to identify individuals potentially susceptible to these conditions, and those with pathophysiological brain processes, and can contribute to their treatment, but also can lead to stigmatisation and stratification of the society. Currently, the attempts to “correct” pathological genes through molecular editing have not been sufficiently developed, and their application in defiance of the precautionary principle can result in irreversible and dangerous consequences for humanity. Human cyborgisation which is considered promising in some circles is also fraught with a number of ethical problems and risks. As is the case with gene editing, it can lead to the social stratification, demarcation of the human/robot concepts, and self-identification of the subject of such influences. Under these conditions, neuroethics, before dealing with the applied problems of the moral regulation of neuroscience and neurotechnologies, should provide an ethical assessment of the problem of “human improvement” and its potential risks— in particular, the inevitable risks of subjectivity and voluntarism. Humanity is currently at a turning point in its history, and bioethics and neuroethics must act as independent judges, with the ability to maintain an optimal balance between the so-called “progressives” and “conservatives”.