Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The gene-editing of super-ego

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

“It is possible to get the life-phenomenon under our control ... such a control and nothing else is the aim of biology.” Jacques Loeb (1859–1924) Quoted from (Pauly 1987).

Abstract

New emerging biotechnologies, such as gene editing, vastly extend our ability to alter the human being. This comes together with strong aspirations to improve humans not only physically, but also mentally, morally, and socially. These conjoined ambitions aggregate to what can be labelled “the gene editing of super-ego.” This article investigates a general way used to argue for new biotechnologies, such as gene-editing: if it is safe and efficacious to implement technology X for the purpose of a common good Y, why should we not do so? This is a rhetorical question with a conditional, and may be dismissed as such. Moreover, investigating the question transformed into a formal argument reveals that the argument does not hold either. Nonetheless, the compelling force of the question calls for closer scrutiny, revealing that this way of arguing for biotechnology is based on five assumptions. Analysis of these assumptions shows their significant axiological, empirical, and philosophical challenges. This makes it reasonable to claim that these kinds of question based promotions of specific biotechnologies fail. Hence, the aspirations to make a super-man with a super-ego appear fundamentally flawed. As these types of moral bioenhancement arguments become more prevalent, a revealing hype test is suggested: What is special with this technology (e.g., gene editing), compared to existing methods, that makes it successful in improving human social characteristics in order to make the world a better place for all? Valid answers to this question will provide good reasons to pursue such technologies. Hence, the aim is not to bar the development of modern biotechnology, but rather to ensure good developments and applications of highly potent technologies. So far, we still have a long way to go to make persons with goodness gene(s).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Which add to other technologies such as drugs, brain stimulation, pluripotent stem cell induction, and others.

  2. And with only one perspective on good and bad.

  3. On a historical note, it has been argued that Freud in his neurological and psychological period while working on the “Project for a scientific psychology” (Freud 1966 [1895]; Oring and Rangell 2007) wrote a thesis on neuroscience. However, Freud is supposed to have burned this manuscript in 1885 together with other works that he felt were not up to standards.

References

  • Bostrom, Nick. 2009. Dignity and enhancement. Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice 1: 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bublitz, Christoph. 2016. Moral enhancement and mental freedom. Journal of Applied Philosophy 33 (1): 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarti, Aravinda. 2011. Genomics is not enough. Science 334 (6052): 15–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Araujo, Marcelo. 2017. Editing the genome of human beings: CRISPR-Cas9 and the ethics of genetic enhancement. Journal of Evolution and Technology 27: 24–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dylan, B. 1964. “The Times They Are a-Changin’” Recorded October 24, 1963, released 1964, length 3:15. http://www.songlexikon.de/songs/timestheyaredylan/

  • Editor. 1967. Criminal behaviour and the Y chromosome. British Medical Journal 1 (5532): 64–65. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.5532.64.

  • Elkon, Ran, and Reuven Agami. 2017. Characterization of noncoding regulatory DNA in the human genome. Nature Biotechnology 35 (8): 732–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freud, Sigmund. 1966. [1895]. Project for a scientific psychology (1950 [1895]). In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume I (1886–1899): Pre-Psycho-Analytic Publications and Unpublished Drafts, 281–391.

  • Gilbert, Walter. 1992. A vision of the grail. In The Code of Codes, eds. Daniel J. Kevles, and Leroy Hood, 83–97. Cambridge, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. 2011. Moral enhancement and freedom. Bioethics 25 (2): 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01854.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauskeller, Michael. 2014. Better Humans?: Understanding the Enhancement Project. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, Bjørn. 2002. Is there a technological imperative in health care? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 18 (3): 675–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B. 2017. Limits to human enhancement: Nature, disease, therapy or betterment. BMC Meical Ethics 18 (56): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0215-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jotterand, Fabrice. 2017. Cognitive enhancement of today may be the normal of tomorrow. In Neuroethics: Anticipating the Future, ed. Judy Illes, 411–425. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahane, G. 2011. Mastery without mystery: Why there is no promethean sin in enhancement. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4): 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2011.00543.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahane, G., and J. Savulescu. 2015. Normal human variation: Refocussing the enhancement debate. Bioethics 29 (2): 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, Claudia, Maddalena Vierbuchen, Ulrich Ernst, Stefan Fischer, Reinder Radersma, Aura Raulo, Filipa Cunha-Saraiva, Min Wu, Kenyon Mobley, and Barbara Taborsky. 2017. Genetics and developmental biology of cooperation. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14208

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, David. 2017. More human than human. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 26 (3): 476–490. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180116001158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Page, Michael. 2017. Rare DNA mutations make people less clever. New Scientist 234: 9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, S., Anders Matthew, Sandberg, and Rebecca Roache. 2012. Human engineering and climate change. Ethics, Policy & Environment 15 (2): 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Joseph B. 2017. Reflections on Science, Religion and Society: A Medical Perspective. Altona: FriesenPress

    Google Scholar 

  • Moen, O. M. 2016. Bright new world. Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics 25 (2): 282–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180115000584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oring, Elliott, and Leo Rangell. 2007. The Road to Unity in Psychoanalytic Theory. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Gerald. 2014. Moral enhancement and moral disagreement. PhD, University of Oxford.

  • Pauly, Philip J. 1987. Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb and the Engineering Ideal in Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2008. The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. Journal of Applied Philos ophy 25 (3): 162–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2010. Moral transhumanism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (6): 656–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2012. Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement. Oxford: OUP Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2013a. Getting moral enhancement right: The desirability of moral bioenhancement. Bioethics 27 (3):124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2013b. Should moral bioenhancement be compulsory? Reply to Vojin Rakic. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, Steven. 2008. The Moral Instinct. The New York Times.

  • Salvatore, J. E., S. Larsson Lonn, J. Sundquist, P. Lichtenstein, K. Sundquist, and K. S. Kendler. 2017. Alcohol use disorder and divorce: Evidence for a genetic correlation in a population-based Swedish sample. Addiction 112 (4): 586–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, Anders, and Joao Fabiano. 2017. Modeling the social dynamics of moral enhancement: Social strategies sold over the counter and the stability of society. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 26 (3): 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180116001109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, Julian, and Ingmar Persson. 2012. Moral enhancement. Philosophy Now 91: 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, Kellie A., Wen-Hsuan Wu, F. Diana, H. Colgan, Stephen, G. Tsang, Alexander, Bassuk, and Vinit B. Mahajan. 2017. Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo. Nature Methods 14 (6):547–548. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4293 http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v14/n6/abs/nmeth.4293.html#supplementary-information.

  • Sniekers, Suzanne, Sven Stringer, Kyoko Watanabe, Philip R Jansen, Jonathan R. I. Coleman, Eva Krapohl, Erdogan Taskesen, Anke R. Hammerschlag, Aysu Okbay, and Delilah Zabaneh. 2017. Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence. Nature Genetics 49: 1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, Charles Percy. 1959. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution: The Rede Lecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz. 2016. The stoic sage 3.0–A realistic goal of moral (Bio) enhancement supporters? Journal of Evolution and Technology 26 (1): 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, Robert. 2014. Better living through chemistry? A reply to Savulescu and Persson on ‘moral enhancement’. Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (1): 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Graham J, Peter L. Hurd, and Bernard J. Crespi. 2013. Genes underlying altruism. Biology Letters 9 (6): 20130395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Kevin. 2017. CRISPR and the future of genome engineering: A bold new world. Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology, and Society 10 (3).

  • Warrier, V., K. L. Grasby, F. Uzefovsky, R. Toro, P. Smith, B. Chakrabarti, J. Khadake, E. Mawbey-Adamson, N. Litterman, and J. J. Hottenga. 2017. Genome-wide meta-analysis of cognitive empathy: Heritability, and correlates with sex, neuropsychiatric conditions and cognition. Molecular Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2017.122

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S., and B. B. Berle. 1981. The Technological Imperative in Medicine. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a presentation at ESPMH in Belgrade August 20, 2017. I am most thankful for a good discussion and comments from attendees and for pointed critique and very wise suggestions from excellent reviewers.

Funding

This research received no specific Grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Health Sciences, Norwegian University Science and Technology, PO Box 1, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway

    Bjørn Hofmann

  2. Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Bjørn Hofmann

Authors
  1. Bjørn Hofmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bjørn Hofmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declare that he has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hofmann, B. The gene-editing of super-ego. Med Health Care and Philos 21, 295–302 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9836-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9836-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation