Cultivating Humanity in Bio- and Artificial Sciences

Abstract

The following pages offer some reflections on the chapters in this book that are primarily considering the human character of science from the perspective of biological and biomedical sciences. More specifically, Benjamin Hurlbut, Alfredo Marcos, and Christopher Tollefsen’s contributions have focused on this different aspect of the human decline in science. The Authors propose three different approaches to the human character of science and what it means. Although the proposed accounts of the potential threats to the humanness of science follow different trajectories, similar or complementary arguments run across their narratives: revealing that critical voices toward a potential loss of humanity through technology come from multiple and pluralistic perspectives – often under-represented in the public debate. In these pages I will focus on some shared concerns and conclusions. First, the Authors converge in arguing that the technologies of life represent a major place where the humanity of science has been and is under threat. Second, they similarly highlight some assumptions that inform, connect, and circulate in, both life sciences and artificial sciences. Third, directly or indirectly they all argue that the question about “what kind of humanity” we should nurture and reinvigorate should be placed at the core of the human cognitive and political enterprise.