Advertisement

Criteria for a Regulatory Framework of Human Enhancement

  • Nayef R. F. Al-Rodhan
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series

Abstract

Given all the potential dangers and opportunities related to human enhancement technologies, the issue of regulating these technologies is one that we must address urgently as an international community. As is the case with most transnational issues, the best way to comprehensively address and regulate human enhancement technologies will be through an international forum. However, with human enhancement technologies, the preference for regulating these emerging technologies at the international level is not merely a desirable situation—given the nature of the technologies and the elements of human destiny that are at stake, it is an imperative.

Keywords

European Union Regulatory Framework Human Dignity Cognitive Enhancement Human Enhancement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    United National General Assembly (1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 217 A (III), 10 December, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/IMG/NR004388.pdf?OpenElement, date accessed 20 August 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N.R.F. Al-Rodhan (2009), Sustainable History and the Dignity of Man: A Philosophy of History and Civilisational Triumph (Berlin: LIT), p. 180.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Bailey (2006), ‘Human Rights and Human Enhancement: Is Genetic Modification of People Moral?’, Reason Online, 29 May, http://www.reason.com/news/show/117339.html, date accessed 18 August 2010.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    M. Brockman (2009), ‘A Limited View of the Future’, Nature, 459.7246, 28 May, 511.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    M. Smits (2009), STOA Workshop in the European Parliament: A European Approach to Human Enhancement (Den Haag: Rathenau Institute).Google Scholar
  7. 10.
  8. 11.
  9. 12.
    The President’s Council on Bioethics (2003), Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness (Washington, D.C.).Google Scholar
  10. 14.
    F. Allhoff, P. Lin, and J. Steinberg (2009), ‘Ethics of Human Enhancement: An Executive Summary’, December, Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 16, No. 2, 3.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    Cf. Allhoff et al. (2009), ‘Ethics of Human Enhancement: An Executive Summary’; P. Lin and F. Allhoff (2008)‘Against Unrestricted Human Enhancement’, Journal of Evolution & Technology, Vol. 18, No. 1, 35–41.Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    Ibid., p. 185.Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    Ibid., p. 210.Google Scholar
  14. 19.
    Ibid., pp. 187–191.Google Scholar
  15. 20.
    G. Dvorsky and J. Hughes (2008), ‘Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary’, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Strategic Technologies (Hartford, CT: IEET), http://ieet.org/archive/IEET-03-PostGender.pdf, date accessed 18 August 2010, p. 2.Google Scholar
  16. 21.
  17. 22.
    Cf. Smits (2009), STOA Workshop in the European Parliament: A European Approach to Human Enhancement.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Nayef R.F. Al-Rodhan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nayef R. F. Al-Rodhan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.St Antony’s CollegeOxford UniversityUK
  2. 2.Geneva Centre for Security PolicyGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations