Yesterday's E-chat with bioethicist George Annas about human enhancement and genetic engineering brought up the so-called precautionary principle, which is a "go slow" approach to dealing with new technologies. For a take on the "go fast" approach, here are bits of an E-mail chat I had with James Hughes, a health policy instructor at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. Hughes is also executive director of the World Transhumanist Association, which "advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities," according to the group's Web site. In addition, Hughes is author of the book Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future, which will be published by Basic Books in October.
Next News: Today's exploration of science and technology
Archive: A comprehensive listing of Next News columns
Next News: What's your perspective on the precautionary principle as applied to genetic engineering and other medical technologies?
Hughes: The "precautionary principle" is generally used by Luddites to say "we shouldn't do X because we don't know what its long-term implications will be." We think technological regulation should respect individual rights to control our own bodies and only interfere with those rights when there are clear and immediate harms to public health. For instance, we think human reproductive cloning should be illegal until it has been proven safe in animal studies. Then it should be considered a reproductive right since all the blather about the deconstruction of family ties and so forth aren't legitimate reasons to interfere in intimate decisions about reproduction.
Next News: What is the role of government, as you see it, in advancing these technologies?
Hughes: Transhumanists are divided on the best ways to advance technology innovation and access. Some of us, like me, are strong advocates of expanding government funding of basic science and creating a universal healthcare system that makes enhancement technology available to everybody. Others think a minimalist government, both in funding research and ensuring universal access, is the best way to ensure the rapid development and broad accessibility of good tech. Similarly, we are divided about the legitimacy of government regulation for safety. Some think that safety regulations are killing innovations and generally oppose new regulation. I and others support all legitimate regulation that is strictly intended to ensure the safety of technologies. What we are united on is our opposition to Luddite and religious fundamentalist bans on promising technologies based on worries about "playing God" or open-ended anxieties about the long-term implications of technology.
