Submitted manuscript, 495 KB, PDF document
Research output: Book/Report/Proceedings › Other report
Research output: Book/Report/Proceedings › Other report
}
TY - BOOK
T1 - Cesagen response to Nuffield Council on bioethics consultation on novel neurotechnologies
T2 - intervening in the brain
AU - Gunnarsdottir, Kristrun
AU - Chadwick, Ruth
AU - Hughes, Jacqueline
AU - Lewis, Jamie
AU - O'Connor, Alan
AU - Stephens, Neil
PY - 2012/4
Y1 - 2012/4
N2 - In what follows, we do not answer every question [by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics). We first proceed with our comments, referring to the numbered questions as appropriate. Thereafter, we give a case study from recent studies within Cesagen to illustrate more general insights for public policy. Case study 1 illustrates some of the complications that arise in public consultation about human enhancement, in particular, with reference to idealistic perceptions which are strongly influenced by long-term popular imaginations about the future of humans and their societies. As we said in a response to a previous consultation, our position is that attention needs to be paid to how the technologies and the associated issues are framed – ethically, politically, scientifically, and by whom. This includes how a given technology is itself described (typically well before it actually exists, if it comes to do so); the claims made for its purported benefits; how stakeholders are conceptualised; how social-cultural aspects will evolve. Such framing is not exclusively a scientific and technological matter but involves cultural and social imaginations as well as artistic ones.
AB - In what follows, we do not answer every question [by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics). We first proceed with our comments, referring to the numbered questions as appropriate. Thereafter, we give a case study from recent studies within Cesagen to illustrate more general insights for public policy. Case study 1 illustrates some of the complications that arise in public consultation about human enhancement, in particular, with reference to idealistic perceptions which are strongly influenced by long-term popular imaginations about the future of humans and their societies. As we said in a response to a previous consultation, our position is that attention needs to be paid to how the technologies and the associated issues are framed – ethically, politically, scientifically, and by whom. This includes how a given technology is itself described (typically well before it actually exists, if it comes to do so); the claims made for its purported benefits; how stakeholders are conceptualised; how social-cultural aspects will evolve. Such framing is not exclusively a scientific and technological matter but involves cultural and social imaginations as well as artistic ones.
KW - Human enhancement
KW - Advanced therapies
KW - Implant
KW - Identity
KW - Selfhood
KW - Informational bodies
KW - Body modification
KW - Vulnerability
KW - Bioethics
KW - Pragmatism
KW - Technology convergence
KW - Robotics
KW - ELSi
M3 - Other report
VL - Prepared on behalf of Cesagen.
BT - Cesagen response to Nuffield Council on bioethics consultation on novel neurotechnologies
PB - Lancaster University
ER -