With the rapid advances being made in the fields of science and technology, questions regarding the corresponding development within ethics are becoming more commonplace. Is our ethical framework developing at the same rate as progress in science and technology? Are ethical standards and parameters being exceeded? Yet simply asking the questions is not enough. Answers to these pertinent questions must be sought after and in order for this to occur, time and space must be given to enter into meaningful dialogue with all parties concerned in order to learn, comprehend and formulate a response.
One example of this could be the current project being run by the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) entitled “Ethical Futures”. Since 1997 the RSA has championed ethical debates by hosting a wide range of lectures and the Forum for Ethics in the Workplace between 1997 and 2001. Ethical Futures is a continuation of that work and according to the publicity, seeks to explore, debate and define the new ethical landscape which is emerging and aims to prototype ethical guidelines on human enhancement. Its first event, ‘Ethical Futures: Boundaries to Human Enhancement’ was held on Monday 3rd December 2007 at the RSA in London and saw a range of leading specialists gather together to explore topics such as how communication of the issues can be improved, how ethical frameworks can be developed nationally and trans-nationally and some of the current implications being posed by emerging technologies on both the individual and societal level.
The role of the media
The issue of improving the conversation concerning emerging technologies was addressed in the first panel discussion of the morning. Chaired by Oliver Morton, Chief News and Features Editor of Nature, the panel consisted of Dr. Anjana Ahuja, Features writer and columnist of The Times and Cory Doctorow, a science fiction writer. Owing to the 24/7 news culture, the advent of the Internet and improvements in media communications, the way in which we learn and receive information today is influenced from a number of sources. The effects of this are that it becomes increasingly more difficult to differentiate fact from fiction. Consequently, this can play a crucial role in determining whether certain emerging technologies are quickly tarnished with the ‘yuk’ or ‘wow’ factor. In order to better inform the public, the power of the media needs to be better harnessed in order to enrich the dialogue.
Developing frameworks for ethics
On the issue of developing frameworks for ethics, a very insightful session took place later on in the morning drawing upon presentations from Japan, the USA, Europe and the UK. Prof. Nigel Cameron speaking on the USA perspective noted that whilst there is much happening in pre-debate form there is actually very little entering into the USA ‘legislation machine’. Public engagements initiatives are helping to keep the discussion active and helping to prime the pump for more mainstream discussion.
Prof. Julian Kinderlerer contrasted this by offering an European perspective with specific regard to the work of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. Prof. Kinderlerer explained the group’s role and function in relation to the President of the European Commission who primarily directs and initiates the focus of the group’s work. Recent projects have included addressing the ethics on nano medicine and human embryonic stem cells. To the audience, the consequences of these arrangements quickly became apparent: a set of rather cumbersome and restrictive parameters for an ethics group to work within effectively.
Mr. Hugh Whittall, Director of the Nuffield Council, brought the UK perspective by explaining the role of the Council in contributing to policy making. Through identifying and defining key ethical questions, the Council seeks to bring a strategic contribution to this conversation by way of novel, complex and timely reports. However the Council has yet to really focus on emerging technologies but plans exist to provide the basis for ethical discussions on these issues.
Enhancement: today’s research
The afternoon session chaired by Professor Igor Aleksander, addressed the area of current research and the implications at the forefront of science. Professor Atsuo Takanishi gave a very entertaining presentation on humanoid robotics within Japanese culture and society. The extent of research and development into humanoid robotics in Japan was clear to see and the advances being made are quite incredible. However, the perceived naivety as to where this work is supposed to be leading to alongside what is really going to be achievable also came to the fore.
Bringing some balance to this was the presentation by Professor Noel Sharkey who addressed the ethical implications of robots being used on the battlefield and law enforcement. Whilst in no way seeming to stir up fear or appear luddite, Professor Sharkey nevertheless offered a very helpful overview of the work currently being carried out with robots as extensions of human fighters. For example, he reported of Korea’s desire to have a robot police force into the future and the direction in which research is being carried out in order to give robots the responsibility to decide who to kill, when to kill and how to kill. The prospect of being able to assign one soldier responsibility for an army of robots may seem cost efficient and futuristic but as Professor Sharkey commented, how far and to what extent can robots be given the ability to exercise discriminative ability? Far from making war ‘safer’ could battlefield robots actually lead to the killing of innocents?
Professor Kevin Warwick then brought some perspectives on the future of humans with regard to the advances of the cyborg. Whilst always intriguing due to his perspective of humanity and merging man with machine, his discussion of giving human infra-red capabilities in such a way so as to not allow humans to emit an external output but be enhanced to have infra-red sense was interesting and thought provoking. Perhaps even more pertinent than any other presentation of the afternoon, it provoked the question, how far do we truly enhance the human body?
Professor Barbara Sahakian’s presentation helpfully picked on up this idea further by addressing the issue of cognitive enhancement, drawing upon the examples of Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia as illnesses which could be treated through such enhancements. Professor Sahakian gave a very detailed and balanced presentation on her work in this field particularly with regard to the neuroethics involved, concluding with the call for scientists to work together with social scientists, philosophers, ethicists, policy makers and the general public in order to discuss the ethical issues in order to move forward appropriately.
Building on the momentum
All in all, the day’s proceedings helped to communicate the fact that we cannot afford to continue to allow our ethics to lag behind developments. Ignoring the issues and hoping it is just bad science fiction will not suffice, as will hoping the issues will sort themselves out on their own without any form of engagement from government, scientists and policy makers. As the comparison of different countries showed, bringing the subject of emerging technologies onto the radar must be the first goal, here in the UK at the very least. Pre-debate discussion is useful and strategic but must then begin to feed into the legislative process. However to leave it all to the discretion of politicians to determine focus and direction will not open up the veins of discussion which really need to be discussed. If what the Japanese are proposing may seem too far fetched at the moment or of dubious use and function then surely the implications of cognitive enhancement in helping to treat Alzheimer’s and the extent to which we enhance the human body warrants the need for discussion now? As painstaking, frustrating and difficult as it may be, the fact remains that together, the scientist, social scientist, politician, policy maker, philosopher, ethicist and the public need to find someway in which to differentiate between what is inherently wrong and what may be new and different but nevertheless be wise and useful in its development. There is a fine line between “being human” and “being super human” yet we must work diligently to find it, remembering that limits not only prohibit but also permit activity within a specific field.
It has to be acknowledged that much work and effort has already gone into initiating discussion and engagement over these issues. Nonetheless, given the continuous pace of technological achievement there is even more need to continue the ethics conversation building on the momentum generated so far as opposed to reverting to inertia.
