El debate filosófico sobre la mejora humana y la cuestión del interés público

  1. García Díaz, Paloma J. 1
  1. 1 Department of Philosophy I, University of Granada
Revista:
Dilemata

ISSN: 1989-7022

Año de publicación: 2015

Título del ejemplar: Cognitive enhancement: an Ethical Debate

Número: 19

Páginas: 65-82

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Dilemata

Resumen

El debate ético sobre la mejora humana es uno de los temas más candentes de la bioética. En este artículo abordo la bioética desde un doble punto de vista, la bioética académica y la bioética en la práctica. Me centro en la exigencia de la bioética práctica que reclama la inclusión de las razones morales que interesan a la opinión pública como modo de enriquecer la bioética académica con más reflexividad. Para ello, presento tres enfoques filosóficos: la ética especulativa del posthumanismo, la antropología filosófica del “estar en-riesgo” de Coeckelbergh y la ética de los militares objeto de mejoramiento de Lin, Mehlman y Abney. Analizo, seguidamente, algunos argumentos filosóficos presentes en esos trabajos que no permiten una reflexión seria sobre el papel del interés público en la bioética académica.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abney, Keith (2013): Problematizing the “Natural”: The Internal/external Distinction and Technology. Synesis: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics, and Policy, 29-36.
  • Bostrom, Nick (2005a): In Defense of Posthuman Dignity. Bioethics, 19(3), 202-214.
  • Bostrom, Nick. (2005b): A History of Transhumanist Thought. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 14, 1-25.
  • Bostrom, Nick & Roache, Rebecca (2011): Smart Policy: Cognitive Enhancement and the Public Interest. In Julian Savulescu, Ruud Meulen & Guy Kahane, (Eds.), Enhancing Human Capacities (pp. 138-149). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Coeckerbergh, Mark (2011): Vulnerable Cyborgs: Learning to Live with our Dragons. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 22(1), 1-9
  • Coeckelbergh, Mark (2013): Human being@Risk: Enhancement, Technology, and the Evaluation of Vulnerability Transformations. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, 12.
  • Enck, Gavin G. (2013): Pharmaceutically Enhancing Medical Professionals for Difficult Conversations. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 23(1), 45-55.
  • Forlini, Cynthia & Racine, Eric (2009): Autonomy and Coercion in Academic “Cognitive Enhancement” Using Methylphenidate: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders. Neuroethics, 2, 163–177.
  • García Díaz, Paloma (2014): Socio-technical controversies, Democracy and Deliberation: New Challenges for Political Philosophy. In Jan Harald Alnes and Manuel Toscano (Edts.), Varieties of Liberalism: Contemporary Challenges (pp. 35-51). New Castle Upon Tyre: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
  • Jasanoff, Sheila (2000): Commentary: Between risk and precaution –reassessing the future of GM crops. Journal of Risk Research, 3(3), 277–282.
  • Jasanoff, Sheila (2003): Technologies of Humilities: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva, 41, 223-244.
  • Jasanoff, Sheila (Ed.) (2011): Reframing Rights: Bio-Constitutionalism in the Genetic Age. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press
  • King, Michael, Whitaker, Maja & Jones, Gareth (2011): Speculative Ethics: Valid Enterprise or Tragic Cul-De-Sac? In Abraham Rudnick (Ed.), Bioethics in the 21st Century. Rijeka: InTech 139-158. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/bioethics-in-the-21st-century/speculativeethics-valid-enterprise-ortragic-cul-de-sac
  • Latour, Bruno (1994): Pragmatogonies. A Mythical Account of How Humans and Nonhumans Swap Properties. American Behavioral Scientist. 37(6), 791-808.
  • Latour, Bruno (1999): Politiques de la nature. Comment faire rentrer les sciences en démocratie. Paris: La Découverte.
  • Lin, Patrick, Mehlman, Maxwell J. & Abney, Keith. 2013. Enhanced Warfighters: Risks, Ethics and Policy. Case Legal Studies Research Paper, 2. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2202982
  • Nordmann, Alfred & Arie Rip (2009): Mind the Gap Revisited. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(5), 273-274.
  • Nordmann, Alfred (2007): If and Then: A Critique of Speculative Nanoethics. Nanoethics, 1, 31-46. Racine, Eric, Matin Rubio, Tristana, Chandler, Jeniifer, Forlini, Cynthia & Lucke, Jayne (2014): The
  • value and pitfalls of speculation about science and technology in bioethics: the case of cognitive enhancement. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy, 17, 325–337.
  • Roache, Rebecca (2008): Ethics, Speculation and Values. Nanoethics, 2(3), 317-327.
  • Sahakian, Barbara & Labuzzeta Jamie Nichole (2013): Bad Moves. How decision-making goes wrong and the ethics of smart drugs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Savulescu, Julian (2009): The Human Prejudice and the Moral Status of Enhanced Beings: What Do We Owe the Gods. In Julian Savulescu & Nick Bostrom, (Eds.), Human Enhancement (pp. 211- 247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Schicktanz, Silke, Schweda, Mark & Wynne, Brian (2012): The ethics of ‘public understanding of ethics’—why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients’ voices. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy, 15, 129–139.
  • Steikamp, Norbert, Gordijn, Bert and Ten Have, Henk A. N. J. (2008): Debating ethical expertise. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 18(2), 173–192.
  • Weinstein, Bruce D. (1994): The possibility of ethical expertise. Theoretical Medicine 15, 61-75.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet