Webliography
The issues concerning bioethical standards and the use of technology to enhance human bodies has been discussed for many years. From Frankenstein to The Visible Human Project and beyond, people have been arguing over the ethical issues around the use of technology to enhance human bodies. I will analyze 5 scholarly works that I have found on the internet. These articles explore many facets that have led to the complex bioethical debates we are now confronted with. Politics and religion are closely interwoven aspects of our cultural fiber. Bioethical debate has become one of the battlegrounds of our human political experience and no matter if one doesn’t hold an opinion, these issues will affect them in some fashion. The question of what it is to be human and to what extent technology should play in aiding our human experience will be explored and pondered for years to come.
The technological extensions that have aided humanity from the first stone tools to nanotechnologies have assisted us in our endeavors to survive. Whether it is to acquire food, stay warm or know how to make fire. These early technological advancements have been beneficial to us. In Technology as Extension of Human Functional Architecture, Alexander Chislenko argues that human production of technology is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has been going on since the dawn of humanity. His argument is based on an evolutional theory that supports the ideals of technological means for adaptation. Chislenko states, “I would define technology as anything intentionally designed, even if no external physical objects have been used. As for the human identity, we can draw borders in different physical and functional places. I personally identify more with my writings than with bacteria in my stomach. The extensions can also be inside and outside the body or programmed within natural bodily functions such as language or other artificial skills” (Chislenko p.3). The problem with Chislenko’s argument is that he defines technology as something natural, when so many have defined it as artificial. His thesis is bold by arguing that all technological advancements throughout history can be attributed to the ‘natural’ evolution of the human species.
Many debates concerning the novel Frankenstein have been swirling since the novel was written. People could hardly fathom that victor Frankenstein could create an entity derived of mechanical and human parts. The use of technology to create Frankenstein was challenged by the people in the village who were threatened by the unnaturalness of his being. Furthermore, the monster doesn’t realize he is unnatural after an incident that exposes his unnaturalness. Robert Anderson argues in Body Parts that Matter: Frankenstein or the Modern Cyborg? “The creature Frankenstein was born in a laboratory, not a garden, and while it may be considered to be innocent by the reader, it is never considered to be so by Victor—its existence itself is monstrous, not innocent. The creature also shows moments where it takes irony for granted, but only after it comes to a certain self awareness of its own monstrosity—after the incident with William and the family in the hut” (Anderson p.3)”. Anderson’s arguments are solid in this article, but it lacks original thought and direction. That is, he compares quotes others so much that it is hard to decipher his thesis.
The Visible Human Project has given many web users the opportunity for anatomical exploration in a virtual world. This privilege has come under some scrutiny regarding the ethical boundaries that have been crossed when this project was undertaken. In Lacerations: The Visible Human Project, Impossible Anatomies, and the Loss of Corporeal Comprehension, Eugene Thacker argues that there can be consequences for using the software in a medical context. His two pronged attack against the use of the Visible Human Project in medicine criticizes the authenticity of the virtual world as a medium for anatomical research. Thacker argues, “This is not discovery science, where anatomists will claim to have uncovered new structures in the human body; rather, this is an analytical science, in which first the cadaver and then the data-body are urged to become the most technically- sophisticated bodies possible…The Visible Human Project, in taking its impossible anatomies as new models for the body-in itself, is producing a set of norms that is in excess” (Thacker p.6). Thacker’s analysis and criticisms of the use of this software questions whether or not it is safe to use when examining real patients. By using computer simulation to work on an actual cadaver, something is lost in the translation between the virtual and real world. This could have serious consequences and raises more questions concerning bioethical standards.
Bioethical standards have been largely ignored when it comes to making money, succeeding at sport or creating healthier, happier children. These alterations of humanity could result in serious consequences. In The enhancement of human capacities by medical and biological technologies Dr. Ruud Ter Muelen argues that these consequences would be the result of gene manipulation and the bi products of human greed. Ruud Ter Muelen claims, “An important issue might be that of social coercion and control. The risk that technologies for example like behavioral genetics may be used to eliminate behavior that is considered less desirable or acceptable on a large scale is not a totally realistic scenario. As a result, the behavior of individuals may become conformist or shallow, with a homogenization of society as a possible consequence” (Ter Muelen p.4). This consequence could tighten government control over our bodies and minds. Our personal spheres could be further penetrated by government regulations.
Political debate regarding bioethics in the US is backed by special interest groups who harbour bipartisan beliefs. Transhumanist supporters align themselves with ideas of technological advancements to aid in our human experience, whilst, bioconservatives push for more government regulation in issues such as cloning and nanotechnology. In Human Enhancement on the Agenda Dr. John Hughes argues that this bipartisanship has shifted to the right due to increased spending by conservative Christian groups opposed to technological body modification. Hughes states, “ Stacked with conservative intellectuals, and even replacing two of the few liberals with conservatives in 2003, the PBC recommended a moratorium on embryonic cell research and a permanent ban on human reproductive cloning” (Hughes, p. 1). If we are to regain control over our bodies and promote research on life saving stem cell research, it is imperative that political control is regained.
Bioethics is at the forefront of debate in many countries and what it means to be human is constantly being argued. These five articles offer insight to this debate and critically analyze both sides of the argument.








Work cited
1. Anderson, Robert. ‘Body Parts That Matter: Frankenstein, or The Modern Cyborg?’
Original Articles (1999) http://www.womenswriters.net/editorials/anderson1.htm
[accessed 25 August 2008].
2. Chilenko, Alexander. ‘Technology as Extension of Human Functional Architecture’
Extropy Online (1997) http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/technology_as_extension.html [accessed 25 August2008].
3. Hughes, James. ‘Human Enhancement on the Agenda’ Institute for Ethics and
Emerging Technologies http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET [accessed 25 August 2008].
4. Muelen, Ruud. ‘The Enhancement of Human Capacities by medical and biological
Technologies’ Centre for Ethics in Medicine University of Bristol
http://www.bris.ac.uk/ethicsinmedicine/currentevents/inaugural.html [accessed
26 August 2008].
5. Thacker, Eugene. ‘Lacerations: The Visible Human Project, Impossible Anatomies,
and the Loss of Corporeal Comprehension’ Culture Machine, Vol.3 (2001)
http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/viewArticle/293/278
[accessed 26 August 2008].