Conceptual Challenges in the Application of Existing Regulations to Human Enhancement / Thibault Moulin

Thibault Moulin

See the Presentation

The armies have always tried to augment the capacities of their soldiers. To decrease fatigue, amphetamines were first used by Germans during the second world war, then by the USA in Vietnam. The use of modafinil was tested and approved for use in France, the UK and the USA.[1] Many armies are now developing exoskeletons to increase physical capacities, or brain-machine interfaces (a device that ‘translates neuronal information into commands capable of controlling external software or hardware such as a computer or robotic arm’).[2]

However, the development of such technologies cause significant ethical problems: science is indeed not put at the service of therapeutic needs, but is used on healthy persons to gain a military advantage. The trauma of the macabre experiences in nazi concentration camps is still alive. Bioethicists have developed interest in the question for a long time, whereas lawyers have only recently started to study it.

However, the legal framework developed by states after the second world war hardly addresses the new challenges raised by these types of experiments. At the time, the goal was to prevent belligerents from carrying out arbitrary experiments on prisoners of war and civilians. As to disarmament conventions, they usually prevent the experiment of some types of weapons, but whether enhancement falls under their scope is unclear. Last but not least, the notion of ‘enhancement’ still lacks a universally agreed definition.