Science

Human enhancement may be just around the corner. How do Americans view these emerging technologies that may one day enhance our human capabilities?

Americans are more worried than excited or enthusiastic about the potential for healthy people to use synthetic blood (63% vs. 36%). And a majority of Americans – roughly six-in-ten – said they would not want synthetic blood substitutes in their own body to improve their abilities, while 35% would be open to it.

A new gene-editing method called CRISPR exemplifies how the technology is rapidly becoming a present-day reality. Yet, Americans are wary of editing embryos, according to a survey on the broader field of “human enhancement.”

Emerging technologies that draw from biomedical technology, nanotechnology, information technology and other fields may lead to any number of ways people might be able to “upgrade” themselves. But a majority of Americans greet the possibility of these breakthroughs with more wariness and worry than enthusiasm and hope.

Americans are wary of the prospect of implanting a computer chip in their brains to improve their mental abilities or adding synthetic blood to their veins to make them stronger and faster. And this is particularly true of those who are highly religious.

Christian Brugger, a professor of moral theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary, believes that people are right to be concerned about the social impact of human enhancement. Anders Sandberg, a research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, thinks that, on balance, human enhancement will improve and enrich our lives.

Many in the general public expect scientific and technological innovation to bring helpful change to society. Yet, when Americans are asked about the potential use of emerging technologies that could push the boundaries of human abilities, they are far more cautious about the morality and effects of these advances.

The scientific and ethical dimensions of striving for perfection