Podcast Summary

Overview

Episode Title: Biomedical Enhancement and the Ethics of Development
Podcast: LSE: Public lectures and events
Speaker: Alan Buchanan (guest lecturer, Professor of Philosophy and Bioethics)
Host: Alex Voorhoeven, LSE Philosophy
Date: March 10, 2010
Purpose:
Alan Buchanan explores the ethics of biomedical enhancement, focusing on fairness, social implications, state involvement, and common false assumptions within the public and academic debates on human enhancement.

Main Theme

The lecture interrogates the ethical concerns around biomedical enhancements—interventions aimed at boosting normal human capacities (cognitive, emotional, physical) through scientific means. Buchanan particularly investigates worries about unfair access and distributive justice, and argues for reframing the debate by considering biomedical enhancements in the context of the ethics of development, rather than seeing them merely as private luxury goods or zero-sum commodities.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Defining Enhancement (00:31–06:30)

• Enhancement: To improve, augment, or make better. Buchanan focuses on biomedical enhancements—scientific interventions aimed at improving normal human capacities via the body or brain.
• Modes of Enhancement:
  • Genetic engineering/selection (embryos, gametes)
  • Pharmacological (cognitive enhancement drugs)
  • Human-machine interfacing (artificial joints, brain-computer interfaces)
  • Laboratory-grown organs/tissues via stem cells
• Targets of Enhancement:
  • Increased longevity (slowing aging, improving immune system)
  • Higher degrees of mental, physical, and cognitive functioning

Quote:

"Enhancement isn't new. We've had a long history of non-biomedical enhancements, including some of the most impressive...like literacy and numeracy, the practices of science..."
— Alan Buchanan [04:30]

2. Historical Continuity & Novelty (06:35–10:00)

• Buchanan argues that biomedical enhancements are not fundamentally more radical or transformative than some past non-biomedical enhancements.
• Key historical developments like the agrarian revolution, institutions, and literacy have reshaped humanity as deeply as any biomedical technology likely could.

3. Objections to Biomedical Enhancement (10:01–15:00)

• Various ethical worries:
  • Unnaturalness: “Tampering” with nature
  • Altering human nature
  • Character concerns (Michael Sandel’s work)
  • Dual-use potential for harm
  • Unintended biological consequences
  • Unfairness/distributive injustice: Focus of tonight’s talk

Versions of the Unfairness Objection:

• Simple distributive injustice: Unequal access leads to injustice.
• Compound injustice: Unfair access to enhancements could spawn political or social inequalities, echoing existing wealth-driven injustices.
• Radical compound injustice: Cumulative generational inequalities could create caste-like or even biologically separated classes (Fukuyama’s “saddles and spurs” metaphor).

Quote:

“He thinks that...the cumulative effect of one group having access to powerful biomedical enhancements and others not, might be a system where...some people are born with saddles on their back and others are born with spurs.”
— Alan Buchanan [13:30]

4. Challenging False Framing Assumptions (15:01–23:00)

• Two common (and, Buchanan claims, false) framing assumptions in the enhancement debate:
  • Personal goods zero-sum: Assumes enhancement’s benefits accrue only to the enhanced, and any gain is another’s loss.
  • Market provision: Enhancements will be market-driven, as with personal consumer goods, with minimal state involvement.
• Buchanan problematizes both; many enhancements (e.g. increased productivity, cognitive enhancements, or immunity) have network effects and produce social as well as personal benefits.

Quote:

“I don’t think...all aspects...of our existence are zero-sum competitions.”
— Alan Buchanan [25:17]

5. Enhancements as Public/Network Goods (23:01–32:00)

• Many enhancements (e.g. computers, literacy, vaccination) become more valuable the more they are adopted—these are network goods.
  • Example: Herd immunity (vaccination) confers benefit on all, not just the individual.
  • Cognitive and motivational enhancements may have similar positive externalities.
• Some enhancements may particularly help those at the lower end of performance—potential for reducing unfairness rather than worsening it.

Memorable Analogy:

"If you’re the only literate person in the world … but it’s really quite nice that there are lots of other literate people. They can write novels for you..."
— Alan Buchanan [21:00]

6. The Role of the State (32:01–40:40)

• Many assume only the market will distribute enhancements, due to liberal fears about state-driven eugenics, but historically, the state has intervened for collective benefit (e.g. public education, immunization).
• State involvement can compress inequalities (e.g., free public education), though it doesn't eliminate them.

Quote:

“Notice that to give a public justification for the state being involved ... you don't have to appeal to those crazy old eugenic ideas... It would simply have to appeal to the same kind of justification ... for public education, for public health programs like immunization.”
— Alan Buchanan [39:09]

7. Ethics of Development Lens (40:41–50:00)

• Looking at enhancements via the ethics of development helps avoid the misguided view that inequality in itself makes an innovation unethical.
• Development and innovation always involve some “early adopters,” but the ethical problem is not initial inequality, it’s failure of rapid diffusion—when valuable goods persistently remain the preserve of a minority.

Quote:

“If that were your rule—that you can't have any new benefits for anybody until everybody has them—you would have a pretty peculiar view about development in the world.”
— Alan Buchanan [44:22]

8. Innovation, Diffusion, and Policy (50:01–60:00)

• Rapid diffusion is crucial; delayed diffusion (due to patents, cost, etc.) often perpetuates injustice.
• Policy responses should seek to speed up diffusion (e.g., Health Impact Fund proposals, tweaking IP rights), not simply prohibit innovations out of fairness concerns.
• The existence of “risk pioneers” (wealthy early adopters) is not always bad—they absorb initial costs and risks.

Quote:

“It’s nice for the rich people to make that mistake, rather than the rest of us... I like to think of rich people as risk pioneers...”
— Alan Buchanan [55:50]

Memorable Moments & Q&A Highlights

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• "I don’t think...all aspects...of our existence are zero-sum competitions."
  — Alan Buchanan [25:17]

• “The process of development or innovation...either that valuable things will diffuse rapidly or...trickle down...”
  — Alan Buchanan [47:42]

• “If everybody has a global positioning device, you’re going to have fewer people who have the traditional orienteering skills...That’s a loss, but...worth it to most of us.”
  — Alan Buchanan [67:00]

Q&A Segments

On Moral Enhancement & Autonomy
Matt Pines [61:26] raises concern about state use of moral enhancements (e.g. oxytocin) to foster cooperation at the expense of autonomy.

• Buchanan acknowledges concern:

  "You want them to cooperate with the right people for the right reasons in the right way... If you think the state will be interested in some biomedical enhancements, you better start worrying about these things." [62:14]

On Enhancement Undermining Meaningful Striving
Luke Bovitz [64:03]: If enhancement makes things ‘too easy’ (like a crossword puzzle with all the answers), does it undermine the value of the process?

• Buchanan responds: Many biomedical enhancements (like performance drugs) enable harder striving, not less. Even if literacy could be “pilled,” that’d be good because it opens doors for more striving and higher achievement.

  “We’re not going to be facing a shortage of opportunities for striving...biomedical enhancements often...raising us up to a new platform..." [69:41]

On Inequality and Enhancement
Wolf Gardner [72:35] asks whether enhancements can reverse long-term trends of widening inequality.

• Buchanan: The little evidence we have (for cognitive drugs) suggests potential to compress inequalities, but no guarantee. Social context, policies, and product features all matter. [73:30–75:57]

On Longevity, Pensions, and Economics
Wolf Gardner raises the issue of how longer, healthier life (from enhancements) might disrupt retirement and pension systems.

• Buchanan: This would require major social adjustment—possibly extended working lives or multiple careers—but the benefits (if health is sustained) could offset costs. [76:43–78:36]

On Biological/Economic Limits
[78:42] Questioner warns against viewing human biology as simple “add-ons”—all enhancements have energetic/biological costs.

• Buchanan: Agrees, intervention must consider deep biological integration, cautions against naive 'bolting-on'; supports careful research and ethical framing. [80:32]

On Negative Externalities and Regulation
Richard Bradley [82:48]: When an enhancement has negative externalities (e.g., some longevity interventions), would you support limiting access?

• Buchanan: Prohibition strategies are hard to enforce, especially globally; policy needs to favor diffusion and harm minimization rather than banning. [82:54]

Structural Takeaways & Framing Recommendations

• Don’t see biomedical enhancements solely as luxury, zero-sum, market goods; many will resemble public goods (education/vaccination) in their broad benefits.
• Policymakers should focus on promoting rapid, equitable diffusion of beneficial enhancements, not mere blanket restriction.
• Assessment of enhancement must be empirical, context-sensitive, and attentive to past lessons from technology diffusion and development ethics.
• State involvement is likely and may be as much about strengthening national productivity/economy as about fairness or individual rights.
• Ethical rigor requires both caution about potential injustices and openness to the broad social gains that well-diffused enhancements can deliver.

Conclusion

Buchanan advocates rethinking the ethics of biomedical enhancement by rejecting misconceived assumptions (zero-sum, luxury goods, market-only distribution), learning from public goods history (literacy, immunization), and prioritizing policies that maximize rapid, inclusive access. He urges the audience to weigh both new risks and radical promise, and to view enhancement through the nuanced, pragmatic lens the ethics of development provides.

End of summary