(575) Fixed: The Science/Fiction of Human Enhancement | Panel Discussion || Radcliffe Institute

Professor Michael Stein introduces the panelists for a discussion on disability and bioethics.

Disability justice advocate, organizer, educator, attorney, strategist, and writer.
Focuses on violence against multiply marginalized disabled individuals.
Collating the project on Disability Rights and Algorithmic Fairness at Georgetown Law School.

Assistant professor of philosophy and associate director of the Institute of Ethics and Public Affairs at San Diego State University.
Research focuses on social and political power within bioethics.

Emphasis on species-typical functioning in bioethics discussions.
Discussed limitations of the film: absence of interviews with neurodivergent individuals and inadequate focus on mental disabilities.
Questions about human enhancement, genetic editing, and cultural perceptions of disability.
Considerations of aging and quality of life with advancements in genetic technologies.
Discussion on the identities of congenitally disabled individuals versus those disabled later in life; their views on cures and anti-disability pride.

Human Enhancements
- Lydia expresses a personal desire for muscle replacements for her injury.
- Critique: Film emphasizes intelligence enhancement while ignoring minority disabled voices, specifically neurodivergent perspectives.
Omission of Disabled Voices
- The film lacks insights from individuals with cognitive disabilities or psychiatric experiences.
- Raises concerns about the reductive framing of disability by focusing primarily on physical impairments.
Moral Questions of Enhancement
- Questioning the morality behind enhancements—what constitutes a 'better' body or mind?
- Emphasis on the danger of equating intelligence with humanity.
Technological Critique
- Discussion on technologies (like exoskeletons vs. power chairs) and societal perceptions of useful versus non-useful abilities.
- Challenges the notion that only physical capabilities define human value.
Implications of Gene Editing
- Concerns about gene editing technologies and their potential for reducing diversity in human experiences and identities.
- Raises ethical questions surrounding the societal value of disabled bodies and how society perceives disability.

Differentiates between assistive and curative technologies.
Discusses personal identity and transition costs associated with changing one's disability status.
Illustrates that many people find value in their disability identities, and introduces the cultural implications of assistive technology.
Conveys an understanding of the ethical dimensions regarding technology, identity, and societal acceptance.

Questions posed about allowing individuals to choose enhancements or maintain their disabilities.
Examination of the societal context that influences reproductive choices concerning disabilities.
Discussion of creating a more equitable technology landscape where individuals can authentically choose without societal coercion.

Highlights concerns regarding the regulation of heritable genetic editing and somatic gene editing.
Expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of international regulatory regimes to address the complexities of gene editing technology.
The potential for socioeconomic factors to govern access to these technologies disproportionately.
Emphasizes that while technologies like CRISPR may present new choices, they exist within a landscape that is still heavily influenced by ableism and societal values concerning disability.

Discussion on how ableism and other systemic inequalities sap societal strength by devaluing lives based on perceived contribution.
Consideration of the complications in the ethics of technology that aim to modify or prevent certain disabilities and identities from existing, invoking feelings of loss and grief in the disabled community.
Wrap-up with reflections on the need for an inclusive approach that values diversity in all forms, rather than defining worth through a lens of utility.