认知增强技术的伦理问题研究
|
摘要
认知力在人类社会生活中的作用极其重要,使自己变得更聪明一直是人类追求的目标。随着社会的进步和科技的发展,增强认知的方式越来越多,从传统的营养供给、教育到现代认知增强技术。现代认知增强技术利用现代生物医学技术增强认知力,主要包括认知增强药物、大脑刺激与神经技术和遗传基因选择技术。这种新型的技术可以极大地提高认知能力,但此技术对大脑进行的非医学目的干预可能打破人体的自然状态。本文试图对认知增强技术引发的安全、尊严、真实、公正和强制等伦理问题进行探讨。
认知增强技术的反对者对该技术的最大担忧是其技术风险与副作用,但是我们也不能忽略认知增强技术的工具性价值为个人或社会所带来的利益,我们鼓励人们权衡利弊之后再作出接受或拒绝该技术的选择。有些学者指出在认知增强技术的使用过程中,人们将自己作为工具而非手段,以及可能改变人个性等原因,认为该技术是对人尊严的贬低。我们认为这种争辩没有说服力,人本身就是目的和手段的统一,人的个性也会经历一个不断变化的过程。反对者指出幸福生活与真实经历紧密相连,但是认知增强技术只能使人产生虚假的幸福感而非真实的经历,我们认可这种观点并指出：认知增强技术只是提供实现幸福目标的有利工具。在公正与强制问题中,认知增强技术可以增强认知功能障碍者的认知能力,为认知功能障碍者获得平等竞争的机会；认知增强技术的非治疗目的的使用过程中,存在医疗资源的不公正分配问题；父辈使用认知增强技术的不平等可能导致后代因认知能力不等而造成不公正。为使认知增强技术得到公正而合理的使用,鼓励人人使用该技术则易导致强制问题。最后,我们提出通过预防原则、区分原则和尊重自主原则来寻求避免或解决上述伦理问题的途径。在认知增强技术的运用过程中使用预防原则能有效的避免认知增强技术的技术风险和副作用,如果支持者赞成运用存在特定风险的认知增强技术,需先提供有关此技术的大量安全数据或证明。区分原则包括技术区分和使用者的区分。因不同的认知增强技术有不同的技术风险和副作用,所以应对不同认知增强技术进行技术区分；使用者的区分则允许特殊从业人员优先使用认知增强技术。尊重自主原则强调尊重人们自主作出接受或拒绝认知增强技术的权利。
Cognitive ability plays an very important part in people's modern social life, and be more intelligent is the aims of human being at all times. With the development of technology and the advance of society, more and more means of enhancing cognitive ability are emerged from the traditional nutrition and education to the modern cognitive enhancement. Cognitive enhancement mainly takes use of the technology of modern biomedicine to enhance cognitive ability, and it is divided into three categories:Pharmaceutical products, Brain stimulation and neurotechnology, and Genetic manipulation. Cognitive enhancement can effectively enhance cognitive ability. However, cognitive enhancement interfered in our body with the aims of non-therapy breaks our natural balance. This thesis attempts to discuss the main ethic issues, including justice, coerce, dignity, authenticity, and safety.
The most concern of people who are not approved of cognitive enhancement is its technique risks and side-effects. However, we could not ignore its instrumental value which could bring benefits to individual or society. We encourage people make their own decision by balancing its risks and benefits. Although some scholars point out that it seems taking self as means but aims with using cognitive enhancement, and it could change the basic characteristics of human, so they conclude that it is a kind of abasing human's dignity to use it. Actually, that view isn's persuasive, because human self is the unification of aims and means, and our basic characteristics would change with nature. With regard to the issues in authenticity, some people consider that there is close relationship between happy life and real experience, and cognitive enhancement just brings the fake satisfied feeling to us but real happiness. We agree with that view and point out that cognitive enhancement just offer us an instrument to obtain happiness. Refering to the issues on justice, cognitive enhancement could enhance the cognitive ability of patients-associated cognitive impairment, making patients-associated cognitive impairment get eaqual opportunity competed with others;the problems of justiec raised in using cognitive enhancement with non-therapy aims; the elder inequally use cognitive enhancement, which could cause the difference in cognitive ability of offspring. The issue on coercion is because of the special needs of some profession, and some professional are forced to use cognitive enhancement. Finally, we attempt to avoid and solve problems by the precautionary principle, the distinct principle and the self-determination principle. We could effectively avoid the technique risks and side-effects of cognitive enhancement by the precautionary principle. If some are approved of the cognitive enhancement with certain risks, they should offer the large safe data and evidences on this technology. The distinguish principle includes the distinction of cognitive enhancement and the distinction of user. Because different cognitive enhacement have different technique risks and side-effects to some extent, so we should distinguish this technology. The distinction of user means allowing the professional in special area have priority in using cognitive enhancement, who could bring more benefits to society. The self-determination principle focus on the right of acceptance or rejection of cognitive enhancement unconstraintly.
认知增强技术的反对者对该技术的最大担忧是其技术风险与副作用,但是我们也不能忽略认知增强技术的工具性价值为个人或社会所带来的利益,我们鼓励人们权衡利弊之后再作出接受或拒绝该技术的选择。有些学者指出在认知增强技术的使用过程中,人们将自己作为工具而非手段,以及可能改变人个性等原因,认为该技术是对人尊严的贬低。我们认为这种争辩没有说服力,人本身就是目的和手段的统一,人的个性也会经历一个不断变化的过程。反对者指出幸福生活与真实经历紧密相连,但是认知增强技术只能使人产生虚假的幸福感而非真实的经历,我们认可这种观点并指出：认知增强技术只是提供实现幸福目标的有利工具。在公正与强制问题中,认知增强技术可以增强认知功能障碍者的认知能力,为认知功能障碍者获得平等竞争的机会；认知增强技术的非治疗目的的使用过程中,存在医疗资源的不公正分配问题；父辈使用认知增强技术的不平等可能导致后代因认知能力不等而造成不公正。为使认知增强技术得到公正而合理的使用,鼓励人人使用该技术则易导致强制问题。最后,我们提出通过预防原则、区分原则和尊重自主原则来寻求避免或解决上述伦理问题的途径。在认知增强技术的运用过程中使用预防原则能有效的避免认知增强技术的技术风险和副作用,如果支持者赞成运用存在特定风险的认知增强技术,需先提供有关此技术的大量安全数据或证明。区分原则包括技术区分和使用者的区分。因不同的认知增强技术有不同的技术风险和副作用,所以应对不同认知增强技术进行技术区分；使用者的区分则允许特殊从业人员优先使用认知增强技术。尊重自主原则强调尊重人们自主作出接受或拒绝认知增强技术的权利。
Cognitive ability plays an very important part in people's modern social life, and be more intelligent is the aims of human being at all times. With the development of technology and the advance of society, more and more means of enhancing cognitive ability are emerged from the traditional nutrition and education to the modern cognitive enhancement. Cognitive enhancement mainly takes use of the technology of modern biomedicine to enhance cognitive ability, and it is divided into three categories:Pharmaceutical products, Brain stimulation and neurotechnology, and Genetic manipulation. Cognitive enhancement can effectively enhance cognitive ability. However, cognitive enhancement interfered in our body with the aims of non-therapy breaks our natural balance. This thesis attempts to discuss the main ethic issues, including justice, coerce, dignity, authenticity, and safety.
The most concern of people who are not approved of cognitive enhancement is its technique risks and side-effects. However, we could not ignore its instrumental value which could bring benefits to individual or society. We encourage people make their own decision by balancing its risks and benefits. Although some scholars point out that it seems taking self as means but aims with using cognitive enhancement, and it could change the basic characteristics of human, so they conclude that it is a kind of abasing human's dignity to use it. Actually, that view isn's persuasive, because human self is the unification of aims and means, and our basic characteristics would change with nature. With regard to the issues in authenticity, some people consider that there is close relationship between happy life and real experience, and cognitive enhancement just brings the fake satisfied feeling to us but real happiness. We agree with that view and point out that cognitive enhancement just offer us an instrument to obtain happiness. Refering to the issues on justice, cognitive enhancement could enhance the cognitive ability of patients-associated cognitive impairment, making patients-associated cognitive impairment get eaqual opportunity competed with others;the problems of justiec raised in using cognitive enhancement with non-therapy aims; the elder inequally use cognitive enhancement, which could cause the difference in cognitive ability of offspring. The issue on coercion is because of the special needs of some profession, and some professional are forced to use cognitive enhancement. Finally, we attempt to avoid and solve problems by the precautionary principle, the distinct principle and the self-determination principle. We could effectively avoid the technique risks and side-effects of cognitive enhancement by the precautionary principle. If some are approved of the cognitive enhancement with certain risks, they should offer the large safe data and evidences on this technology. The distinguish principle includes the distinction of cognitive enhancement and the distinction of user. Because different cognitive enhacement have different technique risks and side-effects to some extent, so we should distinguish this technology. The distinction of user means allowing the professional in special area have priority in using cognitive enhancement, who could bring more benefits to society. The self-determination principle focus on the right of acceptance or rejection of cognitive enhancement unconstraintly.
引文
[1]培根.新工具[M].北京：商务印书馆,1984.
[2]库尔特·拜尔茨.基因伦理学[M].北京：华夏出版社,2001.
[3]F·拉普.技术哲学导论[M].沈阳：辽宁科学技术出版社,1986.
[4]杰里米·里夫金.生物世纪——用基因重塑世界[M].上海：上海科技教育出版社,2000.
[5]许志伟等.中西文化中的生死观[M].上海：上海医科大学出社,2000.
[6]刘长秋,刘迎春.基因技术法研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[7]库尔特·拜尔茨.基因伦理学[M].马怀琪译,北京：华夏出版社,2000.
[8]余涌.道德权利研究[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2001.
[9]黑格尔.精神现象学(下)[M].贺麟,王玖兴译.北京：商务印书馆出版,1997.
[10]贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒.技术与时间[M].北京：译林出版社,2000.
[11]密尔.论自由[M].北京：商务印书馆,1959.
[12]肖峰.高科技时代的人文忧思[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2002.
[13]孙慕义.汉语生命伦理学的后现代反省[M].自然辩证法,2005(5).
[14]王利明.人格权法新论[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,1994.
[15]肖峰.高科技时代的人文忧思[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2002.
[16]萨拜因.政治学说史：下卷[M].北京：商务印书馆,1986.
[17]万俊人.现代西方伦理学史：下卷[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1992.
[18]斯宾诺莎,神学政治论[M].温锡增译,北京：商务印书馆,1963.
[19]甘绍平.应用伦理学前沿问题研究[M].南昌：江西人民出版社,2002.
[20]贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒.技术与时间[M].北京：译林出版社,2000.
[21]密尔.论自由[M].北京：商务印书馆,1959.
[22]H·T·恩格尔哈特.生命伦理学基础[M].范瑞平译,北京：北京大学出版社,2006
[23]王利明.人格权法新论[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,1994.
[24]孙慕义.汉语生命伦理学的后现代反省[M].自然辩证法,2005(5).
[25]萨拜因.政治学说史：下卷[M].北京：商务印书馆,1986.
[26]林燕玲.基因隐私权及其人格权法保护[J].武汉：华中科技大学学报：社会科学版,2005(6).
[27]崔国斌.基因技术的专利保护与利益分享[C]郑成思.知识产权文丛,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[28]赵成文.道德人格及其社会功能初探[J].社会科学,1999(7)
[29]王德彦.人类基因组计划与基因知情权[J].科学技术与辩证法,2001(5).
[30]林燕玲.基因隐私权及其人格权法保护[J].武汉：华中科技大学学报：社会科学版,2005(6).
[31]刘文霞.生命伦理的思索[J].北京科技大学学报：社会科学版,2005(1)：9-13.
[32]程焉平.人类生殖与发育工程的伦理学问题及其对策[J].中国优生与遗传杂志,2003(2)：5-6.
[33]程焉平.基因治疗的伦理学问题研究[J].吉林师范大学学报,2003(4)：10-12.
[34]贾民伟.转基因作物对生物多样性影响的伦理分析[J].武汉理工大学学报：社会科学版,2006(3)：376-379.
[35]吴易雄.转基因动物的伦理问题研究：现状、不足及趋势[OJ／OL].中国科技论文在线.
[36]王晓才.对转基因食品及其伦理问题的思考[J].中国医学伦理学,2003(2)：12-14.
[37]李姝睿.现代生物技术及其伦理学思考[J].青海师范大学学报：哲学社会科学版,2004(3)：36-39.
[38]赵洪文.转基因农产品是否真的不安全[J].了望,2000,(2).
[39]梁照.生物技术的发展应该是合理合情的[J].中国医学伦理学,2003,(3).
[40]裴雪涛.干细胞,克隆人及伦理学问题[A].中国科学院.2002年科学发展报告[R].北京：科学出版社,2002.
[41]诺埃勒·勒瓦努.生物伦理学：宪制与人权[DB／OL].阿劳译.http：／／www.cnki.net
[42](俄)奥古尔佐夫.生命伦理学或生物伦理学：价值观的选择[DB／OL].http：／／www.cnki.net
[43]史晓丽.转基因及其产品的法律管制[J].比较法研究,2003,(4).
[44]刘文霞.生命伦理的思索[J].北京科技大学学报：社会科学版,2005(1)：9-13.
[45]赵迎欢.现代伦理学视角与基因技术伦理原则的建构[J].东北大学学报,2003,(4).
[46]唐凯麟.道德人格论[J].求素,1994,(5)：35.
[47]高秉江.西方哲学史上人格同一性的三种形态[J].北京：江苏社会科学,2005(1)：36.
[48]程焉平.人类生殖与发育工程的伦理学问题及其对策[J].中国优生与遗传杂志,2003(2)：5-6.
[49]程焉平.基因治疗的伦理学问题研究[J].岩林师范大学学报,2003(4)：10-12.
[50]李姝睿.现代生物技术及其伦理学思考[J].青海师范大学学报：哲学社会科学版,2004(3)：36-39.
[51]刘俊龙.基因专利保护的伦理审视[J].医学与哲学,2005(6)
[52]王玉峰.关于基因平等问题的哲学思考[J].北京：社会科学,2001(8).
[53]高秉江.西方哲学史上人格同一性的三种形态[J].北京：江苏社会科学,2005(1)：36.
[54]刘俊龙.基因专利保护的伦理审视[J].医学与哲学,2005(6).
[55]肖峰.高科技时代的人文忧思[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2002.
[56]崔国斌.基因技术的专利保护与利益分享[C].郑成思.知识产权文丛,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000
[57]赵成文.道德人格及其社会功能初探[J].社会科学,1999(7).
[58]王德彦.人类基因组计划与基因知情权[J].科学技术与辩证法,2001(5).
[1]Lee M. Sliver, Remaking Eden. How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family[M]. New York:Avon,1998.13.
[2]Greenfield S. Brain Story[M], London:BBC Worldwide Ltd:39.2000
[3]Ashcroft R, Campbell AV, Capps B. Foresight brain science, addiction and drugs project:Ethical aspects of developments in neuroscience and addiction[M], London:Office of Science and Technology.2005:23-78.
[4]Bostrom N, Ord N. The Reversal Test:Eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics[M]. Oxford:Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University.2006
[5]Jones R, Morris K, Nutt D. Foresight Brain Science, Addiction and Drugs Project: Cognitive Enhancers[M]. London:Department of Trade and Industry.2005
[6]Kass LR. Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity The challenge for bioethics [M]. San Francisco:Encounter Books,2002:162.
[7]Harris J. Enhancing Evolution.. The ethical case for making better people[M]. Oxford:Princeton University Press,2007:139.
[8]Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future Consequences of the biotechnology revolution[M]. London:Profile Books Ltd.2002:97.
[9]James D. Watson. The Human Genome[J]. Project:Past, Present, and Future. Science,1990,248(4951):44-49.
[10]Gina Kolata, Scientists Place Jellyfish Genes into Monkeys[J], New York Times, 1999, (12):23.
[11]Natowicz Marvin R. Alper J K,Alper J S. Genetic Discrimi2 nation and t he Law [J]. American Journal of Human Genetics,1992(5),465-475
[12]Mair RG, McEntee WJ. Cognitive enhancement in Korsakoff's psychosis by clonidene a comparison with 1-dopa and ephedrine. Psychopharmacology,1986, (3): 80-374.
[13]Turner D, Sahakian BJ. Neuroethics of cognitive enhancements[J]. BioSocieties 2006, (1):23-113.
[14]Smithers R. Fish oil for pupils may improve behaviour [J]. The Guardian.2006, (6):12.
[15]Brownsword R. Red lights and rogues:regulating human genetics [J]. The regulatory challenge of biotechnology,2007, (3):39-62.
[16]Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future Consequences of the biotechnology revolution[M]. London:Profile Books Ltd.2002:97.
[17]Turner D, Sahakian BJ. Neuroethics of cognitive enhancements [J]. BioSocieties, 2006, (1):23-113.
[18]Wolpe PR. Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics [J]. Brain
and cognition 2002 (5):95-387.
[19]Glannon W. Psychopharmacology and memory[J]. Med Ethics 2006, (3):8-74.
[20]GloverJ. Choosing Children The ethical dilemmas of genetic intervention[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006:44.
[21]Randall DC, Shneerson JM, Plaha KK, File SE. Modafinil affects mood, but not cognitive function, in healthy young volunteers [J]. Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp,2003, (8):73-163.
[22]Yesavage JA, Mumenthaler MS, Taylor JL, Friedman L,O'Hara R, Sheikh J et al. Donepezil and flight simulator performance:effects on retention of complex skills [J]. Neurology,2002,(5).
[23]Soetens E, Casaer S, D'Hooge R, Hueting JE. Effect of amphetamine on long-term retention of verbal material [J]. Psychopharmacology 1995, (11).
[24]Lynch G. Memory enhancement:the search for memory-based drugs [J]. Nat Neurosci Suppl 2002, (5).
[25]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Final Appraisal Determination-Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder-methylphenidate, atomoxetine and dexamfetamine (review), London:NICE 2005, (7).
[26]Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genetically Modified Crops:The Social and Ethical Issues [DB/OL]. http://www. nuffieldbioethics. org/go/screen/ ourwork/. gmcrops/publication_301. html.
[27]G. Bharathan, S. Chandrashekaran, T.May, and J. Bryant. Crop Biotechnology and Developing Countries [A]. in J. Bryant, L. La Velle and J. searle (eds.):Bioethics for Scientists [C].Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd,2002.
[28]World Scientist s. Open Letter From World Scientist s to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms [DB/OL]. http://www. i2sis. org. uk/list. php. Natowicz Marvin R. Alper J K, Alper J S. Genetic Discrimi2 nation and t he Law [J]. American Journal of Human Genet2ics,1992,465-475.
① British Medical Association. A discussion paper from the BMA. Boosting your brain-power:Ethical aspects of cognitive enhancement. [J] London, UK:2007:42
② Martha J. Farah, Judy Illes, Neurocognitive enhancement:what can we do and what should we do[J]? Nature Reviews Neuroscience,2004 (5):421-425.
③ Farah, M. Emerging ethical issuesin neuroscience [J]. Nature Neurosci.2002 (5):1123-1129.
④ Nick Bostrom, AndersSandber, Cognitive Enhancement:Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2007(9):311-341.
① Nick Bostrom, AndersSandber, Cognitive Enhancement:Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2007(9):311-341.
② Jones R, Morris K, Nutt, D., Addiction and Drugs Project:Cognition Enhancers [J]. Foresight Brain Science. London:Department of Trade and Industry. 2005 (6):11-23.
①Gary Stix,Turbocharging the Brain—Pills to Make You Smarter[J]?Scientific American Magazine,2009(10):14-17.
① Mottaghy FM, Hungs M, Brugmann M, Sparing R, Boroojerdi B, Foltys H et al. Facilitation of picture naming after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology 1999; 53:1806-12.
① Rossi S, Rossini PM. TMS in cognitive plasticity and the potential for rehabilitation. Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience 2004; 8(6):273-9.
② National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Interventional Procedure Guidance 19,2003. London:NICE.
③ Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Press Release:New report tackles controversial research into genes and behaviour.29 September 2002. London:Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
① Tang UP, Shimizu E, Dube GR,Rampon C, Kerchner GA, Zhuo M, et al. Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice[J]. Nature 1999 (4):63-9.
② Plomin R. Genetics, genes, genomics and g. [J]Molecular Psychiatry 2003(8):1-5.
① Wei F, Wang G, Kerchner GA, Kim SJ, Hai-Ming X, Chen Z et al. Genetic enhancement of inflammatory pain by forebrain NR2B overexpression[J]. Nature Neuroscience 2001 (4):9-164.
① Turner D, Sahakian BJ. Neuroethics of cognitive enhancements [J]. BioSocieties 2006 (1):23-113.
① Turner DC, Sahakian BJ. Ethical questions in functional neuroimaging and cognitive enhancement [J]. Poiesis Prax,2006(4):81-94.
② Farah MJ, Illes J, Cook-Deegan R, Gardner H, Kandel E, King P et al. Neurocognitive enhancement:what can we do and what should we do [J]? Nature Neuroscience 2004 (5): 5-421.
③ Wolpe PR. Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics[J]. Brain and cognition 2002(5):95-387.
④ Glannon W. Psychopharmacology and memory. [J] Med Ethics 2006(3):8-74.
①Jones R,Morris K,Nutt,D.,Addiction and Drugs Project:Cognition Enhancers[J].Foresight Brain Science.London:Department of Trade and Industry. 2005(6):11-23.
① Nick-Bostrom,AndersSandber,Cognitive Enhancement:Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2007(9):311-341.
① Cole-Turner, Ronald. Do Means Matter? In Enhancing Human Traits:Ethical and Social Implications [M]. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press, 1998:61-151.
② Naam, Ramez. More than Human:Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement[M]. New York:Harper Collins.2005:42-60.
③ Kass LR. Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity The challenge for bioethics[M]. San Francisco:Encounter Books.2002:281.
④Sandel, Michael.. The Case Against Perfection:Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering[M]. Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press.2007:23-59.
① Sandel, Michael.2007. The Case Against Perfection:Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering[M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.2007:29-79.
② Sandel, Michael.2007. The Case Against Perfection:Ethics in the Age of GeneticEngineering. Cambridge[M]. MA; Harvard University Press.2007:134-321.
③ Kant, Immanuel, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals[M], Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,1959:23-106.
① Frankfurt, Harry.. Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person[J]. Journal of Philosophy 1971(8):5 20.
② McKenny, Gerald P.. Enhancement and the Ethical Significance of Vulnerability. In Enhancing Human Traits:Ethical and Social Implications[M], Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,1998:37-222.
① Frankfurt, Harry, Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person[J].Journal of Philosophy 1971(6):5-20.
② Nozick, Robert. Anarchy,State,and Utopia[M]. New York:Basic Books. 1974:123-187.
① Taylor., Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity[M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.1991:12-134.
② Elliott, Carl. Better than Well:American Medicine Meets the American Dream[J]. New York,2003(6):34-35.
③ Taylor, Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge [M], MA:HarvardUniversity Press.1991:11-24.
① President's Council on Bioethics. Beyond Therapy:Biotechnology and thePursuit of Happiness[M]. New York:Harper Collins.2003:23-89.
①Jones R,Morris K,Nutt D.Foresight Brain Science,Addiction and Drugs Project: Cognitive Enhancers[M],.London:Department of Trade and Industry,2005:23-67.
②Chatterjee,Anjan,Cosmetic Neurology:The Controversy over Enhancing Movement, Mentation,and Mood.Neurology,2004(6):968-74.
① Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice[M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1971:12-14.
② Naam, Ramez,More than Human:Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement [M]. New York:Harper Collins,2005:23-78.
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,1988：292。
① Mehta MA, Owen AM, Sahakian BJ, Mavaddat N, Pickard JD, Robbins TW. Methylphenidate enhances working memory by modulating discrete frontal and parietal lobe regions in the human brain [J]. Neurosci,2000 (2):1-6.
② Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Press Release:New report tackles controversial research into genes and behaviors[J], London:Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2002(9):29.
①朱葆伟.高技术的发展与社会公正[J].天津社会科学,2007,(01)：37-41。
① Wolpe PR. Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics [J]. Brain and cognition 2002(5):95-387.
② Kass LR. Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity The challenge for bioethics[M]. San Francisco:Encounter Books,2002:162.
③ Harris J. Enhancing Evolution.. The ethical case for making better people[M]. Oxford:Princeton University Press,2007:139.
④ Glannon W. Psychopharmacology and memory[J]. Med Ethics 2006, (3):8-74.
⑤ Glover J. Choosing Children The ethical dilemmas of genetic intervention[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006:44.
① Turner D, Sahakian BJ. Neuroethics of cognitive enhancements [J]. BioSocieties, 2006, (1):23-113.
② Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future Consequences of the biotechnology revolution[M]. London:Profile Books Ltd.2002:97.
③ Ashcroft R, Campbell AV, Capps B.Foresight brain science, addiction and drugs project:Ethical aspects of developments in neuroscience and addiction [M], London:Office of Science and Technology.2005:23-78.
① Sententia W. Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition[J]. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,2004, (11):8-221.
① Downer S. The perils of self-prescription[J]. Financial Times, Weekend,2006, (5):1.
① Brownsword R. Red lights and rogues:regulating human genetics [J]. The regulatory challenge of biotechnology,2007, (3):39-62.
② Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future Consequences of the biotechnology revolution[M]. London:Profile Books Ltd.2002:97.
① Wolpe PR. Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics [J]. Brain and cognition 2002 (5):95-387.
② Harris J. Enhancing Evolution.. The ethical case for making better people[M]. Oxford:Princeton University Press,2007:207.
① Robertson JA. Children of choice:Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies[M]. New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1994:24.
①甘绍平.《基因工程伦理的核心问题》[J].《哲学动态》.2001,1：11-12。
② Russo, Lt. Col. Michael; Maher, Col. Cornelius; and Campbell, Col. William. Correspondence:Cosmetic Neurology[J]. Neurology,2005 (6):21-1320.
[2]库尔特·拜尔茨.基因伦理学[M].北京：华夏出版社,2001.
[3]F·拉普.技术哲学导论[M].沈阳：辽宁科学技术出版社,1986.
[4]杰里米·里夫金.生物世纪——用基因重塑世界[M].上海：上海科技教育出版社,2000.
[5]许志伟等.中西文化中的生死观[M].上海：上海医科大学出社,2000.
[6]刘长秋,刘迎春.基因技术法研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[7]库尔特·拜尔茨.基因伦理学[M].马怀琪译,北京：华夏出版社,2000.
[8]余涌.道德权利研究[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2001.
[9]黑格尔.精神现象学(下)[M].贺麟,王玖兴译.北京：商务印书馆出版,1997.
[10]贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒.技术与时间[M].北京：译林出版社,2000.
[11]密尔.论自由[M].北京：商务印书馆,1959.
[12]肖峰.高科技时代的人文忧思[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2002.
[13]孙慕义.汉语生命伦理学的后现代反省[M].自然辩证法,2005(5).
[14]王利明.人格权法新论[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,1994.
[15]肖峰.高科技时代的人文忧思[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2002.
[16]萨拜因.政治学说史：下卷[M].北京：商务印书馆,1986.
[17]万俊人.现代西方伦理学史：下卷[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1992.
[18]斯宾诺莎,神学政治论[M].温锡增译,北京：商务印书馆,1963.
[19]甘绍平.应用伦理学前沿问题研究[M].南昌：江西人民出版社,2002.
[20]贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒.技术与时间[M].北京：译林出版社,2000.
[21]密尔.论自由[M].北京：商务印书馆,1959.
[22]H·T·恩格尔哈特.生命伦理学基础[M].范瑞平译,北京：北京大学出版社,2006
[23]王利明.人格权法新论[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,1994.
[24]孙慕义.汉语生命伦理学的后现代反省[M].自然辩证法,2005(5).
[25]萨拜因.政治学说史：下卷[M].北京：商务印书馆,1986.
[26]林燕玲.基因隐私权及其人格权法保护[J].武汉：华中科技大学学报：社会科学版,2005(6).
[27]崔国斌.基因技术的专利保护与利益分享[C]郑成思.知识产权文丛,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[28]赵成文.道德人格及其社会功能初探[J].社会科学,1999(7)
[29]王德彦.人类基因组计划与基因知情权[J].科学技术与辩证法,2001(5).
[30]林燕玲.基因隐私权及其人格权法保护[J].武汉：华中科技大学学报：社会科学版,2005(6).
[31]刘文霞.生命伦理的思索[J].北京科技大学学报：社会科学版,2005(1)：9-13.
[32]程焉平.人类生殖与发育工程的伦理学问题及其对策[J].中国优生与遗传杂志,2003(2)：5-6.
[33]程焉平.基因治疗的伦理学问题研究[J].吉林师范大学学报,2003(4)：10-12.
[34]贾民伟.转基因作物对生物多样性影响的伦理分析[J].武汉理工大学学报：社会科学版,2006(3)：376-379.
[35]吴易雄.转基因动物的伦理问题研究：现状、不足及趋势[OJ／OL].中国科技论文在线.
[36]王晓才.对转基因食品及其伦理问题的思考[J].中国医学伦理学,2003(2)：12-14.
[37]李姝睿.现代生物技术及其伦理学思考[J].青海师范大学学报：哲学社会科学版,2004(3)：36-39.
[38]赵洪文.转基因农产品是否真的不安全[J].了望,2000,(2).
[39]梁照.生物技术的发展应该是合理合情的[J].中国医学伦理学,2003,(3).
[40]裴雪涛.干细胞,克隆人及伦理学问题[A].中国科学院.2002年科学发展报告[R].北京：科学出版社,2002.
[41]诺埃勒·勒瓦努.生物伦理学：宪制与人权[DB／OL].阿劳译.http：／／www.cnki.net
[42](俄)奥古尔佐夫.生命伦理学或生物伦理学：价值观的选择[DB／OL].http：／／www.cnki.net
[43]史晓丽.转基因及其产品的法律管制[J].比较法研究,2003,(4).
[44]刘文霞.生命伦理的思索[J].北京科技大学学报：社会科学版,2005(1)：9-13.
[45]赵迎欢.现代伦理学视角与基因技术伦理原则的建构[J].东北大学学报,2003,(4).
[46]唐凯麟.道德人格论[J].求素,1994,(5)：35.
[47]高秉江.西方哲学史上人格同一性的三种形态[J].北京：江苏社会科学,2005(1)：36.
[48]程焉平.人类生殖与发育工程的伦理学问题及其对策[J].中国优生与遗传杂志,2003(2)：5-6.
[49]程焉平.基因治疗的伦理学问题研究[J].岩林师范大学学报,2003(4)：10-12.
[50]李姝睿.现代生物技术及其伦理学思考[J].青海师范大学学报：哲学社会科学版,2004(3)：36-39.
[51]刘俊龙.基因专利保护的伦理审视[J].医学与哲学,2005(6)
[52]王玉峰.关于基因平等问题的哲学思考[J].北京：社会科学,2001(8).
[53]高秉江.西方哲学史上人格同一性的三种形态[J].北京：江苏社会科学,2005(1)：36.
[54]刘俊龙.基因专利保护的伦理审视[J].医学与哲学,2005(6).
[55]肖峰.高科技时代的人文忧思[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2002.
[56]崔国斌.基因技术的专利保护与利益分享[C].郑成思.知识产权文丛,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000
[57]赵成文.道德人格及其社会功能初探[J].社会科学,1999(7).
[58]王德彦.人类基因组计划与基因知情权[J].科学技术与辩证法,2001(5).
[1]Lee M. Sliver, Remaking Eden. How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family[M]. New York:Avon,1998.13.
[2]Greenfield S. Brain Story[M], London:BBC Worldwide Ltd:39.2000
[3]Ashcroft R, Campbell AV, Capps B. Foresight brain science, addiction and drugs project:Ethical aspects of developments in neuroscience and addiction[M], London:Office of Science and Technology.2005:23-78.
[4]Bostrom N, Ord N. The Reversal Test:Eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics[M]. Oxford:Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University.2006
[5]Jones R, Morris K, Nutt D. Foresight Brain Science, Addiction and Drugs Project: Cognitive Enhancers[M]. London:Department of Trade and Industry.2005
[6]Kass LR. Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity The challenge for bioethics [M]. San Francisco:Encounter Books,2002:162.
[7]Harris J. Enhancing Evolution.. The ethical case for making better people[M]. Oxford:Princeton University Press,2007:139.
[8]Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future Consequences of the biotechnology revolution[M]. London:Profile Books Ltd.2002:97.
[9]James D. Watson. The Human Genome[J]. Project:Past, Present, and Future. Science,1990,248(4951):44-49.
[10]Gina Kolata, Scientists Place Jellyfish Genes into Monkeys[J], New York Times, 1999, (12):23.
[11]Natowicz Marvin R. Alper J K,Alper J S. Genetic Discrimi2 nation and t he Law [J]. American Journal of Human Genetics,1992(5),465-475
[12]Mair RG, McEntee WJ. Cognitive enhancement in Korsakoff's psychosis by clonidene a comparison with 1-dopa and ephedrine. Psychopharmacology,1986, (3): 80-374.
[13]Turner D, Sahakian BJ. Neuroethics of cognitive enhancements[J]. BioSocieties 2006, (1):23-113.
[14]Smithers R. Fish oil for pupils may improve behaviour [J]. The Guardian.2006, (6):12.
[15]Brownsword R. Red lights and rogues:regulating human genetics [J]. The regulatory challenge of biotechnology,2007, (3):39-62.
[16]Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future Consequences of the biotechnology revolution[M]. London:Profile Books Ltd.2002:97.
[17]Turner D, Sahakian BJ. Neuroethics of cognitive enhancements [J]. BioSocieties, 2006, (1):23-113.
[18]Wolpe PR. Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics [J]. Brain
and cognition 2002 (5):95-387.
[19]Glannon W. Psychopharmacology and memory[J]. Med Ethics 2006, (3):8-74.
[20]GloverJ. Choosing Children The ethical dilemmas of genetic intervention[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006:44.
[21]Randall DC, Shneerson JM, Plaha KK, File SE. Modafinil affects mood, but not cognitive function, in healthy young volunteers [J]. Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp,2003, (8):73-163.
[22]Yesavage JA, Mumenthaler MS, Taylor JL, Friedman L,O'Hara R, Sheikh J et al. Donepezil and flight simulator performance:effects on retention of complex skills [J]. Neurology,2002,(5).
[23]Soetens E, Casaer S, D'Hooge R, Hueting JE. Effect of amphetamine on long-term retention of verbal material [J]. Psychopharmacology 1995, (11).
[24]Lynch G. Memory enhancement:the search for memory-based drugs [J]. Nat Neurosci Suppl 2002, (5).
[25]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Final Appraisal Determination-Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder-methylphenidate, atomoxetine and dexamfetamine (review), London:NICE 2005, (7).
[26]Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genetically Modified Crops:The Social and Ethical Issues [DB/OL]. http://www. nuffieldbioethics. org/go/screen/ ourwork/. gmcrops/publication_301. html.
[27]G. Bharathan, S. Chandrashekaran, T.May, and J. Bryant. Crop Biotechnology and Developing Countries [A]. in J. Bryant, L. La Velle and J. searle (eds.):Bioethics for Scientists [C].Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd,2002.
[28]World Scientist s. Open Letter From World Scientist s to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms [DB/OL]. http://www. i2sis. org. uk/list. php. Natowicz Marvin R. Alper J K, Alper J S. Genetic Discrimi2 nation and t he Law [J]. American Journal of Human Genet2ics,1992,465-475.
① British Medical Association. A discussion paper from the BMA. Boosting your brain-power:Ethical aspects of cognitive enhancement. [J] London, UK:2007:42
② Martha J. Farah, Judy Illes, Neurocognitive enhancement:what can we do and what should we do[J]? Nature Reviews Neuroscience,2004 (5):421-425.
③ Farah, M. Emerging ethical issuesin neuroscience [J]. Nature Neurosci.2002 (5):1123-1129.
④ Nick Bostrom, AndersSandber, Cognitive Enhancement:Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2007(9):311-341.
① Nick Bostrom, AndersSandber, Cognitive Enhancement:Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2007(9):311-341.
② Jones R, Morris K, Nutt, D., Addiction and Drugs Project:Cognition Enhancers [J]. Foresight Brain Science. London:Department of Trade and Industry. 2005 (6):11-23.
①Gary Stix,Turbocharging the Brain—Pills to Make You Smarter[J]?Scientific American Magazine,2009(10):14-17.
① Mottaghy FM, Hungs M, Brugmann M, Sparing R, Boroojerdi B, Foltys H et al. Facilitation of picture naming after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurology 1999; 53:1806-12.
① Rossi S, Rossini PM. TMS in cognitive plasticity and the potential for rehabilitation. Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience 2004; 8(6):273-9.
② National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Interventional Procedure Guidance 19,2003. London:NICE.
③ Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Press Release:New report tackles controversial research into genes and behaviour.29 September 2002. London:Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
① Tang UP, Shimizu E, Dube GR,Rampon C, Kerchner GA, Zhuo M, et al. Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice[J]. Nature 1999 (4):63-9.
② Plomin R. Genetics, genes, genomics and g. [J]Molecular Psychiatry 2003(8):1-5.
① Wei F, Wang G, Kerchner GA, Kim SJ, Hai-Ming X, Chen Z et al. Genetic enhancement of inflammatory pain by forebrain NR2B overexpression[J]. Nature Neuroscience 2001 (4):9-164.
① Turner D, Sahakian BJ. Neuroethics of cognitive enhancements [J]. BioSocieties 2006 (1):23-113.
① Turner DC, Sahakian BJ. Ethical questions in functional neuroimaging and cognitive enhancement [J]. Poiesis Prax,2006(4):81-94.
② Farah MJ, Illes J, Cook-Deegan R, Gardner H, Kandel E, King P et al. Neurocognitive enhancement:what can we do and what should we do [J]? Nature Neuroscience 2004 (5): 5-421.
③ Wolpe PR. Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics[J]. Brain and cognition 2002(5):95-387.
④ Glannon W. Psychopharmacology and memory. [J] Med Ethics 2006(3):8-74.
①Jones R,Morris K,Nutt,D.,Addiction and Drugs Project:Cognition Enhancers[J].Foresight Brain Science.London:Department of Trade and Industry. 2005(6):11-23.
① Nick-Bostrom,AndersSandber,Cognitive Enhancement:Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics,2007(9):311-341.
① Cole-Turner, Ronald. Do Means Matter? In Enhancing Human Traits:Ethical and Social Implications [M]. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press, 1998:61-151.
② Naam, Ramez. More than Human:Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement[M]. New York:Harper Collins.2005:42-60.
③ Kass LR. Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity The challenge for bioethics[M]. San Francisco:Encounter Books.2002:281.
④Sandel, Michael.. The Case Against Perfection:Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering[M]. Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press.2007:23-59.
① Sandel, Michael.2007. The Case Against Perfection:Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering[M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.2007:29-79.
② Sandel, Michael.2007. The Case Against Perfection:Ethics in the Age of GeneticEngineering. Cambridge[M]. MA; Harvard University Press.2007:134-321.
③ Kant, Immanuel, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals[M], Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,1959:23-106.
① Frankfurt, Harry.. Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person[J]. Journal of Philosophy 1971(8):5 20.
② McKenny, Gerald P.. Enhancement and the Ethical Significance of Vulnerability. In Enhancing Human Traits:Ethical and Social Implications[M], Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,1998:37-222.
① Frankfurt, Harry, Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person[J].Journal of Philosophy 1971(6):5-20.
② Nozick, Robert. Anarchy,State,and Utopia[M]. New York:Basic Books. 1974:123-187.
① Taylor., Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity[M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.1991:12-134.
② Elliott, Carl. Better than Well:American Medicine Meets the American Dream[J]. New York,2003(6):34-35.
③ Taylor, Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge [M], MA:HarvardUniversity Press.1991:11-24.
① President's Council on Bioethics. Beyond Therapy:Biotechnology and thePursuit of Happiness[M]. New York:Harper Collins.2003:23-89.
①Jones R,Morris K,Nutt D.Foresight Brain Science,Addiction and Drugs Project: Cognitive Enhancers[M],.London:Department of Trade and Industry,2005:23-67.
②Chatterjee,Anjan,Cosmetic Neurology:The Controversy over Enhancing Movement, Mentation,and Mood.Neurology,2004(6):968-74.
① Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice[M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1971:12-14.
② Naam, Ramez,More than Human:Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement [M]. New York:Harper Collins,2005:23-78.
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,1988：292。
① Mehta MA, Owen AM, Sahakian BJ, Mavaddat N, Pickard JD, Robbins TW. Methylphenidate enhances working memory by modulating discrete frontal and parietal lobe regions in the human brain [J]. Neurosci,2000 (2):1-6.
② Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Press Release:New report tackles controversial research into genes and behaviors[J], London:Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2002(9):29.
①朱葆伟.高技术的发展与社会公正[J].天津社会科学,2007,(01)：37-41。
① Wolpe PR. Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics [J]. Brain and cognition 2002(5):95-387.
② Kass LR. Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity The challenge for bioethics[M]. San Francisco:Encounter Books,2002:162.
③ Harris J. Enhancing Evolution.. The ethical case for making better people[M]. Oxford:Princeton University Press,2007:139.
④ Glannon W. Psychopharmacology and memory[J]. Med Ethics 2006, (3):8-74.
⑤ Glover J. Choosing Children The ethical dilemmas of genetic intervention[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006:44.
① Turner D, Sahakian BJ. Neuroethics of cognitive enhancements [J]. BioSocieties, 2006, (1):23-113.
② Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future Consequences of the biotechnology revolution[M]. London:Profile Books Ltd.2002:97.
③ Ashcroft R, Campbell AV, Capps B.Foresight brain science, addiction and drugs project:Ethical aspects of developments in neuroscience and addiction [M], London:Office of Science and Technology.2005:23-78.
① Sententia W. Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition[J]. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,2004, (11):8-221.
① Downer S. The perils of self-prescription[J]. Financial Times, Weekend,2006, (5):1.
① Brownsword R. Red lights and rogues:regulating human genetics [J]. The regulatory challenge of biotechnology,2007, (3):39-62.
② Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future Consequences of the biotechnology revolution[M]. London:Profile Books Ltd.2002:97.
① Wolpe PR. Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics [J]. Brain and cognition 2002 (5):95-387.
② Harris J. Enhancing Evolution.. The ethical case for making better people[M]. Oxford:Princeton University Press,2007:207.
① Robertson JA. Children of choice:Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies[M]. New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1994:24.
①甘绍平.《基因工程伦理的核心问题》[J].《哲学动态》.2001,1：11-12。
② Russo, Lt. Col. Michael; Maher, Col. Cornelius; and Campbell, Col. William. Correspondence:Cosmetic Neurology[J]. Neurology,2005 (6):21-1320.