OVERVIEW

Advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering are not only helping treat disease and injury, they are potentially changing what it means to be human. Brain implants could enhance intelligence; genetic engineering could produce “designer babies.” Will the ability to create stronger, smarter, healthier humans benefit just a small elite, or deliver health solutions for all? And what will it mean for equality among future generations?

SIGNALS

Biotechnology and genetic engineering are making breakthroughs in treating disease and injury. Neuralink’s brain implant helping the paralysed to walk is the latest of several brain-computer interfaces. A model of a human embryo  grown using only stem cells may help understand how the body’s organs develop, while CRISPR gene editing could potentially cure a wide range of genetic diseases. Advancements in bioengineering offer opportunities to address health inequities globally through cell, gene and RNA therapies to treat or prevent disease; antiaging treatments to extend life spans; improved drug development and more cost-effective production of pharmaceuticals.

Beyond these therapeutic possibilities lies huge potential for human enhancement. Brain-computer interfaces can enable people to control robots or machines with thought alone. Individuals are already biohacking their own bodies, injecting stem cells or microdosing psychedelic drugs for improved performance. Wearable biosensors can now detect human emotions. The Enhanced Games advocates for the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport.

Becoming “more than human” raises ethical and legal questions. NATO has adopted the first international strategy on the responsible use of bio- and human-enhancement tech. Since biological advances rely on data from our bodies and brains, privacy is a central issue. Legislatures in Chile, Mexico, Brazil and the US are starting to recognise “neurorights” and the privacy of “neurodata.”

SO WHAT FOR DEVELOPMENT?

These scientific advances will affect every sector of development (social, economic, environmental, ethical). Like AI, biotech could pose existential risks if its development and deployment are not properly governed. Interdisciplinary collaboration and dialogue, including an intergenerational perspective, are essential.

Unequal access to biological advances could perpetuate or magnify inequalities. Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic showed that scientific breakthroughs will not realize their full potential unless we prioritise equitable access and the common good. To address this deficit, BioNTech is building its first mRNA vaccine plant in Africa in Rwanda, but much more investment is needed in the global south.

The pursuit of immortality could denude life of its purpose, raising the question of how we preserve the right of future generations to make risk/reward decisions for themselves. Even choosing to live to 150 years would change our understanding of the life course and our obligations to future generations. We would need to adapt our economic models to fit increasingly ageing populations. Healthcare, pensions and social security would need to be recalibrated to fit a workforce that may not have linear or lifelong employment in a single sector. 
Creating new categories of augmented beings will create unpredictable divides in future generations. New forms of governance may be needed to accommodate vastly different levels of cognitive capacity. Might we need to assign distinct legal and moral rights for new categories of beings?