Human enhancements are an inherently controversial issue. A commonly accepted definition of human enhancements pertains to “any kind of genetic, biomedical, or pharmaceutical intervention aimed at improving human dispositions, capacities, or well-being.” Examples of human enhancement technology include but are not limited to contemporary gene editing techniques like CRISPR-Cas9, pharmaceuticals that improve cognitive function, and physical improvements which include innovations like prosthetics.  Proponents of human enchantments point to the promising nature of this new technology and its ability to stretch the limits of humankind. On the contrary, skeptics point to the countless ethical and political complications that are bound to arise with such ground-breaking technology. 

The topic of human enhancements falls squarely in the field of biopolitics, “the control of populations through apparatuses of normalization in order to maximize life processes.” Biopolitics includes policies pertaining to a person’s body: healthcare, birth control, reproductive rights, etc. Michael Foucault, the founder of the concept of biopolitics, emphasized that biopolitics is a new way institutions can exert power in the contemporary era. With the rapid rise of human enhancements, biopolitics has become more relevant than ever before.

History has countless examples of how human enhancements have had a significant impact on populations. Humans have always attempted to improve human health and overcome physical limitations since the beginning of time. The Ancient Egyptians developed herbal medicines, and scientists during the Renaissance studied human anatomy prompting essential innovations. Moreover, the Industrial Revolution brought about vaccines, anesthesia, and modern surgical practices. However, it was the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick that brought about technology that one would only see in Sci-Fi novels. This prompted a scientific revolution as the field began to distinctly focus on molecular biology. Stem cell technology, gene-editing, and cognitive enhancement drugs are some of the most notable scientific advancements. 

Due to the rapid pace of the development of human enhancements, sufficient regulatory policies haven’t been enacted. Thus, ethical and moral considerations have become commonplace in academic circles. The main arguments raised by critics of the current state of human enhancement technology involve equity, informed consent, and privacy. 

Inequality is a widespread issue in the United States. The United States has the highest income inequality compared to any of the other nations in the G7 with a Gini Coefficient of approximately 4.2. Americans are worried that normalizing human enhancement technology would only increase this inequality. In fact, a comprehensive study conducted by the Pew Research Study supports the previous conjecture as 57% of Americans support the conclusion that human enhancements will exacerbate inequality.  Making these technologies accessible to everyone in spite of their social or economic status is crucial in order to prevent further systemic inequality.

Human enchantments are relatively new, and thus, many Americans are unaware of the benefits and consequences of such technologies. As a result, there is a general reluctance surrounding whether to take advantage of these enhancements. In addition to the lack of information about human enhancements, there is a storied history pertaining to exploitation in healthcare in the US. For example, in the 1900s, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study was conducted by the US government in which they misled 600 American African men resulting in severe side effects permanently harming, not only their quality of life but also the livelihoods of their families. As a result, there is a natural apprehension when dealing with new medical innovations like human enhancements. 

Genetic information can reveal a substantial amount of information about an individual like their familial relationships and their health history. Such information can be used against them by insurance conglomerates, employers, or criminals. With genetic information being at the forefront of human enhancements, ethical concerns arise surrounding the potential for the data to be misused. This issue becomes considerably more important when dealing with technology like brain chips.

As evidenced by the numerous ways human enhancements can end up poorly, strong biopolitical regulations are a necessity. The way that regions regulate enhancements is unique. The EU, for instance, adopted strict regulatory policies on new biotechnology dealing with genetic information. The union passed two sweeping pieces of policy, the Clinical Trials Regulation and General Data Protection Regulation, which are ethics-driven and prioritize safety and privacy. While the United States of America has some form of regulation in the form of the FDA, it is far more lax than the EU, embracing the free-market principle. Though each nation may have unique regulatory laws, the international nature of scientific discoveries like human enhancements makes it essential for international organizations to provide a consistent framework to regulate these technologies. Organizations like the World Health Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization have already developed broad ethical guidelines for human genetic enhancements.

The United States would benefit significantly by adopting a more stringent set of regulations similar to the EU. The adoption of CTR in the EU directly resulted in a 30% increase in safety and transparency regarding clinical trials. The GDPR resulted in similar positive changes with data breaches concerning genetic information decreasing by 25%. Enforcing such measures is bound to increase the public’s trust in new human enhancement technology and deals with many of the ethical questions posed. 

These measures have proved to be effective, but more is needed to be done especially considering the socio-economic situation and scale of the United States compared to the EU. One policy recommendation is to increase the thoroughness of the informed consent process to ensure that all parties are aware of the benefits and risks. The All of Us Research Program in the US is a great example of the success of a rigorous informed consent procedure. The purpose of the program is to gather the genetic information of millions of Americans to further the field of medicine. Due to their excellent handling of informed consent, more people participated in the study. 

Another policy measure deals with the issue of equity. The US government should subsidize human enhancement technologies nullifying the issue of equity. The US government invests heavily in its healthcare, with 1.7 trillion dollars in mandatory spending and 144.3 billion in discretionary spending. It is more than possible to redirect funds from certain sectors that focus on illness prevention as human enhancements will directly result in fewer ailments thus reducing the necessity of those funds. There is already a precedent set for something like this to happen as funds from immunization programs are redirected to make vaccines evidenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

To prevent data breaches from occurring, the US government should institute standardized data protection measures for companies handling genetic information. A study conducted by the Ponemon Institute found that a data breach with 23andMe, a biotechnology company, resulted in a 15% decrease in public trust.

These policy options tackle the ethical concerns that have been at the forefront of discourse surrounding human enhancement technology, a modern issue of biopolitics. By ensuring that human enhancements are safe and secure, it has the potential to revolutionize human health. But how quickly the United States gets to that point all depends on the policies that are enacted.