New look

We've made some changes
to The Sunday Times

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

Skip Navigation

From The Times

May 17, 2008

Who’s afraid of a synthetic human?

If we can enhance our species - make it live longer and resist disease - we should do it

John Harris

In the future there will be no more human beings. This is not something we should worry about.

Much of today’s scientific research may enable us eventually to repair the terrible vulnerability to which our present state of evolution has exposed us. It is widely thought inevitable that we will have to face the end of humanity as we know it. We will either have died out altogether, killed off by self-created global warming or disease, or, we may hope, we will have been replaced by our successors.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill would allow for inter-species embryos that will not only enable medical science to overcome the acute shortage of human eggs for research, but would provide models for the understanding of many disease processes, an essential precursor to the development of effective therapies.

Darwinian evolution has taken millions of years to create human beings; the next phase of evolution, a phase I call “enhancement evolution”, could occur before the end of the century. The result may be the emergence of a new species that will initially live alongside us and eventually may entirely replace humankind.

This prospect horrifies some and exhilarates others. Yet the question of whether or not we should make improvements to human beings and possibly to human nature is the most vital, urgent and portentous of all the questions facing us.

Now is the time to try to answer this question, because many recent discoveries are beginning to make the prospect of radical human enhancement a reality. Stem cell research, which may lead to human tissue repairing itself; new genes resistant to cancer and HIV; new drugs that improve concentration and memory or enable us to function for much longer periods without sleep; brain-computer interfaces that may harness the power and memory of computers, perhaps by the insertion of tiny “nanobots” into the human brain; and techniques that will radically extend life expectancy from tens to hundreds of years – these are all on today’s scientific agenda and some are already in use.

Some of these possibilities are so radical that the creatures benefiting from them would no longer be “human”, in the way we think of it. The end of humanity then is not in itself a concern; making sure that those who replace us are better than we are is a huge and timely concern.

One of the most dramatic and important of the new technologies that will produce new creatures is synthetic biology. When people talk about synthetic biology and synthetic life, they may have in mind Frankenstein scientists in the lab, or perhaps some bubbling vat of biochemical “primeval soup” out of which will arise either a monster or a perfect specimen of humanity.

Synthetic biology is in fact the name now used for a cluster of new technologies in which, as John McCarthy, the computer scientist, says, biomolecular components (natural or synthetic) are newly combined or reorganised to create novel genetic and biochemical circuitry, pathways, and ultimately organisms. It is, in a sense, a hybrid discipline between science and engineering.

Synthetic biology has caught the imagination not least because it marks the beginnings of potentially manufacturing life forms from scratch and eventually of creating tailor-made creatures in our own image – or in principle in the image of anything we can engineer. This is heady stuff, and if it works may give us unprecedented powers.

If we can try to understand how to make better creatures than ourselves, longer-lived, more resistant to disease and injury, healthier and better adapted to a changing environment, we should surely do so.

Enhancement technologies give those who can use them an edge and have often been criticised for the injustice that this supposedly creates. But we have always enhanced ourselves and our environment in ways that are not immediately available to all: education and medicine are obvious examples, but synthetic sunshine is perhaps closest to synthetic biology.

Before fires, candles, lamps and other forms of man-made light, most people went to sleep when it got dark. Candles enabled social life and work to continue into and through the night and conferred all sorts of advantages on those able and willing to benefit from it, at the expense of those who couldn’t or didn’t.

Contemporary and future biological enhancements may create problems of injustice both in that they provide a means for some to gain an advantage (those who read by candlelight gain in a way that others do not), and because they may create unfair pressures as a result of the capabilities conferred by enhancement (like the pressure to stay up late and read or work because one can).

The solution is establishing “fair” working hours and provision, at public expense if necessary, of sources of light – not banning candles. The solution is a combination of regulation and distributive justice, not a Luddite rejection of technology.

John Harris is Professor of Bioethics at the University of Manchester and author of Enhancing Evolution (Princeton University, 2007).

"So people with their finite little brains believe that they can improve on what the infinite mind of God made..."

and tame the fire, make the wheel, learn alphabet, mathematics, cope with child mortality etc. What a primitive kind of thought. God woudn't be happy with such fearful humans.

Vx, Kiev,

Please allow the scientists to try and succeed or fail in their attempts to benefit humanity and the earth. God fearing souls have a theory, God. Even they admit, when someone claims to have contact with god they need medication. Synthetic biology is simply a way to categorize and engineer things.

Robin Mackey, Miami, USA

People such as Malthus, and Margaret Sanger , who espoused the idea of eugenics, believed the same things you believe. Hilter read Malthus, and look at what happened to him. Only God can make a tree, and we are not gods. How do we know that our efforts will turn out better then God's efforts?

Jacinta Black, Woodstock,

So people with their finite little brains believe that they can improve on what the infinite mind of God made! Don't believe in God, just look up and ask yourself this question, "where does the universe end?" If it doesn't end, how can that be? If it does end, what's beyond it or outside of it?

Mary, Rochester, USA

We already have a serious over population problem. Why do you want to make people live even longer? Do you think eternity in a physical body is the answer? We are spiritual beings and meant to move on. Heal the diseases that make life miserable for some, more than that is silly.

S. Clark, Baltimore, USA

Excellent analogy on the "fairness of enhancement". We will see this many more articles/debates soon, as the pace of new technology increases. Advocates and critcs can wail or praise it, but these technologies are coming and will bring change to the status quo. We will live in interesting times

Pat M., Hartford, USA

Hey Trevor from Hartford Ct, us religious have NO problem with ADULT stem cell research. It is EMBYONIC stem cell research that we object to. Experimentation using human embyos is nothing short of and exceeds the torturous experiments of Hitler's Nazis. To lump both research types together is a lie.

Bob, Chicago, U.S.A.

Shear Stupidity.

Gregory James, Chicago, USA

Sounds like the hubris of man will be his downfall. This will never happen because despite what you scientists believe, we are NOT in charge. The road to hell is paved with scientific advances, and we are racing forward full-speed ahead if we continue with this nonsense. God have mercy on us all.

Jennifer H., Lafayette, USA

Woe for England.

What line is left to cross for your unfortunate country? Only God in heaven creates life, The Father, not man.

This can only bring doom to your country, and it shall--you'll see.

Jeff Johnson, St. Cloud, MN

In a nutshell they want to build a "perfect" human being and disregard the effects of our sinful disobedience in the Garden of Eden. Sorry, but our human race disobeyed God. You can create all of the "perfect" synthetic people you want, but it will never change the reality that we disobeyed God.

Matt, Baltimore, USA

Eternal life is already available to people, and if properly sought after will take away all of your fears of death and dying as a human.
Seek the Divine Mercy of Jesus Christ, and you shall live forever.

Patrick, Ottawa, Canada

The Frankenstein myth is still very much a part of us; can and will our desire for creative power lead to a monsteer that will destroy us, or some form of a newer, hgher and better life?

Larry Carney, Clifford, Canada

These people are only satisfied when they're playing God. Are they bored? scared of death? or in there ignorance do they want to see how far they can push the boundaries like Monsanto, and co. before the planet is completely stuffed .... Those with degrees lack common sence

ham, napier, NZ

ha ha ha...when you write "fair" do you mean the kind of fairness we have known all along which means in reality injustice poverty exploitation of the weak by the strong starvation and I will pass all the rest of the great iron exploits of a species I have got huge problems to call the human race?

Laurent, Windsor, UK

All those scared by man should be scared by his inventions...I am both scared by man and his inventions. We are a total disgrace to Life the sooner we disappear the better the rest of the Universe will be.

Laurent, Windsor, UK

Consider human evolution from a project management perspective. The low-risk approach is to introduce changes slowly, never threatening collapse. This looks plodding, but it's safe and reliable.

Quick changes based on grand visions will cause errors. Rebuilding a VW with Ferrari parts will cost us.

Marcus, Sydney, Australia

If the ageing process can be arrested then, fine. Otherwise, we can end up like the sibyl asking for eternal life, granted it, & continued existing like a shrivelled old leaf with all the attendant ills.

Ian cheese, london, uk

"...the enormous amount of power that is moving into a small number of hands through the technology."

To embrace technology is to realize for oneself a power hitherto unknown, not to misappropriate power from others.

Technology is not a crime, or even a threat. It is a virtue.

Luke, Fulshear, TX, USA

I think we need to be more concerned about the existing humans and the enormous amount of power that is moving into a small number of hands through the technology. This can give these people a sense of competence which is altogether misplaced, and if this proceeds into the realms of tinkering with fundamentals of what is our ecosystem we will be in all kinds of trouble. A desire for personal gain can be so easily disguised as a concern for the general welfare. I think you are making the mistake of failing to appreciate the difference between improving an existing relation with changing a relation. The first can only be an improvement, the second could be disastrous.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Imagine if the new "perfected" human which we thought was disease resistant had some how managed to get infected with an unknown virus with equivalent suffering to aids or cancer but didn't cause death? Oh and remember the new "perfected" human could to live for hundreds of years. Nice life?

Mohammed, London, UK

I wonder if Prof. Harris been reading some of Iain M Banks' "Culture" novels, set in an advanced civilisation where the people have artificial drug-glands in their brains, souped-up sex organs, the ability to regrow limbs, and all manner of other useful enhancements?

If not then he really ought to!

Chris K, Cheltenham, UK

A great idea, but as long as their is religion, it will never happen. Religion has been the obstacle to any form of scientific advancement for eons. You only have to look at stem cell research and the amount of hostility there is toward it. We will evolve, but who knows how? BTW, not Religious.

Trevor, Hartford Ct , USA.

Make a 'better' human' You better get it right first time or those lawyers will make a mint out of medical lawsuits for the rejects and failures!

I would go as far to say any such enterprise would be bankrupted long before the 'better' Human rolls off the production line.

Alan, Luton,

One obvious objection: Remember the synthetic sheep? They die in droves... What happens when some genetic cock-up happens and genetically designed people start keeling over... Do we mourn less? Do we mourn at all? Or does mourning cease when life begins in the test tube... If so, what else ceases.

Elan Durham, Santa Monica, CA/US

I normally support scientific advances (e.g. HFE Bill) and am an atheist, but this is truly scary. We should leave the fundamental things that make us human be.

Ben, 16,

I appreciate that John Harris has a notion of enhancement that is wholistic. Distinctions, however, need to be made between types of enhancement. I do not want to be convinced of the potential value of synthetic or stem cell human enhancement by comparison to a candle!

Margaret, Palo Alto, USA

"If we can enhance our species - make it live longer and resist disease - we should do it". So why are you messing around in a lab rather than fighting poverty?

Joe, brussels, belgium

This is just another of the we-should-do-it-because-we-can-do-it brigade. Considering that the planet is already suffering the effects of over-population, how on earth would increasing lifespans actually help?

Chris, Derby,

I'm actually really, really frightened for the future of my generation. Please leave the species imperfect and this sort of malarky in sci-fi novels.

JD, age 15, Bangor,

"Am I compatible with the upgrade?"

I agree. I'm all for increasing lifespan and intelligence, and improving our ability to fight disease and cope in difficult situations, but we should always try to maintain backwards compatibility.

Richard, Seoul, Korea

'More human than human' - Blade Runner applications accepted here...

Mark, Deal, Kent

There are math for predicting population growths. All populations follow it, rabbits only bread like rabbits untill they reach their optimum level and then they stop or slow. It is based on predator-prey and the supply of food; with the earth being finite they would eventualy turn on each other.

Andy, Chesterfield/Stockholm, England/Sweden

No ethicists do not have expertise in what is ethical-most of what is ethical is highly subjective. It's nice to read an ethicist who doesn't pander to the religious lobbyists who seek to enforce their own agenda on science, and keep us rooted in the middle ages.

Matt Reid, Leicester, UK

What about a cure for the common cold, first?

Mohammed, London, UK

How exactly does one qualify as a "Professor of Bioethics"? The last organised attempt to create a master race ended with genocide and a devastated Europe. And there were professors to support it all the way. Beware the sourcerer's apprentice!

Augustin, Lausanne, Switzerland.

There is a great deal of money going into the fields of anti-aging, robotics, nanotech, and so on. As soon as someone hits on a way to improve memory, or live longer, or even some of the synthetic stuff Harris talks about, the toothpaste will be out of the tube, so to speak. Get used to it.

Nullius, London, UK

Well HUMAN humans have cocked up the world for the last God knows how many years, lets give the synthetic ones a chance !!!!

Ian Payne, WALSALL,

My mum's pretty much a synthetic human. She has two articial hips and two artifical knees already and is planning more replacement operations. After a few more she'll start to walk like Robocop and talk like Hal. And there are others like her.

John Smith, London, uk

I can think of nothing more horrific than a lifespan longer than that already bestowed on me by nature and the extension to it that modern medicine has thus far enabled. I'm 43 and am already bored to tears with most things in this world - especially people!

Rowg, Zurich, Switzerland

"Professor John Harris makes no mention of the one ingredient that makes life worth living - Happiness." - Surely all of the advancements mentioned in this article are helping to achieve just that - by stamping out disease, ignorance and even death itself. Any bugs in the 'software' can be fixed.

Jason, Weybridge, UK

Professor Harris writes, "If we can try to understand how to make better creatures than ourselves, longer-lived, more resistant to disease and injury, healthier and better adapted to a changing environment, we should surely do so."

May I ask why?

John Richardson, Elsenham, UK

There are two possibilities for synthetic biology: either we emulate what already exists, which will be prey to disease and ageing; or we create a new architecture from scratch, which will be even buggier than the not-really-very-complex systems we already try and fail to build, such as software.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Professor John Harris makes no mention of the one ingredient that makes life worth living - Happiness.

San Ying, Montreal, Canada

Am I compatible with the upgrade?

Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales

Of course---It is the saying that humans fear their power---If evolution brought us to this point , we should use our knowledge and do what we think right. I for one don't mind living for a 1000 years ! Then again, acording to some, our individual soul never dies, it gets reborn time after time.

petrus jacobus van der walt, Durban, South Africa

It is important to remember that ethicists do not have expertise in what is or is not ethical. They have expertise in various theories and points of view on what is ethical, and some of the related philosophical techniques. His views on this subject carry no special weight.

Nick Beard, Rotherham, UK