Cybernetics may one day help the blind to see and the lame to walk…[1] …few things could actually be bigger than nanotechnology in terms of potential to revolutionize scientific and engineering research, improve human health and bolster our economy...[2]

We face the prospect of a century dominated by biotechnology challenges. And in case we are about to dismiss the quotes above as mere science fiction, it is worth remembering that just a few years ago human cloning was science fiction. Yet the cloning of human embryos for therapeutic purposes is not only happening now, it has also gained widespread public acceptance and support. Science fiction has become fact. If this can happen in such a short time then we can surely expect other developments in biotechnology to 'go all the way' as well.

We need to be clear that biotechnology is not inherently wrong. In fact, technology, generally speaking, is a human good. Humans are technologists by nature and by vocation. After all, we remain under the covenantal obligations to 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it'.[3] Wise stewardship of our created world requires some form of technology - even if no more sophisticated than a sharpened stick to plough a field for planting seed.

This article will focus on developments in cybernetics and nanotechnology that lead us to the manufacture of devices of intelligence and enhancement, and the integration of the human and the mechanical. Other important areas of biotech development - transgenics, behavioural genetics and artificial intelligence - are covered in the series of briefing papers, From Fiction to Fact, available on the website of the Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy (CBPP).[4]

Cybernetics

In 2002 the Sunday Times reported that 'scientists have demonstrated that human thoughts can be converted into radio waves and used by paralysed people to create movement…the creation of cyborgs - part human, part machine - is becoming a reality.'[5]

The term 'cyborg', or cybernetic organism, refers to the blending of technology and humanity. We already depend on technology such as glasses, hearing aids, pacemakers, false teeth etc and therefore many of us are already, to a certain extent, 'cyborgs' - part human, part machine.

However, Kevin Warwick, a professor at Reading University, believes the 'cyborg evolution' is inevitable and, because of the speed of development of computers, is vital to our very survival. He is quoted as saying, 'Ultimately, humans will become a lower form of life, unable to compete with either intelligent machines or cyborgs.'[6] If we do not adapt, he claims, 'the alternative is to have intelligent machines running everything. I don't really fancy that...but this alternative I see as quite a positive alternative: humans staying in control of what is going on, even though we have to become cyborgs to do it.'[7]

Warwick has conducted personal experiments to meld man and machine: he and his wife had electrodes implanted in their wrists, connected to each other and to a computer. They were then able to send pulse messages between each other via their nervous systems. He believes that the potential for this kind of communication is huge - computers could be commanded by nothing but thoughts, people could think to each other instead of speaking, people could have extra memory etc.

There is of course enormous potential for improving the capabilities of the disabled, which is what drives many of the current developments in this field. One team implanted miniature transmitters into the brains of terminally ill people suffering from degenerative conditions that rendered them unable to communicate. Their thoughts alone enabled them to create movement. It was said: 'Ultimately the technology will be used for people whose spinal cords are destroyed in accidents or those handicapped by strokes.'[8]

The potential to do such things through technology is both exciting and remarkable. Scientists in Australia have developed a 'mind switch' that enables people to activate electrical devices (eg turn on a radio or open doors) by thinking.[9] Kevin Warwick has achieved a similar feat using an implanted chip at Reading University. For the disabled, this kind of technology could massively enhance their lives. In another experiment, two patients with locked-in syndrome had brain implants inserted and were then linked to a computer, enabling their minds to control a cursor on a screen and thus communicate. As for the blind seeing - researchers are now working on implanting artificial retinas into the eyes of blind patients suffering from particular nerve disorders.

However the technology will undoubtedly grow beyond helping people with disabilities because, of course, another purpose of cybernetics is to improve our connectivity with others and assist us in performing specific duties. Brain chips or implants could also become available for use by the non-disabled, to provide access to the internet and other electronic devices. Anyone could then be an instant 'expert' in any area. Research is being carried out on 'wearable computers', the purpose of which would be to provide the wearer with permanent access to computer networks and constant communication with others.

In 2002 three members of a Florida family were implanted with ID chips, a tamper proof form of identification. As one journalist commented, 'The chip has no medical purposes. It is for security, or financial or other identification purposes only.'[10] The makers anticipated demand that would create 'millions' of similar cyborgs over the next few years.

Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology may be the 'smallest' field of science - the manipulating of individual atoms. But I've come to understand that in science and technology, few things could actually be bigger than nanotechnology in terms of potential to revolutionize scientific and engineering research, improve human health and bolster our economy.[11]

Nanotechnology is the science of tiny objects. It is the term applied to the study, manipulation and engineering of systems or devices at a minute level, ie less than 100 nanometers, or 10,000th of the diameter of a human hair. Nanotechnology is not strictly speaking a technology, but a size - the nano-scale, at which atoms and molecules, the building blocks of all matter, operate. The convergence of all the new technologies (genetics, robotics, artificial intelligence, IT and nanotechnology) hinges on mastering nano-scale engineering and technology.

In the words of a UK government report: 'The ultimate goal of nanotechnology is to produce tiny devices, some of which may be able to design and build other devices.'[12] These 'nanorobots' would be implantable devices that could theoretically detect and destroy cancerous cells and sites of infection, repair genetic mutations, deliver precisely targeted drug therapy, replace cellular structures with other materials etc. According to the report, while this may be a dream, some scientists believe that the reality behind the science may be seen in the next 20-30 years. But other products, which rely on nanotechnology, may not be so far away, such as molecular electronic switches, improved sun creams and cancer treatments. In medicine, nanoceramics are already being used as bone replacement agents.[13] Other nanotech products on the market at the moment include lighter, stronger tennis rackets, harder dental fillings and burn dressings. Computer scientists have also made use of nanotechnology to create implants for use in the brains of rats, so that they can be controlled and directed by a remote computer.

The logic behind nanotechnology lies in the simple fact that all substances (life and non-life) are qualitatively the same at the nanoscale - all are made up of atoms arranged in different ways. In other words, there is material unity at the nano-scale. So if events can be manipulated at the nano-scale, this could allow the control of events on the macro-scale, and there are several potential medical applications: 'Neurons could be re-engineered so that our minds talk directly to computers or to artificial limbs. Viruses could be re-engineered to act as machines or weapons.'[14] Nanorobots could also be designed to 'cruise' the bloodstream, able to attack pathogens, build cells or perhaps even organs.[15]

There is serious commitment to nanotechnology, as well as awareness of its potential use in the development of biological weaponry. It is a fast growing area of scientific research, attracting large amounts of money. The Department of Trade and Industry has allocated £90 million for nanotechnology, to help British companies in this field. The US has the National Nanotechnology Institute and late last year President Bush allocated $3.7 billion to nanotech research and development.

Some ethical issues

Both these technologies are undoubtedly exciting and may well help the blind to see and lame to walk. But they have potential dark sides. As the government report says, 'Nanotechnology will do wonderful things. But there are almost bound to be risks attached to its usage.'[16]

Neither cybernetics nor nanotechnology are easy to understand, let alone engage with: 'the field is vast and the potential applications numerous. It is this very breadth of possible applications that makes it difficult to predict where the greatest risks of nanotechnology lie.'[17] Nevertheless, there are a number of issues Christians should think through as we become aware of the different applications of these biotechnologies.

Access and justice

Who will (or should) have access to these new technologies? Some see them as a means of levelling the playing field to make all people equal. However history has shown us that technology tends to do the opposite and often aggravates the differences between and within cultures - between those who have and those who do not. The implants for paralysed patients discussed above cost more than £30,000 per patient. The 'haves' will be genetically and technologically enhanced, while the 'have-nots' will continue to die of starvation, AIDS and other poverty-driven diseases. We ought to call on lawmakers to use our scarce resources to address the urgent needs of the suffering and poor who have curable diseases before we talk about 'enhancing' them.

The threat of nanorobots

It has been claimed that nanotechnology poses a significant threat to the human race through the creation of devices that could destroy life on a vast scale. This could be via the building of 'assemblers', machines the size of a DNA strand with the ability to move atoms around and put them precisely wherever they were wanted. In other words, they could potentially build anything, and do so fast. So, the theory goes, nanorobots could be designed as killers; microscopic plagues carried in the wind or water supply. Some nanorobots could replicate themselves quickly - a potentially useful attribute - but, it is claimed, this self-replication could become out of human control and potentially unstoppable. More recently, concerns have been expressed about the potential physical hazards to health of environmental and human 'pollution' by nanoparticles.[18]

Treatment and enhancement

Treating an illness is one thing; enhancing or engineering a 'better' human being is another. With both cybernetics and nanotechnology, the difficulty in defining the line between treatment and enhancement is of great concern. At what point does a technology that aims to cure or treat a 'disease', or restore lost capacities, become one that aims to improve already healthy systems, or to advance capacities in some way? When does health end and a quest for physical and mental perfection begin? It is not necessarily always clear and may be partly culturally determined. It can also take very little to move from one to the other.

Medicine - and biotechnology - should address itself to the elimination of pathology, but not the enhancing of normality. The danger is that even if clear distinctions are apparently made, it is all too easy to 'reassess' and change these definitions - what is 'normality'? It is likely to prove difficult to prevent the use of technologies for enhancement. A treatment for one may be an enhancement for another. What happens when it becomes an infringement of human rights to deny the right to personal enhancement or improvement, to deny individual choice and autonomy? Further down the line, what about social pressure to undergo enhancement, or discrimination against the unenhanced? How about the pressure to enhance certain professionals - the memories of doctors, perhaps, or the sight and stamina of soldiers? Bill McKibben in his recent book Enough offers some stark illustrations about where all this could lead.[19]

As I said at the outset of this article, it is good to have technological development that will help us to heal and do good. Jesus himself healed, but only that which was lost by illness or the effects of sin. He did not make people more intelligent, stronger, or taller; nor did he encourage them to pursue immortality on earth.

John Wyatt uses a helpful illustration to show how we might attempt, as Christians, to analyse controversial technological advances: if we see our bodies as wonderful, original artistic masterpieces reflecting the design of God, but marred by biological and moral flaws, what is our responsibility to this masterpiece and what can we do with it? Ethical intervention is that which seeks to protect, maintain and restore the original, operating within the parameters fixed by the artist. Unethical restoration is that which seeks to enhance, alter or improve the original design.[20] Perhaps we just need to ask, what does it really mean to be human?

Remaking humanity

Some advocates of these technologies see them, ultimately, as a means to free themselves and the rest of humanity from the physical confines of the human body. This goal is best expressed by transhumanists[21] such as Kevin Warwick, quoted earlier. They argue that the body, with its limitations and mortality, needs to be transcended and that the only way humans will do so is by merging with machines. Transhumanism assumes a blind faith in inevitable progress through science and technology, as well as radical autonomy and the right of the individual to control and engineer their own destiny. It has partly arisen out of postmodern thinking, the rejection of objective truth and the belief that there is nothing intrinsically valuable about the human form. We humans are thus free to change ourselves in whatever way we want. We can foster whatever 'image' we desire.

Before we dismiss these views as simply those of extremists, it is worth noting that the US government produced a lengthy manifesto in 2001 entitled Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance.[22] This debate is not simply about disease prevention and cure, and nor is it just of interest to 'harmless techno geeks'.

In contrast, the Bible is clear that God loves us as ourselves in our weakness, not our strength; he wants us to rely on him, not ourselves and our own abilities. Moreover, suffering for Christians is not only to be expected, but is for a purpose and reason - to increase our reliance and dependence on God himself.[23]

These technologies also raise challenges to our understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God.[24] Although there are multiple interpretations of this image in man, the Bible is clear that it plays a large part in the high value that God places on mankind.[25] The image of God relates to some way that man resembles his Creator and it defines man as a morally significant entity. Our imaging of God is an intrinsic feature, inseparable from our humanness; it results simply from us being human beings born of human parents. Man is not simply a collection of biological parts and functions, or a 'property-thing' that has been put together in the right way and that we can do what we like with. This is incompatible with a biblical view of humanity where all human beings have worth and dignity regardless of what they can or cannot do.

Thus Christians should reject transhumanism, and enhancements of the human condition, remembering that we were made not for performance but for a loving relationship with God: 'In wanting to become more than we are, and in sometimes acting as if we were already superhuman or divine, we risk despising what we are and neglecting what we have.'[26]

A response

Although technological and medical advances will make it possible to do many things, they will not guide us in what we ought to do. Scientists and policy makers have increasingly become unable to offer any meaningful distinction between what they can do and what they should do. This is why economics, practicalities and safety considerations so often become our culture's determining values or ethics.

Currently, developments in cybernetics and nanotechnology appear to be accelerating ahead of sufficient ethical reflection and appropriate control. We needn't necessarily be fearful of the technologies themselves. Yet we do need to be wise and courageous in understanding where cybernetics and nanotechnology may be used in good and moral ways, but also where they need controlling, so that the technology does not control us.

But what can we do? Even though private companies dominate biotech developments we are not left completely powerless in a democratic society. We have the right and the opportunity as consumers, taxpayers, and voters to express our views to politicians and regulators. Biotech developments ought to be subject to democratic regulation and the opinions of non-scientists ought to count: 'We are not powerless but we must learn to engage effectively in the public debate; not with knee-jerk anti-technology attitudes but by asking the big questions.'[27]

One of the tasks of Christians is to stay ahead of the bioethics current; to think now, not later, about the sort of society we want. We need to try and anticipate with the scientists what various novel experiments will mean and suggest ethical ways to pursue our common interest in serving humanity. The introduction of a new technology often follows a common path - first its development behind closed doors, then the winning over of the public with predictions of life-saving advances, then finally, a regulatory regime to fit the already completed package. Clearly it is much better to have regulatory regimes set up earlier in the process. Denis Alexander, talking about new technologies, calls on Christians to 'undertake the hard slog necessary to assess their possible benefits. We worship God by our actions and are condemned for our failure to act (James 4:17).'[28]

For those who can, forming genuine relationships with scientists and actually hearing their concerns, motivations, and desires will prove essential to address effectively this forthcoming generation of bioethical challenges. Secular bioethicists have long been providing guidance behind the scenes by serving on ethics committees and building relationships with scientists. Christians also need to volunteer their services and partner with scientists, as well as with secular bioethicists, at their local universities and hospitals.

For all of us, however, there is always the opportunity and challenge to love our neighbour as ourselves[29] and to demonstrate in caring relationships and communities the equal worth, dignity and value of every individual human life.

I conclude with the prescient words of CS Lewis, written over half a century ago:

There neither is nor can be any simple increase of power on man's side. Each new power won by man is a power over man as well. Each advance leaves him weaker as well as stronger. In every victory, besides being the general who triumphs, he is also the prisoner who follows the triumphal car.[30]