ABSTRACT
Representatives from government and the private sector recommend a major, cooperative initiative directed toward using NBIC (nano-, bio-, info-, and cogno-) technologies for human enhancement. By appropriately seeding the convergence of NBIC domains, they believe that the rate of development can be both accelerated and simultaneously channeled to avoid adverse risk and advance human good. However, to accomplish these goals, leaders of the convergence efforts identified as a major intellectual barrier the “development of a hierarchical architecture for integrating science across many scales, disciplines, and data modalities.” Such a holistic framework requires a radical rethinking of the nature of science and engineering, and, beyond this, is also necessary for addressing their normative ethical and societal implications. In the first part of this essay, I consider the claim that a new view of science and engineering is needed. After reviewing the central features of a classical view of science, I consider aspects of the nano-revolution, showing why the classical conception is inappropriate and how a systems-oriented perspective is responsive to the character of this new science. I then consider how both science and engineering are transformed, calling into question older dichotomies between pure and applied domains. With the reworking of this distinction comes opportunities for rethinking the relation between science and the humanities more generally, which is necessary if we are to more appropriately address normative ethical aspects of the convergence initiative. After providing this groundwork for the needed hierarchical architecture, I consider a useful example of how a systems perspective might guide NBIC convergence. In the 1960s–1990s George Engel advocated a systems-theoretic model as an alternative to a more reductionistic “biomedical model” in medicine, and he did it for the exact sanie reasons as those advocated by the leaders of the NBIC convergence; namely, it embodies a more appropriate notion of science and enables one to address ethical aspects of medicine that were insufficiently addressed in the older model. By reviewing Engel’s “biopsychosocial model” we can learn important lessons for developing the needed NBIC framework. I close by extending Engel’s model so that it addresses all areas of enhancement envisioned as a part of NBIC convergence, and then identify areas where future research is still needed.
