The ethical desirability of moral bioenhancement: A review of reasons

Background: The debate on the ethical aspects of moral bioenhancement focuses on the desirability of using biomedical as opposed to traditional means to achieve moral betterment. The aim of this paper is to systematically review the ethical reasons presented in the literature for and against moral bioenhancement. Discussion: A review was performed and resulted in the inclusion of 85 articles. We classified the arguments used in those articles in the following six clusters: (1) why we (don't) need moral bioenhancement, (2) it will (not) be possible to reach consensus on what moral bioenhancement should involve, (3) the feasibility of moral bioenhancement and the status of current scientific research, (4) means and processes of arriving at moral improvement matter ethically, (5) arguments related to the freedom, identity and autonomy of the individual, and (6) arguments related to social/group effects and dynamics. We discuss each argument separately, and assess the debate as a whole. First, there is little discussion on what distinguishes moral bioenhancement from treatment of pathological deficiencies in morality. Furthermore, remarkably little attention has been paid so far to the safety, risks and side-effects of moral enhancement, including the risk of identity changes. Finally, many authors overestimate the scientific as well as the practical feasibility of the interventions they discuss, rendering the debate too speculative. Summary: Based on our discussion of the arguments used in the debate on moral enhancement, and our assessment of this debate, we advocate a shift in focus. Instead of speculating about non-realistic hypothetical scenarios such as the genetic engineering of morality, or morally enhancing 'the whole of humanity', we call for a more focused debate on realistic options of biomedical treatment of moral pathologies and the concrete moral questions these treatments raise

Randomized controlled trial comparing a variable-thread novel tapered and a standard tapered implant: Interim one-year results

Statement of problem: A tapered implant with continuously changing threads purported to provide stable tissue support and allow immediate function has been developed. Treatment success and stabilization of supporting tissues over time require documentation. Purpose: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study was to evaluate changes in bone level and soft tissue behavior between the novel implant (NobelActive/NA) and a standard tapered implant (NobelReplace Tapered Groovy/NR) with regard to immediate function. Material and Methods: A total of 177 patients randomly allocated to 3 treatment groups (2 different test implant groups: NA Internal (n=117; internal connection) and External (n=82), and 1 standard treatment group, NR (n=126)) received 325 implants. Implants were placed into healed sites, and all but 6 implants were immediately nonocclusally loaded. Clinical and radiographic evaluations of treatment success, crestal bone levels, and soft tissue changes were performed at the time of placement and after 3, 6, and 12 months. Log-Rank test was used to analyze the differences in survival rate. Marginal bone level was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test (\u3b1=.05). Results: One-year cumulative survival rates were comparable (96.6% for NA Internal; 96.3% for NA External; 97.6% for NR; P=.852; Log-Rank). Mean (SD) change in bone level was -0.95 mm (1.37) for NA Internal, -0.64 mm (0.97) for NA External, and -0.63 mm (1.18) for NR (P=.589; Kruskal-Wallis). Stable soft tissues and significantly increased papilla scores (P<.001; Wilcoxon signed-rank) were observed for all implant types. Conclusions: The novel implants showed high survival rates as well as stable bone and soft tissue levels after 1 year, and may be recommended for clinical use, even under immediate function. (J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:293-305)