Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T21:01:42.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can We Justify Military Enhancements? Some Yes, Most No

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2022

Blake Hereth  and
Nicholas Evans
Blake Hereth*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Massachusetts 01854, USA
Nicholas Evans
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Massachusetts 01854, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: Blake_Hereth@uml.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The United States Department of Defense has, for at least 20 years, held the stated intention to enhance active military personnel (“warfighters”). This intention has become more acute in the face of dropping recruitment, an aging fighting force, and emerging strategic challenges. However, developing and testing enhancements is clouded by the ethically contested status of enhancements, the long history of abuse by military medical researchers, and new legislation in the guise of “health security” that has enabled the Department of Defense to apply medical interventions without appropriate oversight. This paper aims to reconcile existing legal and regulatory frameworks on military biomedical research with ethical concerns about military enhancements. In what follows, we first outline one justification for military enhancements. The authors then briefly address existing definitional issues over what constitutes enhancement before addressing existing research ethics regulations governing military biomedical research. Next, they argue that two common justifications for rapid military innovation in science and technology, including enhancement, fail. These justifications are (a) to satisfy a compelling military need and (b) strategic dominance. The authors then turn to an objection that turns on the idea that we need not have these justifications if warfighters are willing to adopt enhancement, and argue that laissez-faire approaches to enhancement fail in the context of the military due to pressing and historically significant concerns about coercion and exploitation. The paper concludes with what is referred to as the “least-worst” justification: Given the rise of untested enhancements in civilian and military life, we have good reason to validate potential enhancements even if they do not satisfy reasons (a) or (b) above.

Keywords

enhancementmilitary enhancementsmilitary biomedical research
Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 557 - 569
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Kamienski, L. Shooting Up. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016 Google Scholar.

2. National Research Council.Caffeine for the Sustainment of Mental Task Performance: Formulations for Military Operations. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press (US); 2001 Google Scholar.

3. Moreno, JD. Mind Wars. N.Y., New York: Bellevue Literary Press; 2012 Google Scholar.

4. See note 3,. Moreno, 2012.

5. Evans, NG, Moreno, JD. Neuroethics and policy at the national security interface. In: Racine, E, Aspler, J, eds. Debates About Neuroethics. Switzerland: Springer; 2017:141–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Buniak, L, Darragh, M, Giordano, J. A four-part working bibliography of neuroethics: Part 1: Overview and reviews – defining and describing the field and its practices. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine: PEHM 2014;9(1):9. doi:10.1186/1747-5341-9-9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7. Repantis, D, Schlattmann, P, Laisney, O, Heuser, I. Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research 2010;62(3):187–206. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2010.04.002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Tennison, MN, Moreno, JD. Neuroscience, ethics, and national security: The state of the art. PLoS Biology 2012;10(3):e1001289. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001289 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed .

9. U.S. Department of Defense. Protection of human subjects and adherence to ethical standards in DoD-supported research; Published October 2018; available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/321602p.pdf (accessed 13 January 2022).

10. Spence, DL. Ensuring respect for persons when recruiting junior enlisted personnel for research. Military Medicine 2007;172(3):250–53. doi:10.7205/MILMED.172.3.250 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; McManus, J. Informed consent and ethical issues in military medical research. Academic Emergency Medicine 2005;12(11):1120–6. doi:10.1197/j.aem.2005.05.037 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

11. Parasidis, E. Classifying military personnel as a vulnerable population. In: Cohen, IG, Fernandez Lynch, H, eds. Human Subjects Research Regulation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2014:65–78. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262027465.003.0007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Annas, CL, Annas, GJ. Enhancing the fighting force: Medical research on American soldiers. J Contemp Health Law Policy 2009;25(2):283–308 Google ScholarPubMed.

13. In conversation with a participant at a DOD SOCOM Event under the Chatham House Rule, November 2018.

14. Groopman J. Eyes Wide Open. The New Yorker. Published 26 November 2001; available at https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/12/03/eyes-wide-open (accessed 13 January 2022).

15. Moreno, JD. Undue Risk. London: Routledge; 2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. Welsome, E. The Plutonium Files. London: Delta; 2010 Google Scholar.

17. Rempfer v. Sharfstein, 583 F.3d 860 (DC Cir. 2009)

18. See note 11., Parasidis 2014.

19. Gronvall, GK. US competitiveness in synthetic biology. Health Security 2015;13(6):378–89. doi:10.1089/hs.2015.0046 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed ; Giordano, J, Forsythe, C, Olds, J. Neuroscience, neurotechnology, and national security: The need for preparedness and an ethics of responsible action. AJOB Neuroscience 2010;1(2):35–6. doi:10.1080/21507741003699397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Evans, NG, Majumder, MS, Smith, TC. Ebola’s Message. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 2016:chapter 13–15; Evans NG. COVID-19: the ethics of clinical research in quarantine. BMJ 2020;369. doi:10.1136/bmj.m2060 Google Scholar; Evans, NG. Human infection challenge studies: A test for the social value criterion of research ethics. mSphere 2020;5(4). doi:10.1128/mSphere.00669-20 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Evans, NG, Hills, K, Levine, AC. How should the WHO guide access and benefit sharing during infectious disease outbreaks? AMA Journal of Ethics 2020;22(1):28–35. doi:10.1001/amajethics.2020.28 Google ScholarPubMed.

21. Mehlman, MJ, Berg, JW. Human subjects protections in biomedical enhancement research: Assessing risk and benefit and obtaining informed consent. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2008;36(3):546–59. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720x.2008.303.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mehlman, MJ, Berg, JW, Juengst, ET, Kodish, E. Ethical and legal issues in enhancement research on human subjects. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics: CQ: the International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees 2011;20(1):30–45. doi:10.1017/S0963180110000605 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Lev, O, Miller, FG, Emanuel, EJ. The ethics of research on enhancement interventions. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2010;20(2):101–13. doi:10.1353/ken.0.0314 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

22. Maxwell, J, Mehlman, TYL. Ethical, legal, social, and policy issues in the use of genomic technology by the U.S. military. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2014;1(3):244–80. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsu021 Google Scholar; Gross ML. Military medical research ethics: Investigational drugs, clinical trials and enhancement. In: MacKay D, Iltis A, eds. Oxford Handbook of Research Ethics. researchgate.net; 2019:1–17; Evans, Nicholas G. The Ethics of Neuroscience and National Security. London: Routledge; 2021.

23. Walzer, M. Just and Unjust Wars. N.Y., New York: Basic Books; 2015 Google Scholar.

24. We anticipate the following objection: Enhancements that cause soldiers to act empathetically or cause minimal harm to enemy combatants might be easier to justify, as they improve the discriminating abilities of soldiers. However, this objection makes the dubious assumption that we know ex ante how particular enhancements will work. Our paper concerns the permissibility of initiating enhancement research, whereas the objector assumes we have results in hand.

25. Savulescu, J. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 2001;15(5–6):413–26. doi:10.1111/1467-8519.00251; Sparrow R. Human enhancement and sexual dimorphism. Bioethics 2012;26(9):464–75. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01884.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

26. We can enhance, and “disenhance,” nonhuman animals, though I will not discuss this further here. See note 1, Kamienski 2016. Henschke, A. Making sense of animal disenhancement. NanoEthics 2012;6(1):55–64. doi:10.1007/s11569-012-0140-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Evans, NG, Moreno, J. Children of capital: Eugenics in the world of private biotechnology. Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine: An International Journal 2015;6(3–4):285–97. doi:10.1615/EthicsBiologyEngMed.2016016594 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evans NG, Reynolds JM, Johnson KR. Moving through capacity space: Mapping disability and enhancement. Journal of Medical Ethics 2021;47:748–55.

28. See note 27, Evans et al. 2021.

29. See note 8, Tennison and Moreno, 2012.

30. Daniels, N. Can anyone really be talking about ethically modifying human nature. In: Savulescu, J, Bostrom, N, eds. Human Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009:25–42 Google Scholar; Juengst, ET, Binstock, RH, Mehlman, M, Post, SG, Biogerontology, Whitehouse P., “anti-aging medicine,” and the challenges of human enhancement. The Hastings Center Report 2003;33(4):21–30. doi:10.2307/3528377 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

31. See note 20, Evans 2020.

32. Mehlman MJ, Lin P, Abney K. Enhanced Warfighters: Risk, Ethics, and Policy. Calpoly Saint Luis Obispo; 2013. http://ethics.calpoly.edu/greenwall_report.pdf (accessed 13 January 2022).

33. Giordano, J, Forsythe, C, Olds, J. Neuroscience, neurotechnology, and national security: The need for preparedness and an ethics of responsible action. AJOB Neuroscience 2010;1(2):35–6. doi:10.1080/21507741003699397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also note 22, Evans 2021, at chap. 15.

34. See note 1, Kamienski 2016.

35. Evans NG. Emerging military technologies: A case study in neurowarfare. In: Tripodi P, Wolfendale J, eds. New Wars and New Soldiers: Military Ethics in the Contemporary World. Ashgate; 2011:105–16; Krishnan, A. Military Neuroscience and the Coming Age of Neurowarfare (Hardback). London: Routledge; 2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. Enemark C. Unmanned drones and the ethics of war. In: Allhoff F, Evans NG, Henschke A, eds. Routledge Companion to Ethics and War. philpapers.org; 2013:327–38.

37. I have the intuition that it is there, as well, but an argument there would require defeating arguments around the role of state prerogatives and national security in armed conflict, which I will set aside here for the sake of brevity.

38. Degenhart, AD, Hiremath, SV, Yang, Y, Foldes, S, Collinger, JL, Boninger, M, et al. Remapping cortical modulation for electrocorticographic brain-computer interfaces: A somatotopy-based approach in individuals with upper-limb paralysis. Journal of Neural Engineering 2018;15(2):026021. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aa9bfb CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

39. Rodin, D. War and Self-Defense. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2005:41 Google Scholar.

40. Rodin accepts this view. See note 39, Rodin 2005.

41. This interpretation is favored by Marcia Baron, who argues we should reject the imminence requirement for permissible self-defense. See Baron M. Self-defense: The imminence requirement. In: Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:228–66.

42. Evans, NG. Ebola: From public health crisis to national security threat. In: Lentzos, F, ed. Biological Threats in the 21st Century. London: Imperial College Press; 2016:277–92. doi:10.1142/9781783269488_0017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. Though, CF, Horowitz, MC, Narang, N. Poor man’s atomic bomb? Exploring the relationship between “weapons of mass destruction.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 2014;58(3):509–35. doi:10.1177/0022002713509049 Google Scholar.

44. Kühn, U. Institutional resilience, deterrence and the transition to zero nuclear weapons. Security and Human Rights 2015;26(2–4):262–80. doi:10.1163/18750230-02602002; Koblentz GD. Regime security: A new theory for understanding the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. Contemporary Security Policy 2013;34(3):501–25. doi:10.1080/13523260.2013.842298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45. Enemark, C. United States biodefense, international law, and the problem of intent. Politics and the Life Sciences 2005;24(1–2):32–42. doi:10.2990/1471-5457(2005)24[32:usbila]2.0.co;2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

46. Mehta A. The world spent almost $2 trillion on defense in 2020. Defense News. Published April 26, 2021; available at. https://www.defensenews.com/global/2021/04/26/the-world-spent-almost-2-trillion-on-defense-in-2020/ (accessed 10 November 2021).

47. For defenses, see Chappell, RY, Singer, P. Pandemic ethics: The case for risky research. Research Ethics. Published online June 2, 2020:1747016120931920. doi:10.1177/1747016120931920CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wertheimer, A. The social value requirement reconsidered. Bioethics 2015;29(5):301–308. doi:10.1111/bioe.12128. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

48. Emanuel EJ, Wendler, D, Grady, C. What Makes Clinical Research Ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701–2711. doi:10.1001/jama.283.20.2701. Google Scholar

49. We will not spend time on what constitutes coercion versus exploitation. Like “enhancement,” wading into the debate about whether these terms are coherent or useful takes me too far afield and has been covered in detail elsewhere. Moreover, it is not clear that in the context of this paper there is a particular utility in attempting to carve a neat distinction.

50. Parasidis, E. Justice and beneficence in military medicine and research. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy 2012;73(723–793)Google Scholar; available at https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ohslj73&section=25 (accessed 13 January 2022).

51. DOD Directive 5134.10, September 2017.

52. U.S. Department of Defense. About – DoD Research & Engineering. Published 2022; available at https://www.cto.mil/about/ (accessed 13 January 2022).

53. Personal communication with participant at a meeting at US SOCOM, November 2017. Reported under the Chatham House Rule.

54. Henschke, A, Evans, NG. Winning Well by Fighting Well. International Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2012;26(2):149–163. doi:10.5840/ijap201226212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55. Cohen, SP, Brown, C, Kurihara, C, Plunkett, A, Nguyen, C, Strassels, SA. Diagnoses and factors associated with medical evacuation and return to duty for service members participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet. 2010;375(9711):301–309. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61797-9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

56. Wexler, A. The practices of do-it-yourself brain stimulation: implications for ethical considerations and regulatory proposals. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2016;42(4):211–215. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102704 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

57. Arguably this has been going on for some time, if we take seriously the idea that private education and tutors are nonmedical enhancements of a kind. See note 27, Evans and Moreno 2015.

58. See note 19, Gronvall, 2015.