Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40423756›Full record

ArticleMonash bioethics review2026

Human enhancement, past and present.

Andrew Moeller, Jose Maria Andres Porras

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Monash bioethics review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrew Moeller *University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Andrew.Moeller@history.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-1356-9488
Jose Maria Andres Porras *University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3444-039X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One important role the medical humanities might and should play relates to public education. In this instance, we mean helping persons to think about their own aims or purposes as potential receivers of enhancement interventions, and similarly helping to inform the developers of said interventions. This article argues that, in the light of real and speculative applications of emerging biotechnologies and artificial intelligence aimed at human enhancement-including germline genetic engineering, the linking of the human brain with an artificial general intelligence by way of a brain-computer interface, and various interventions directed toward life extension-historians would do well to consider the following three practices as they participate in the medical humanities and the shared task of public education: (1) Taking under scrutiny a broad swath of topics and timeframes as it relates to past efforts aimed at human enhancement; (2) Focusing on past engagement with enhancement efforts and their perceived relation to the pursuit of living well; and (3) Entering into debates on enhancement as equal participants. In support of these assertions, this article takes efforts directed towards the prolongation of life in medieval Europe as an illustrative example. It also highlights continuities and discontinuities between past and present justifications for human enhancement, and addresses how similarities and differences can shape and challenge contemporary bioethical arguments.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomedical EnhancementHumanitiesBiotechnologyEugenicsEuropeHistory, MedievalHumansEnhancementEugenicsHistoryLife extensionMedieval alchemy

Identifiers

PMID40423756
PMCPMC13525935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.