ArticleMonash bioethics review2026
Human enhancement, past and present.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.