73% believe inequality will increase if brain chips become available because they will be obtainable only by the wealthy

7 in 10 believe these technologies will become available before they have been fully tested or understood

Many say they are not sure whether these interventions are morally acceptable. More people say brain and blood enhancements would be morally unacceptable than acceptable

Most say the downsides of brain and blood enhancements would outweigh benefits for society than vice versa. People are slightly more positive about the benefits of gene editing outweighing the downsides, however.

Opinions are closely divided when it comes to the question of whether these potential developments are "meddling with nature" and crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed, or whether they are "no different" from other ways that humans have tried to better themselves.

More religious Americans are less likely to embrace these potential types of enhancements

People are less accepting of changes that produce extreme changes in human abilities or enhancements that are permanent and cannot be undone

Women tend to be more wary of these potential enhancements than men are (43% women would want gene editing for their baby vs. 54% men for example)

Compared to current cosmetic enhancements, views are similar with 61% of Americans saying people are too quick to undergo cosmetic procedures to change their appearance in ways that are not really important

All this wariness is likely well-founded and is healthy. Of course at the same time there is an argument that to not use enhancement technologies boldly is to condemn humanity to a worse fate. Unlike cosmetic enhancements, there are potential advantages to broader humanity by helping humans become healthier and more intelligent. This is similar to how Elon Musk speaks about it being morally reprehensible to not develop self-driving car technologies as quickly as we safely can, lest we forget about the thousands upon thousands of needless traffic deaths each year.





A society that is mixed on these views is much more likely to maturely move forward with both measured caution and measured optimism. Indeed, while the pulse of the nation seems to be one of worry with these technologies, this kind of diversity of opinion will likely be our best chance at a better future.











Source: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/26/u-s-public-wary-of-biomedical-technologies-to-enhance-human-abilities/



A recent New England Journal of Medicine opinion piece on gene editing can also be found here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1602010#t=article

An eye-opening Pew Research Center report was released today on American views of three major potential future technologies: (i) gene editing, (ii) brain chips and (iii) synthetic blood.4,726 U.S. adults were surveyed during March 2016 to give a representative sample of American attitudes on these topics.A majority of Americans said they would be 'very' or 'somewhat' worried about gene editing (68%); brain chips (69%); and synthetic blood (63%). Meanwhile no more than half said they would be enthusiastic about each of these developments. Some said they would be both enthusiastic and worried, but it was clear the public is currently more concerned than excited.Key points: