针对SARS-CoV-2的疫苗接种:人类增强的故事。

Translational medicine communications Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-12-04 DOI:10.1186/s41231-021-00104-2
Niklas Alexander Döbler, Claus-Christian Carbon
{"title":"针对SARS-CoV-2的疫苗接种:人类增强的故事。","authors":"Niklas Alexander Döbler,&nbsp;Claus-Christian Carbon","doi":"10.1186/s41231-021-00104-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaccination is an essential strategy for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. Besides its significance as a public health measure, vaccination is a sophisticated example of modern biotechnology. Since vaccination gives the human body an ability that it does not naturally possess, the question arises as to its classification as Human Enhancement.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Exemplified on a selection of different definitions, we conclude that vaccinations may indeed be classified and treated as a form of Human Enhancement. This raises some ethical issues that are notorious in the broad field of Human Enhancement. A study with <i>N</i> = 67 participants revealed that vaccinations are perceived neither as a clear nor poor example of Human Enhancement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> We argue that qualifying vaccination technology as Human Enhancement does not provide convincing arguments to reject vaccination. By examining the Human Enhancement debate and the similarities to the issue of vaccination shown here, policymakers can learn valuable lessons regarding mass vaccination programs' current and future handling.</p>","PeriodicalId":75244,"journal":{"name":"Translational medicine communications","volume":" ","pages":"27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8642743/pdf/","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a human enhancement story.\",\"authors\":\"Niklas Alexander Döbler,&nbsp;Claus-Christian Carbon\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41231-021-00104-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaccination is an essential strategy for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. Besides its significance as a public health measure, vaccination is a sophisticated example of modern biotechnology. Since vaccination gives the human body an ability that it does not naturally possess, the question arises as to its classification as Human Enhancement.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Exemplified on a selection of different definitions, we conclude that vaccinations may indeed be classified and treated as a form of Human Enhancement. This raises some ethical issues that are notorious in the broad field of Human Enhancement. A study with <i>N</i> = 67 participants revealed that vaccinations are perceived neither as a clear nor poor example of Human Enhancement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> We argue that qualifying vaccination technology as Human Enhancement does not provide convincing arguments to reject vaccination. By examining the Human Enhancement debate and the similarities to the issue of vaccination shown here, policymakers can learn valuable lessons regarding mass vaccination programs' current and future handling.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational medicine communications\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8642743/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational medicine communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41231-021-00104-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/12/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational medicine communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41231-021-00104-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

背景:疫苗接种是缓解COVID-19大流行的一项重要战略。疫苗接种除了作为一项公共卫生措施具有重要意义外,还是现代生物技术的一个复杂例子。既然疫苗给了人体一种它本身不具备的能力,那么就产生了将其归类为人类增强的问题。正文:通过对不同定义的选择,我们得出结论,接种疫苗确实可以被归类并被视为一种人类增强的形式。这就提出了一些在人类增强的广泛领域中臭名昭著的伦理问题。一项有67名参与者的研究显示,接种疫苗既不被认为是人类增强的一个明确的例子,也不被认为是一个糟糕的例子。结论:我们认为,将疫苗接种技术定性为人类增强并不能提供令人信服的论据来拒绝疫苗接种。通过研究关于人类增强的辩论以及与疫苗接种问题的相似之处,政策制定者可以从大规模疫苗接种项目当前和未来的处理中吸取宝贵的经验教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a human enhancement story.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a human enhancement story.

Background: Vaccination is an essential strategy for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. Besides its significance as a public health measure, vaccination is a sophisticated example of modern biotechnology. Since vaccination gives the human body an ability that it does not naturally possess, the question arises as to its classification as Human Enhancement.

Main body: Exemplified on a selection of different definitions, we conclude that vaccinations may indeed be classified and treated as a form of Human Enhancement. This raises some ethical issues that are notorious in the broad field of Human Enhancement. A study with N = 67 participants revealed that vaccinations are perceived neither as a clear nor poor example of Human Enhancement.

Conclusion:  We argue that qualifying vaccination technology as Human Enhancement does not provide convincing arguments to reject vaccination. By examining the Human Enhancement debate and the similarities to the issue of vaccination shown here, policymakers can learn valuable lessons regarding mass vaccination programs' current and future handling.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信