Julian Savulescu

Last updated

Julian Savulescu
Julian Savulescu (25374922580).jpg
Born (1963-12-22) 22 December 1963 (age 60)
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Alma mater Monash University
Era Contemporary philosophy
Region Western philosophy
School Analytic philosophy
Doctoral advisor Peter Singer
Main interests
 Ethics  · Bioethics
Notable ideas
Procreative beneficence

Julian Savulescu (born 22 December 1963[ citation needed ]) is an Australian philosopher and bioethicist. He is Chen Su Lan Centennial Professor in Medical Ethics and director of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics at National University of Singapore. He was previously Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and co-director of the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities. He is visiting professorial fellow in Biomedical Ethics at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Australia, and distinguished visiting professor in law at Melbourne University since 2017. He directs the Biomedical Ethics Research Group and is a member of the Centre for Ethics of Pediatric Genomics in Australia. He is a former editor and current board member of the Journal of Medical Ethics (2001–2004 and 2011–2018), which is ranked as the No.2 journal in bioethics worldwide by Google Scholar Metrics, as of 2022. [1] In addition to his background in applied ethics and philosophy, he also has a background in medicine and neuroscience and completed his MBBS (Hons) and BMedSc at Monash University, graduating top of his class with 18 of 19 final year prizes in Medicine. He edits the Oxford University Press book series, the Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics.

Contents

He completed his PhD at Monash University, under the supervision of philosopher Peter Singer. [2] His doctoral thesis was on good reasons to die and euthanasia. After graduating, he took a Menzies Foundation postdoctoral scholarship, [3] supervised by Derek Parfit [4] before returning to Australia. He established a group on the ethics of genetics at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australia. In 2002, he took up the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics in Oxford. In 2003, he established the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics as director.

Awards

Savulescu has a Honorary degree from the University of Bucharest (2014). [5] He was awarded the 'Thinker' Award in the top 100 Australian Future Leaders (2009), [6] and is a Monash University Distinguished Alumni (2009). [7] He was ASMR Gold Medalist (2005). [8]

In 2018, Savulescu and a team of co-authors were awarded the Daniel M. Wegner Theoretical Innovation Prize. [9] This prize recognises the author of an article or book chapter judged to provide the most innovative theoretical contribution to social/personality psychology within a given year. [10] He was also shortlisted for the AHRC Medal for Leadership in Medical Humanities in 2018. [11] He was elected a Corresponding Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 2023. [12]

Bioethical positions

Procreative beneficence

Savulescu coined the phrase procreative beneficence. It is the controversial [13] [14] [ vague ] moral obligation, rather than mere permission, of parents in a position to select their children, for instance through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and subsequent embryo selection or selective termination, to favor those expected to have the best possible life. [15] [16] [17]

An argument[ vague ] in favor of this principle is that traits (such as empathy, memory, etc.) are "all-purpose means" in the sense of being instrumental in realizing whatever life plans the child may come to have. [18]

Philosopher Walter Veit has argued that because there is no intrinsic moral difference between "creating" and "choosing" a life, eugenics becomes a natural consequence of procreative beneficence. [13] Similar positions were also taken by John Harris, Robert Ranisch and Ben Saunders respectively. [19] [20] [21]

Reception

Bioethicist Rebecca Bennett criticises Savulescu's argument. Bennett argues that "the chances of any particular individual being born is spectacularly unlikely, given the infinite number of variables that had to be in place for this to happen. In order for any particular individual to exist, that individual's parents have to have been created in the first place, they have to meet at the right time and conceive us at a particular time to enable that particular sperm to fuse with that particular egg. Thus, it is clear that all sorts of things, any change in society, will effect who is born." According to Bennett, this means that no-one is actually harmed if one does not select the best offspring, as the individuals born could not have had any other, worse life as they would otherwise never have been born – "choosing worthwhile but impaired lives harms no-one and is thus not less preferable", as Bennett puts it. Bennett argues that while advocates of procreative beneficence could appeal to impersonal harm, which is where one should aim to ensure the maximum possible potential quality of life and thus embryos without or with the least impairments should be selected (as the impersonal total quality of life will be improved), this argument is flawed on two counts. Firstly on an intuitive level, Bennett questions if benefit or harm that does not affect anyone (i.e. it is impersonal) should be worthy of consideration as no actual people will gain or lose anything. Secondly and on a theoretical level, Bennett argues that attempting to increase the sum total impersonal happiness (or decrease impersonal harm) can lead to repugnant conclusions, such as being obliged to produce as many offspring as possible to bring more people into the world to raise the level of impersonal happiness, even if the quality of life of individuals suffers for it due to scarcity and overcrowding. Bennett argues that this conclusion is repugnant because "it cares little about what we normally regard as morally important: the welfare of individual people". [22]

Peter Herissone-Kelly argued against this criticism. [23]

Moral Enhancement

In 2009, Professor Savulescu presented a paper at the "Festival of Dangerous Ideas", held at the Sydney Opera House in October 2009, entitled "Unfit for Life: Genetically Enhance Humanity or Face Extinction", which can be seen on Vimeo. [24] Savulescu argues that humanity is on the brink of disappearing in a metaphorical "Bermuda Triangle" unless humans are willing to undergo "moral enhancement". [25] [ clarification needed ]

Norbert Paulo criticised Savulescu's argument for moral enhancement, arguing that if democratic governments had to morally enhance their populations because the majoritarian population are morally deficient, they could not be legitimate as they manipulated the population's will. Thus in Paulo's view, those advocating large-scale, state-driven and partially mandatory moral enhancement are advocating a non-democratic order. [26]

Embryonic stem cells

Savulescu also justifies the destruction of embryos and foetuses as a source of organs and tissue for transplantation to adults. [27] In his abstract he argues, "The most publicly justifiable application of human cloning, if there is one at all, is to provide self-compatible cells or tissues for medical use, especially transplantation. Some have argued that this raises no new ethical issues above those raised by any form of embryo experimentation. I argue that this research is less morally problematic than other embryo research. Indeed, it is not merely morally permissible but morally required that we employ cloning to produce embryos or fetuses for the sake of providing cells, tissues or even organs for therapy, followed by abortion of the embryo or fetus." He argues that if it is permissible to destroy foetuses, for social reasons, or no reasons at all, it must be justifiable to destroy them to save lives.

He argues that stem cell research is important enough as to be justifiable even if one conceptualizes the embryo as a person. [28]

Abortion debate

Further, as editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, he published, in 2012, an article by two Italian academics which stated that a new-born baby is effectively no different from a foetus, is not a "person" and, morally, could be killed at the decision of the parents etc. [29] This article was published as part of a special double issue, "Abortion, Infanticide, and Allowing Babies to Die". [30] The double issue included articles by Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, Jeff McMahan, C. A. J. Coady, Leslie Francis, John Finnis, and others. In an editorial, Savulescu wrote: "The Journal aims in this issue to promote further and more extensive rational debate concerning this controversial and important topic by providing a range of arguments from a variety of perspectives. We have tried to be as inclusive as possible and provided a double issue to include as many as possible of the submissions we received. Infanticide is an important issue and one worthy of scholarly attention because it touches on an area of concern that few societies have had the courage to tackle honestly and openly: euthanasia. We hope that the papers in this issue will stimulate ethical reflection on practices of euthanasia that are occurring and its proper justification and limits." [31] He also stated, "I am strongly opposed to the legalisation of infanticide along the lines discussed by Giubilini and Minerva." [32]

Other positions

Along with neuroethicist Guy Kahane, Savulescu's article "Brain Damage and the Moral Significance of Consciousness" appears to be the first mainstream publication to argue that increased evidence of consciousness in patients diagnosed with being in persistent vegetative state actually supports withdrawing or withholding care. [33]

Other information

In 2009, Savulescu was awarded a Distinguished Alumni Award by Monash University. [34] In the same year, he was also announced as the winner in the Thinking category of The Australian newspaper's Emerging Leaders Awards. [35]

He has co-authored two books: Medical Ethics and Law: The Core Curriculum with Tony Hope and Judith Hendrick [36] and Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement (published by Oxford University Press) with Ingmar Persson. [37]

Savulescu is a member of the board of directors executive committee of the International Neuroethics Society. [38]

He has also edited the books Der neue Mensch? Enhancement und Genetik (together with Nikolaus Knoepffler), [39] Human Enhancement (together with Nick Bostrom), [40] Enhancing Human Capacities, [41] The Ethics of Human Enhancement. [42] He was also a co-author of Love Is the Drug: The Chemical Future of Our Relationships addressing the future potential widespread use of aphrodisiacs. In it, he argued, that certain forms of medications can be ethically consumed as a "helpful complement" in relationships. Both to fall in love, and, to fall out of it. [43] [44]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics</span> Effort to improve purported human genetic quality

Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Historically, eugenicists have altered various human gene frequencies by inhibiting the fertility of people and groups purported to be inferior or promoting that of those purported to be superior.

Bioethics is both a field of study and professional practice, interested in ethical issues related to health, including those emerging from advances in biology, medicine, and technologies. It proposes the discussion about moral discernment in society and it is often related to medical policy and practice, but also to broader questions as environment, well-being and public health. Bioethics is concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, theology and philosophy. It includes the study of values relating to primary care, other branches of medicine, ethical education in science, animal, and environmental ethics, and public health.

Utilitarian bioethics refers to the branch of bioethics that incorporates principles of utilitarianism to directing practices and resources where they will have the most usefulness and highest likelihood to produce happiness, in regards to medicine, health, and medical or biological research.

Bonnie Steinbock is a professor emerita of philosophy at the University at Albany and a specialist in bioethics who has written on topics such as abortion, end of life issues, and animal rights.

New eugenics, also known as liberal eugenics, advocates enhancing human characteristics and capacities through the use of reproductive technology and human genetic engineering. Those who advocate new eugenics generally think selecting or altering embryos should be left to the preferences of parents, rather than forbidden. "New" eugenics purports to distinguish itself from the forms of eugenics practiced and advocated in the 20th century, which fell into disrepute after World War II.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Designer baby</span> Genetically modified human embryo

A designer baby is a baby whose genetic makeup has been selected or altered, often to exclude a particular gene or to remove genes associated with disease. This process usually involves analysing a wide range of human embryos to identify genes associated with particular diseases and characteristics, and selecting embryos that have the desired genetic makeup; a process known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Screening for single genes is commonly practiced, and polygenic screening is offered by a few companies. Other methods by which a baby's genetic information can be altered involve directly editing the genome before birth, which is not routinely performed and only one instance of this is known to have occurred as of 2019, where Chinese twins Lulu and Nana were edited as embryos, causing widespread criticism.

Jonathan Glover is a British philosopher known for his books and studies on ethics. He currently teaches ethics at King's College London. Glover is a fellow of the Hastings Center, an independent bioethics research institution in the United States, and is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics.

The philosophical aspects of the abortion debate are logical arguments that can be made either in support of or in opposition to abortion. The philosophical arguments in the abortion debate are deontological or rights-based. The view that all or almost all abortion should be illegal generally rests on the claims that (1) the existence and moral right to life of human beings begins at or near conception-fertilization; that (2) induced abortion is the deliberate and unjust killing of the embryo in violation of its right to life; and that (3) the law should prohibit unjust violations of the right to life. The view that abortion should in most or all circumstances be legal generally rests on the claims that (1) women have a right to control what happens in and to their own bodies; that (2) abortion is a just exercise of this right; and that (3) the law should not criminalize just exercises of the right to control one's own body and its life-support functions.

The Centre for Human Bioethics is the previous name of a research and teaching centre at Monash University, based in the Faculty of Arts. The centre is now known as the Monash Bioethics Centre. It focusses on the branch of ethics known as bioethics, a field relating to biological science and medicine. It was founded in October 1980 by Professors Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse, as the first centre in Australia devoted to bioethics, and one of the first in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frances Kamm</span> 20th- and 21st-century American philosopher

Frances Myrna Kamm is an American philosopher specializing in normative and applied ethics. Kamm is currently the Henry Rutgers University Professor of Philosophy and Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. She is also the Littauer Professor of Philosophy and Public Policy Emerita at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, as well as Professor Emerita in the Department of Philosophy at New York University.

David Benatar is a South African philosopher, academic, and author. He is best known for his advocacy of antinatalism in his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, in which he argues that coming into existence is serious harm, regardless of the feelings of the existing being once brought into existence, and that, as a consequence, it is always morally wrong to create more sentient beings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vojin Rakić</span>

Vojin B. Rakic is a Serbian philosopher and political scientist. He publishes in English, but also in Serbian. He has a PhD in political science from Rutgers University in the United States. He has published on ethics, bioethics, Kant, and cosmopolitan justice.

"After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?" is a controversial article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini. Available online from 2012 and published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013, it argues to call child euthanasia "after-birth abortion" and highlights similarities between abortion and euthanasia.

David DeGrazia is an American moral philosopher specializing in bioethics, animal ethics, and the study of moral status. He is Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University, where he has taught since 1989, and the author or editor of several books on ethics, including Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status (1996), Human Identity and Bioethics (2005), and Creation Ethics: Reproduction, Genetics, and Quality of Life (2012).

The nonidentity problem in population ethics is the problem that an act may still be wrong even if it is not wrong for anyone. More precisely, the nonidentity problem is the inability to simultaneously hold the following beliefs: (1) a person-affecting view; (2) bringing someone into existence whose life is worth living, albeit flawed, is not "bad for" that person; (3) some acts of bringing someone into existence are wrong even if they are not bad for someone. Rivka Weinberg has used the nonidentity problem to study the ethics of reproduction.

Human germline engineering is the process by which the genome of an individual is edited in such a way that the change is heritable. This is achieved by altering the genes of the germ cells, which then mature into genetically modified eggs and sperm. For safety, ethical, and social reasons, there is broad agreement among the scientific community and the public that germline editing for reproduction is a red line that should not be crossed at this point in time. There are differing public sentiments, however, on whether it may be performed in the future depending on whether the intent would be therapeutic or non-therapeutic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">S. Matthew Liao</span> Taiwanese-born American philosopher

S. Matthew Liao is a Taiwanese-American philosopher specializing in bioethics and normative ethics. Liao currently holds the Arthur Zitrin Chair of Bioethics, and is the Director of the Center for Bioethics and Affiliated Professor in the Department of Philosophy at New York University. He has previously held appointments at Oxford, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, and Princeton.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bioconservatism</span> Cautious stance towards modifying human nature

Bioconservatism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes caution and restraint in the use of biotechnologies, particularly those involving genetic manipulation and human enhancement. The term "bioconservatism" is a portmanteau of the words biology and conservatism.

Moral enhancement, also called moral bioenhancement, is the use of biomedical technology to morally improve individuals. MBE is a growing topic in neuroethics, a field developing the ethics of neuroscience as well as the neuroscience of ethics. After Thomas Douglas introduced the concept of MBE in 2008, its merits have been widely debated in academic bioethics literature. Since then, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu have been among the most vocal MBE supporters. Much of the debate over MBE has focused on Persson and Savulescu's 2012 book in support of it, Unfit for the Future? The Need for Moral Enhancement.

Rivka Weinberg is an American philosopher. She is a professor of philosophy at Scripps College. She specializes in bioethics, the ethics of procreation, and the metaphysics of birth, death, and existence.

References

  1. ↑ "Bioethics — Google Scholar Metrics". scholar.google.co.uk. Retrieved 24 September 2019.
  2. ↑ Savulescu. philosophy.ox.ac.uk
  3. ↑ "Menzies Foundation". 28 October 2022.
  4. ↑ "Julian Savulescu". The World Technology Network. 24 October 2014. Retrieved 24 August 2021.
  5. ↑ "Doctor Honoris Causa". UniBuc — Universitatea din București. 26 November 2018. Retrieved 24 August 2021.
  6. ↑ "Professor Savulescu named 'top emerging thinker'". Oxford Martin School. Retrieved 24 August 2021.
  7. ↑ Faculty Board Agenda, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences. Meeting No3. 2009. Available at:http://www.med.monash.edu.au/assets/docs/facultyboard/meeting-files/3-2009/agenda.pdf Accessed 24 August 2021.
  8. ↑ Professor Julian Savulescu, National Press Club National Australia Bank Address, 8 June 2005. Accessed 24 August 2021.
  9. ↑ "Wegner Theoretical Innovation Prize". Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Retrieved 24 August 2021.
  10. ↑ Everett; Kahane; Earp; Caviola; Crockett; Faber; Savulescu (2018). "Beyond Sacrificial Harm: A Two Dimensional Model of Utilitarian Decision-Making". Psychological Review. 125 (2): 131–164. doi:10.1037/rev0000093. PMC   5900580 . PMID   29265854.
  11. ↑ Arts and Humanities Research Council. Health Humanities Medal 2018. Accessed 24 August 2021
  12. ↑ "Fellow Profile – Julian Savulescu". Australian Academy of the Humanities. Retrieved 23 November 2023.
  13. 1 2 Veit, Walter (2018). "Procreative Beneficence and Genetic Enhancement". Kriterion . 32 (11): 75–92. doi: 10.1515/krt-2018-320105 .
  14. ↑ de Melo-Martin I (2004). "On our obligation to select the best children: a reply to Savulescu". Bioethics. 18 (1): 72–83. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00379.x. PMID   15168699.
  15. ↑ Savulescu, Julian (October 2001). "Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children". Bioethics. 15 (5–6): 413–26. doi:10.1111/1467-8519.00251. PMID   12058767.
  16. ↑ Savulescu, Julian; Kahane, Guy (2009). "The Moral Obligation to Have Children with the Best Chance of the Best Life" (PDF). Bioethics. 23 (5): 274–290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00687.x. PMID   19076124. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 February 2021.
  17. ↑ Savulescu, Julian (2005). "New breeds of humans: the moral obligation to enhance". Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 10 (1): 36–39. doi:10.1016/s1472-6483(10)62202-x. PMID   15820005.
  18. ↑ Hens, K.; Dondorp, W.; Handyside, A. H.; Harper, J.; Newson, A. J.; Pennings, G.; Rehmann-Sutter, C.; De Wert, G. (2013). "Dynamics and ethics of comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing: A review of the challenges". Human Reproduction Update . 19 (4): 366–75. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt009 . hdl: 2123/12262 . PMID   23466750.
  19. ↑ Harris, John (2009). "Enhancements are a Moral Obligation". In Savulescu, J.; Bostrom, N. (eds.). Human Enhancement. Oxford University Press. pp. 131–154.
  20. ↑ Ranisch, Robert (2022). "Procreative Beneficence and Genome Editing". The American Journal of Bioethics . 22 (9): 20–22. doi:10.1080/15265161.2022.2105435. PMID   36040888.
  21. ↑ Saunders, Ben (2015). "Why Procreative Preferences May be Moral — And Why it May not Matter if They Aren't". Bioethics. 29 (7): 499–506. doi:10.1111/bioe.12147. PMID   25655693.
  22. ↑ Bennett, Rebecca (2014). "When Intuition is Not Enough. Why the Principle of Procreative Beneficence Must Work Much Harder to Justify its Eugenic Vision". Bioethics. 28 (9): 447–455. doi:10.1111/bioe.12044. PMID   23841936. S2CID   25583876.
  23. ↑ Herissone-Kelly, Peter (2011). "Wrongs, Preferences, and the Selection of Children: A Critique of Rebecca Bennett's Argument Against the Principle of Procreative Beneficence". Bioethics. 26 (8): 447–454. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01870.x. PMID   21320140.
  24. ↑ Genetically enhance humanity or face extinction – PART 1 on Vimeo. Vimeo.com (9 November 2009). Retrieved on 2016-05-16.
  25. ↑ Fukuma, Satoshi. "Death and Life Studies, Fit for the Future? Modern Technology, Liberal Democracy and the Urgent Need for Moral Improvement" (PDF). University of Tokyo Global COE Program. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
  26. ↑ Paulo, Norbert; Bublitz, Jan Christoph (2019). "How (not) to argue for moral enhancement: Reflections on a decade of debate". Topoi. 38 (1): 95–109. doi: 10.1007/s11245-017-9492-6 .
  27. ↑ Savulescu, J (1999). "Should we clone human beings? Cloning as a source of tissue for transplantation". Journal of Medical Ethics. 25 (2): 87–95. doi:10.1136/jme.25.2.87. PMC   479188 . PMID   10226910.
  28. ↑ Savulescu, J (2002). "The embryonic stem cell lottery and the cannibalization of human beings". Bioethics. 16 (6): 508–29. doi:10.1111/1467-8519.00308. PMID   12472112.
  29. ↑ Adams, Stephen (29 February 2012). "Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say". ISSN   0307-1235 . Retrieved 25 April 2018.
  30. ↑ "Abortion, infanticide and allowing babies to die, forty years on". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5). 1 May 2013. ISSN   0306-6800.
  31. ↑ Savulescu, Julian (1 May 2013). "Abortion, infanticide and allowing babies to die, 40 years on". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5): 257–259. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101404. ISSN   0306-6800. PMID   23637422. S2CID   2296017.
  32. ↑ Savulescu, Julian (1 May 2013). "Abortion, infanticide and allowing babies to die, 40 years on". Journal of Medical Ethics. 39 (5): 257–259. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101404. ISSN   0306-6800. PMID   23637422. S2CID   2296017.
  33. ↑ Savulescu, J.; Kahane, G. (2009). "Brain Damage and the Moral Significance of Consciousness". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 34 (1): 6–26. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhn038. PMC   3242047 . PMID   19193694.
  34. ↑ Professor Julian Savulescu. Monash.edu.au (13 February 2013). Retrieved on 2016-05-16.
  35. ↑ Nocookies. The Australian. Retrieved on 16 May 2016.
  36. ↑ Hope, Tony; Savulescu, Julian; Hendrick, Judith (2008). Medical Ethics and Law: The Core Curriculum. Churchill Livingstone. ISBN   978-0-443-10337-7.
  37. ↑ Persson, Ingmar; Savulescu, Julian (2012). Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-965364-5.
  38. ↑ "Governance". International Neuroethics Society. Archived from the original on 6 October 2014. Retrieved 28 September 2014.
  39. ↑ Knoepffler, Nikolaus; Savulescu, Julian, eds. (2009). Der neue Mensch? Enhancement und Genetik. Alber. ISBN   978-3-495-48307-7.
  40. ↑ Savulescu, Julian; Bostrom, Nick, eds. (2011). Human Enhancement. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-959496-2.
  41. ↑ Savulescu, Julian; ter Meulen, Ruud; Kahane, Guy, eds. (2011). Enhancing Human Capacities. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN   978-1-4051-9581-2.
  42. ↑ Clarke, Steve; Savulescu, Julian; Coady, C.A.J.; Giubilini, Alberto; Sanyal, Sagar, eds. (2016). The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-875485-5.
  43. ↑ Fetters, Ashley (16 January 2020). "Your Chemical Romance". The Atlantic. Retrieved 25 October 2020.
  44. ↑ Anekwe, Lilian (12 February 2020). "Drugs may be able to fix our romantic lives when things go wrong". New Scientist. Archived from the original on 13 February 2020. Retrieved 29 October 2020.

Commons-logo.svg Media related to Julian Savulescu at Wikimedia Commons

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.