Discussions on Human Enhancement Meet Science: A Quantitative Analysis

The analysis of citation flow from a collection of scholarly articles might provide valuable insights into their thematic focus and the genealogy of their main concepts. In this study, we employ a topic model to delineate a subcorpus of 1,360 papers representative of bioethical discussions on enhancing human life. We subsequently conduct an analysis of almost 11,000 references cited in that subcorpus to examine quantitatively, from a bird's-eye view, the degree of openness of this part of scholarship to the specialized knowledge produced in biosciences. Although almost half of the analyzed references point to journals classified as Natural Science and Engineering (NSE), we do not find strong evidence of the intellectual influence of recent discoveries in biosciences on discussions on human enhancement. We conclude that a large part of the discourse surrounding human enhancement is inflected with "science-fictional habits of mind." Our findings point to the need for a more science-informed approach in discussions on enhancing human life.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Science and Engineering Ethics
Published
2025-02-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-025-00531-6
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Misinformation and Its Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.20

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Discussions on Human Enhancement Meet Science: A Quantitative Analysis

Tomasz Żuradzki, Vilius Dranseika, Piotr Bystranowski
1 citations
Science and Engineering Ethics
Misinformation and Its Impacts
4.20
article

Discussions on Human Enhancement Meet Science: A Quantitative Analysis

Tomasz Żuradzki, Vilius Dranseika, Piotr Bystranowski
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The analysis of citation flow from a collection of scholarly articles might provide valuable insights into their thematic focus and the genealogy of their main concepts. In this study, we employ a topic model to delineate a subcorpus of 1,360 papers representative of bioethical discussions on enhancing human life. We subsequently conduct an analysis of almost 11,000 references cited in that subcorpus to examine quantitatively, from a bird's-eye view, the degree of openness of this part of scholarship to the specialized knowledge produced in biosciences. Although almost half of the analyzed references point to journals classified as Natural Science and Engineering (NSE), we do not find strong evidence of the intellectual influence of recent discoveries in biosciences on discussions on human enhancement. We conclude that a large part of the discourse surrounding human enhancement is inflected with "science-fictional habits of mind." Our findings point to the need for a more science-informed approach in discussions on enhancing human life.

Science and Engineering EthicsVol. 31(1)
Jagiellonian University (PL), Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics (DE)
Fondation Brocher, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, H2020 European Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Misinformation and Its Impacts
4.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Discussions on Human Enhancement Meet Science: A Quantitative Analysis — Tomasz Żuradzki, Vilius Dranseika, et al. · Science and Engineering Ethics (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS