Autonomy, oppression and genetic enhancements

Genetic enhancement technologies are rapidly evolving, but discussions about their use for human enhancement are largely abstract and removed from the socioeconomic environments in which they would be administered. While some scholars engage in discussions about the fairness of distributing genetic enhancements, I argue that the oppressive social structures in which genetic enhancements will be administered categorically undermine our capacities to autonomously value and pursue such technologies. I will draw on long-standing feminist debates around the oppressive and empowering uses of cosmetic enhancements by women to argue that the oppressive nature of patriarchal beauty norms creates a social environment in which women are generally not free to autonomously evaluate their desires for and values of cosmetic enhancements. I then address the concern that declaring such a proposition is itself an unethical restriction on women’s autonomy and that cosmetic enhancements are generally, or presumptively, empowering. I conclude that, like cosmetic enhancements, genetic enhancements are morally harmful insofar as they are not categorically autonomously valued by people.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JME Practical Bioethics
Published
2026-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/jmepb-2025-000007
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
29.71

Funders

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

Autonomy, oppression and genetic enhancements

Sinead Prince
1 citations
JME Practical Bioethics
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
29.71
article

Autonomy, oppression and genetic enhancements

Sinead Prince
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Genetic enhancement technologies are rapidly evolving, but discussions about their use for human enhancement are largely abstract and removed from the socioeconomic environments in which they would be administered. While some scholars engage in discussions about the fairness of distributing genetic enhancements, I argue that the oppressive social structures in which genetic enhancements will be administered categorically undermine our capacities to autonomously value and pursue such technologies. I will draw on long-standing feminist debates around the oppressive and empowering uses of cosmetic enhancements by women to argue that the oppressive nature of patriarchal beauty norms creates a social environment in which women are generally not free to autonomously evaluate their desires for and values of cosmetic enhancements. I then address the concern that declaring such a proposition is itself an unethical restriction on women’s autonomy and that cosmetic enhancements are generally, or presumptively, empowering. I conclude that, like cosmetic enhancements, genetic enhancements are morally harmful insofar as they are not categorically autonomously valued by people.

JME Practical BioethicsVol. 2(1)
National University of Singapore (SG)
Social Science Research Council, National University of Singapore
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
29.71
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.

Autonomy, oppression and genetic enhancements — Sinead Prince · JME Practical Bioethics (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS