Superhuman workers pose ethical consequences
Technology could include wearable computers
LONDON — Performance-boosting drugs, powered prostheses and wearable computers are coming to an office near you — but experts warned in a new report Wednesday that too little thought has been given to the implications of a superhuman workplace.
Academics from the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society say attention needs to be focused on the consequences of technology that may one day allow, or compel, humans to work better, longer and harder. Their list of upgrades that might become a reality in the next decade includes:
Brain boosters: Barbara Sahakian, a Cambridge neuropsychology professor, cited research suggesting that 16 per cent of U.S. students already use “cognitive enhancers” such as Ritalin to help them handle their course loads. Pilots have long used amphetamines to stay alert. And at least one study has suggested that the drug modafinil could help reduce the number of accidents ex- perienced by shift workers.
But bioethicist Jackie Leach Scully of England’s Newcastle University worries that the use of such drugs might focus on worker productivity over personal well-being.
“Being more alert for longer doesn’t mean that you’ll be less stressed by the job,” she said. “It means that you’ll be exposed to that stress for longer and be more awake while doing it.”
Wearable computers: The researchers also noted so-called “lifelogging” devices like Nike Inc.’s distance-tracking shoes or wearable computers such as the eyeglasses being developed by Google Inc. The shoes can record your every step; the eyeglasses everything you see. Nigel Shadbolt, an expert in artificial Intelligence at southern England’s University of Southampton, said such devices were as little as 15 years away from being able to record every sight, noise and movement over an entire human life.
So do you accept if your boss gives you one? “What does that mean for employee accountability?” Shadbolt asked.
Bionic limbs — and beyond: The report also noted bionic limbs like the one used recently by amputee Zac Vawter to climb Chicago’s Willis Tower or exoskeletons like the one used earlier this year by partially paralyzed London Mara- thon participant Claire Lomas. It also touched on the development of therapies aimed at sharpening eyesight or cochlear implants meant to enhance hearing.
Scully said any technology that could help disabled people re-enter the workforce should be welcomed, but society needs to keep an eye out for unintended consequences.
“These technologies could influence our ability to learn or perform tasks, they could influence our motivation, they could enable us to work in more extreme conditions or in old age, or they could facilitate our return to work after illness or disability, said Genevra Richardson, the King’s College law professor who oversaw the report. “Their use at work also raises serious ethical, political and economic questions.”
“In the context of a highly pressurized work environment, how free is the choice not to adopt such technologies?” Scully said.
Union representatives appeared taken aback by some of the experts’ predictions.