Seeking for broad and inclusive ways of framing ethical debates on emerging technologies, in this article the authors explore imaginaries of body enhancement as encompassed in the science fiction (sci-fi) literature. They provide in-depth descriptions of three sci-fi novels: Neuromancer, The Player of Games, and Kéthani. They explore how ethical concerns are framed within the imaginary world of these novels, emphasizing that this framing is usually ambivalent, embedded within lived narratives, as well as future and collectively oriented. Because they evoke shared imaginaries, sci-fi novels appear as useful to trigger debate on new technologies.
Csicsery-RonayI. (1992). The sentimental futurist: Cybernetics and art in William Gibson’sNeuromancer. Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction, 33, 221-240.
12.
DelgadoA.KjølbergK. L.WicksonF. (2010). Public engagement coming of age: From theories to practices in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/096366251035305410.1177/0963662510353054
13.
DumitJ. (2003). Picturing personhood: Brain scans and biomedical identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
FeltU.WynneB. (2007). Taking the European knowledge society seriously (Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
16.
GibsonW. (1983). Neuromancer. New York, NY: ACE Books.
17.
GiddensA. (1996). Affluence, poverty and the idea of a post-scarcity society. Development and Change, 27, 365-377.
18.
HarawayD. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 149-181). New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
HaylesK. (1999, June). How we become post-human: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
IdierD. (2000). Science fiction and technology scenarios: Comparing Asimov’s robots and Gibson’s cyberspace. Technology in Society, 22, 255-272.
22.
JasanoffS.KimS.-H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and North Korea. Minerva, 47, 119-149.
23.
JonsenA. R (1998). The birth of bioethics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
24.
KayL. E. (2000). Who wrote the book of life? A history of the genetic code. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
KjølbergK.WicksonF. (2007). Social and ethical interactions with nano: Mapping the early literature. NanoEthics, 1, 89-104.
26.
KrimskyS. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
27.
LyonD. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
28.
MiahA. (2008). Human futures: Art in the age of uncertainty. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
MilburnC. (2002). Nanotechnology in the age of post-human engineering: Science fiction as science. Configurations, 10, 261-295.
30.
NordmannA. (2004). Converging technologies: Shaping the future of European societies (Report to the European Commission). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
31.
NowotnyH. (2008). Insatiable curiosity: Innovation in a fragile future. Cambridge: MIT Press.
32.
NowotnyH.ScottP.GibbonsM. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. London, England: Polity.
33.
PetersenA.AndersonA.AllanS. (2005). Science fiction/science fact: Medical genetics in new stories. New Genetics and Society, 24, 337-353.
34.
PinkerS. (1997). How the mind works. London, England: Penguin Books.
35.
PosterM. (1990). The mode of information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36.
RocoM. C.BainbridgeW. S. (Eds.). (2003). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
37.
RommetveitK.GunnarsdottirK.JepsenK. S.BertilssonM.VeraxF.StrandR. (in press). The technolife project: An experimental approach to new ethical frameworks for emerging science and technology. International Journal of Sustainable Development.
38.
SardarZ. (2010). The namesake: Futures; future studies; futurology; futuristic; foresight—What’s in a name?Futures, 42, 177-184.
39.
SchummerJ. (2004). Societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology: Meanings, interests groups, and social dynamics. Techne, 8, 56-86.
40.
SutropM. (2002). Imagination and the act of fiction-making. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 80, 332-344.
41.
TavaniH. T. (2007). Ethics & technology: Ethical issues in an age of information technology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
42.
TaylorC. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
43.
Technolife Consortium. (2008). A transdisciplinary approach to the emerging challenges of novel technologies: Life world and imaginaries in foresight and ethics (Contract No: FP7-230381). Bergen, Norway: Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen.
44.
TomasD. (2007). The technophilic body: On technicity in William Gibson’s cyborg culture. In BellD.KenedyB. M. (Eds.), The cybercultures reader (2nd ed.; pp. 130-144). New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
VintS. (2007). Bodies of tomorrow: Technology, subjectivity and science fiction. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
46.
WicksonF. (2008). Narratives of nature and nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 3, 313-315.
47.
WicksonF.DelgadoA.KjølbergK. (2010). Who or what is the public?Nature Nanotechnology, 5, 757-758.
48.
WynneB. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music?Community Genetics, 9, 211-220.
