No abstract

The incidence of cancer is continuing to rise and risk-tailored early diagnostic and/or primary prevention strategies are urgently required. The ideal risk-predictive test should: integrate the effects of both genetic and nongenetic factors and aim to capture these effects using an approach that is both biologically stable and technically reproducible; derive a score from easily accessible biological samples that acts as a surrogate for the organ in question; and enable the effectiveness of risk-reducing measures to be monitored. Substantial evidence has accumulated suggesting that the epigenome and, in particular, DNA methylation-based tests meet all of these requirements. However, the development and implementation of DNA methylation-based risk-prediction tests poses considerable challenges. In particular, the cell type specificity of DNA methylation and the extensive cellular heterogeneity of the easily accessible surrogate cells that might contain information relevant to less accessible tissues necessitates the use of novel methods in order to account for these confounding issues. Furthermore, the engagement of the scientific community with health-care professionals, policymakers and the public is required in order to identify and address the organizational, ethical, legal, social and economic challenges associated with the routine use of epigenetic testing.

The hopes and fears expressed in the debate on human enhancement are not always based on a realistic assessment of the expected possibilities. Discussions about extreme scenarios may at times obscure the ethical and policy issues that are relevant today. This paper aims to contribute to an adequate and ethically sound societal response to actual current developments. After a brief outline of the ethical debate concerning neuro-enhancement, it describes the current state of the art in psychopharmacological science and current uses of psychopharmacological enhancement, as well as the prospects for the near future. It then identifies ethical issues regarding psychopharmacological enhancements that require attention from policymakers, both on the professional and on the governmental level. These concern enhancement research, the gradual expansion of medical categories, off-label prescription and responsibility of doctors, and accessibility of enhancers on the Internet. It is concluded that further discussion on the advantages and drawbacks of enhancers on a collective social level is still needed.