Table 2 Study: Are Vaccination Perceived as Human Enhancement?

Procedure

To explore whether vaccinations are seen as Human Enhancement, an online survey was conducted. Participants were told that Human Enhancements are special technologies but that this term has no standard definition. They were then introduced to Coeckelbergh’s [7] definition as a possible example of a definition. We chose this definition due to its relative broadness. Participants were then asked to rate fifteen different technologies on a Likert-scale, whether or not they viewed them as 1 – No example to 7 – Clear example of Human Enhancement. Afterward, they had the opportunity to fill a free-text question, answering what types of Human Enhancement they were already using. Participants were then asked to state their attitude to a variety of human practices, i.e., genetic engineering of plants, animals, or humans, vaccinations, Human Enhancement, human interference with nature (dams, mining, etc.), and space colonization (Likert-scale, 1 – Strong rejection to 7 – Strong approval). We limited our analysis to the attitude on Human Enhancement and vaccinations. We intend to use the data for further analysis and share them on OSF. Lastly, participants answered if they were already vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 or were willing to do so and are generally concerned about keeping their vaccination status against other pathogens updated. The Survey language was German, and university students could apply for course credit.

Participants

Only participants who complete the whole survey were included. One participant was excluded due to a self-reported lack of seriousness in completing the survey. This led to N = 67 (40 M, 26 F, 1 D). Mean age was 31.67 years (SD = 11.51, range 17-60 years). The sample was mostly educated, with 84% (n = 56) at least holding a High-School degree. 97% (n = 65) reported having already received vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 or be willing to do so. 73% (n = 49) reported being generally concerned about keeping their vaccination status updated.

Results

Mean ratings on whether the example was considered an example of Human Enhancement are shown in Fig. 1.

Concerning their perception as Human Enhancement, vaccinations were evaluated neither as a clear, nor as a poor example (M = 3.79, SD = 1.90, range = 1-7, Md = 4). Their rating was the eighth highest. The rating of vaccinations as an example of Human Enhancement did not correlate significantly with the general attitude on vaccinations (M = 6.52, SD = 0.82, range = 3-7, Md = 7) r = 0.22, p = 0.08, but positively with the attitude on Human Enhancement (M = 4.78, SD = 1.51, range = 1-7, Md = 5) r = 0.34, p = 0.004. Attitudes on Human Enhancement and Vaccinations did not correlate significantly r = 0.22, p = 0.08.

Discussion

The results presented here support the notion that vaccinations are perceived in part by the public as a form of Human Enhancement. Yet, they are not viewed as much as prototypically cybernetic prostheses or cochlear implants. Out of the answers to the free text question on which examples of Human Enhancement participants already were using, only 3 out of 62 given examples mentioned vaccinations, even though this question was asked after the survey put vaccinations in a possible Human Enhancement context and the majority of participants stated a general engagement with at least some sorts of vaccinations (For comparison, “Glasses” were mentioned fifteen times). This suggests that even vaccinations are generally not perceived as Human Enhancement by people in their daily lives.

Attitudes on Human Enhancement vaccinations, in general, did not correlate significantly. This may be because of the ethical complexity of these issues. Nevertheless, as we have shown, there are some similarities in the debate of these technologies. However, this does not mean that those who oppose vaccinations do so because they see it as a form of Human Enhancement. Yet, people who saw vaccinations as an example of Human Enhancement showed a more positive attitude to this phenomenon. This may be significant for promoting positive attitudes toward other/future forms of Human Enhancement, as this finding suggests that a widespread and useful example of Human Enhancement that is explicitly viewed as such may promote general attitudes toward these technologies.

Our data provide a first empirical perspective on the public notion of vaccinations as Human Enhancement. The media extensively covered vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and its beneficial effects in mitigating the pandemic by applying modern biotechnology. This contextual effect may have shaped the evaluation of vaccinations, making its functional status as a form of Human Enhancement more salient. Yet the overall rating and free texts answers suggest that even under these circumstances, vaccinations are not perceived as a prime example of Human Enhancement.

The functional status of capability enhancement of vaccination technology remains ethically controversial. It is therefore important to conduct future research into this topic, especially after the current pandemic. Our sample mainly consisted of people willing to receive a vaccination shot against SARS-CoV-2 and showed a very positive attitude towards this topic. Future research must address a heterogeneous population and include people who are skeptical towards vaccination and Human Enhancement in general, especially considering the framing of vaccination as modern biotechnological enhancements.