Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42414005›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of medicine and philosophy2026

Human Enhancement: A Conceptual Scoping Review.

Ana S Iltis, Carmen Harrell, Haley Tyrell, Amaya Williams

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of medicine and philosophy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ana S IltisWake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Carmen HarrellWake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Haley TyrellWake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Amaya WilliamsWake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

Fudan University in ShanghaiWake Forest University Philosophy Department through its AC Reid Fund in Winston-Salem
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Moral bioenhancement refers to the use of biological or technological interventions to make a moral agent better as a moral agent. The literature often fails to acknowledge critical underlying assumptions and differences in how the term is understood and applied. This scoping review of the moral bioenhancement literature offers a conceptual geography of terms, definitions, and ethical considerations raised in the literature to advance analysis and discussion. It reveals ambiguities that are central to but not always addressed in the literature. Eight key areas are identified, and an overview of the relevant differences in each area is provided: definitions, types of interventions, targets of enhancement, reasons identified for pursuing moral enhancement, objections to or concerns with moral enhancement, the conditions under which moral enhancement is permissible or obligatory, whether and how authors invoke character and virtue, and whether and what role the concepts of transhumanism or post-personhood play.

Indexed as

Biomedical EnhancementMoralsHumansPersonhoodPhilosophy, Medicalbioenhancementenhancementmoral bioenhancement

Identifiers

PMID42414005
PMCPMC13592771

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.