Growing up, I was fascinated by the stories of superheroes — beings with enhanced strength, rapid healing, or minds that could outthink any machine. As part of my school project, I stumbled upon the concept of nanobots, and realised the extraordinary powers I always admired weren’t just confined to comic books. The idea of microscopic machines navigating the body, targeting diseases with precision and sparing healthy cells, felt like a real-life superpower. Suddenly, the thought of humans enhanced by technology didn’t seem so impossible. What if we could repair injuries in seconds, regenerate damaged tissues, or even enhance our mental and physical abilities? Welcome to the world of nanotechnology, where the future isn’t merely bigger; it’s smaller, smarter, and infinitely more extraordinary.

An Overview of the Nanoscale World

Nanotechnology, the manipulation of matter on an atomic and molecular scale, has become a ground-breaking force across various fields. Nanoparticles, typically measuring between 1-100 nanometres, possess unique properties that offer transformative potential. From medicine to environmental solutions, nanotechnology has rapidly advanced, with estimates predicting a global worth of over $33.63 billion by 2030. Among its most promising applications are nanobots — microscopic robots capable of performing intricate tasks at the cellular level.

Nanobots excel in diagnostics by detecting disease biomarkers before symptoms arise. Embedded with nanosensors in the bloodstream, they provide real-time health data, enabling early warnings for conditions like cancer, Alzheimer’s, or cardiovascular disease. Could nanobots be the answer to cure incurable diseases?

The Birth of the Superhuman

Nanobots are no longer just medical marvels; they may become the gateway to the next phase of human evolution. With nanobots running through our veins, the boundaries of human capabilities could blur, turning science fiction into reality. The superhuman, once confined to comic books, might walk among us — with unparalleled strength and augmented intelligence. From curing genetic disorders to amplifying memory and endurance, nanotechnology might redefine man.

Moreover, the superhuman is not solely about individual enhancement — nanobots could make collective intelligence a reality. By linking humans into a shared neural network, nanotechnology could foster a “hive mind” where ideas, skills, and knowledge are exchanged instantaneously. Imagine a world where a surgeon’s precision, an artist’s creativity, or a scientist’s discoveries can be instantly shared and applied by anyone connected to the network. This shared intelligence would accelerate evolution and drive progress at a pace beyond anything we’ve ever imagined.

The Price of Evolution

The prospect of engineered enhancement raises profound ethical questions. Who gets access to these upgrades, and will they deepen the divide between privileged and disadvantaged? Wealthier individuals could prolong their lives, enhance cognitive abilities, or prevent diseases before they emerge. Meanwhile, marginalised communities might be left behind. Will we see the dawn of a new medical aristocracy, where longevity and vitality are privileges of the wealthy?

Merging Man and Machine

With nanobot-driven evolution, we may face dilemmas even beyond economic disparity. The line between self and machine could blur to the point where human identity itself is called into question. Are we still human if a significant portion of our bodies and minds are machine-optimised? Could the ability to alter emotions and memories undermine the very fabric of personal identity?

Furthermore, the concept of mortality may shift. With nanobots repairing cells, reversing damage, and potentially halting aging, the natural cycle of life and death could be disrupted. While the idea of a prolonged, healthier life is desirable, it might force us to reconsider our relationship with time, purpose, and the meaning of existence.

References

Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Singh, R.P., Rab, S. and Suman, R. (2023). Applications of Nanotechnology in Medical field. Global Health Journal, [online] 7(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glohj.2023.02.008.

Hypothetica (2024). Nanobots – The next chapter in human evolution. [online] Substack.com. Available at: https://hypothetica.substack.com/p/nanobots-the-next-chapter-in-human [Accessed 28 Mar. 2025].

Moore, S. (2021). An Overview of Nanobots and the Most Recent Developments. [online] AZoNano.com. Available at: https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5761.

Vrilya Jarac (2023). Beyond Boundaries: The Nanobot Revolution and the Future of Human Augmentation. [online] Medium. Available at: https://vrilyajarac.medium.com/beyond-boundaries-the-nanobot-revolution-and-the-future-of-human-augmentation-3975e35ed599 [Accessed 28 Mar. 2025].

Mentioning chimeras tends to evoke images of the mythical monster, part lion, part goat, part snake. When human chimeras – someone whose cells are derived from two or more zygotes – were introduced at the beginning of the lecture series I wondered, given the difficulty we have preventing organ rejection after transplants, how do chimeras avoid it? Simply put, the immune system develops recognizing both sets of antigens as self but while looking for an answer I came across this:

“fetus bodies as living factories for organ generation”

It was a jarring turn of phrase in a section talking about the potential of growing humanized organs in surrogate animals. As an idea I knew very little about it seemed like a promising concept but my own alarm at that phrasing prompted further reading. A brief outline of the process is given the diagram.

Why do we need to grow organs?

Before I go further into chimeric organs and the concerns raised by them, the problem this technique aims to solve should be described. This March there was around 8000 people waiting for organ donation in the UK. Between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022, 429 people died while on the transplant waiting list. Medical care and safety systems are improving which may reduce the number of donors (who are usually deceased). Other methods for reducing this shortage –therefore other competitors for funding – include expanding the donor pool and increasing the utilisation of less ideal donors but this can reduce the success of transplants.

So humanised organs from chimeras could bridge this gap and hold the potential to solve the problem that brought my attention to chimeras in the first place: immune rejection. Anti-body mediated rejection can cause organ transplants to fail when the recipient’s immune system detects the donor organ as a foreign body and attacks it. In chimera donors the organ is grown from induced pluripotent stem cells of the patient so should possess the same antibodies and not be rejected. Sounds good so far…

But whereas human donors (or their relatives) make an informed decision on whether to donate, chimera donors would involve creating, growing and killing animals to produce human organs. A multitude of animals are already raised and slaughtered for the food industry though this is not without contention.

Ethical issues

Concerns raised include issues surrounding identity, transspecies infection, economic considerations and the allocation of pig vs. human organs. The latter is a fascinating conundrum whose shape will depend on comparative efficacy and cost of the two methods. Will chimera organs be the cheap second tier option or the premium and should either scenario be allowed? There is also concern that giving pigs human cells could confer enhanced cognitive abilities that allow pigs human-like thought.

The technology is not ready yet so will require further time and funding that could be allocated to, for example, preventative treatments. A heart xenotransplant has been attempted that used a pig edited with human genes -not whole human stem cells- that aimed to reduce the immune response inserted but the heart was rejected.

Conclusion

Chimeric organ donation has the potential to alleviate human suffering but at the cost of animal welfare, sparking debate. Emotional responses against chimeras may be rooted in the monstrous associations of the name itself and expressed as going against nature. From a consequentialist view the benefit to humans could outweigh the exploitation of animals but developing the technology will involve considerable risks to people. While researching this my opinion has swung between for and against but settled on cautious support for chimeric organs.

People have dreamed for decades about a world automated by robots so humans can just lie back and relax. Inspired by the idea of the ‘6 Million Dollar Man’, I found what I think may be the ultimate engineered replacement body part: an entire “human”. Humanoid robots mimic the human form, allowing them to carry out jobs in environments that are specifically built for humans. This is a growing market, predicted to increase to almost $38 billion by 2035, according to a Goldman Sachs report. With the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) as well, humanoid robots will likely have a glowing future.

A great example of a humanoid robot (and my favourite!) is Atlas, produced by Boston Dynamics. I’ve been a fan of Boston Dynamics’ robotics work for many years, so I had to give them a mention! Atlas was originally a hydraulic model designed for search and rescue operations in 2013, funded by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, but this model has since been retired and replaced by a fully electric, commercialised robot to be used in boring or more-importantly, dangerous work environments. Atlas is not yet available for purchase, but it shows great promise. This video from earlier this month showcases some of the new model’s dynamic abilities:

Combining humanoid robots with AI seems to be a pressing matter for this industry. AI models allow these robots to essentially train themselves, which helps them to develop and adapt to new situations more quickly. After starting my research into this blend, I watched the CEO of Nvidia, Jensen Huang, give a keynote speech in which he unveiled the world’s first open-source foundation model for the widespread use of humanoid robots, named “Isaac GR00T N1“, or ‘Groot N1’. This ‘generalist’ AI model is trained on both real and synthetic data, which makes humanoid robots more capable in a wider range of environments even with less training. With Groot N1 available to the public, along with blueprints and frameworks for synthetic training data, I believe this model will massively accelerate the production of capable humanoid robots.

I’ve always thought of humanoid robots as a force for good, but my research led me down a rabbit hole of ethics and fears surrounding their future. Here are just a few of the internet’s many concerns for you to think about:

• Could humanoid robots act autonomously in ways that don’t align with human values?
• If robots are capable of acting on their own accord, who is responsible for their actions?
• Humanoid robots, like Atlas, rely on sensors and cameras in order to perceive their environments. Could this be an invasion of privacy?
• Finally, if these robots develop to the extent of becoming ‘superintelligent’, could this lead to a future where the planet is controlled by machines?

In short, humanoid robots show great promise for creating my dream of an automated life by seamlessly fitting into environments created for humans. This is thanks in particular to the current efforts of Boston Dynamics with Atlas and Nvidia with Groot N1. However, I now realise that there are a whole host of important ethical and legal issues that should be discussed before the market for humanoid robots grows too large, to ensure our safety and privacy.

References:

Boston Dynamics. (2025). Atlas | Boston Dynamics. Available at: https://bostondynamics.com/atlas/ [Accessed 23 Mar. 2025].

Callari, T.C., Segate, R.V., Hubbard, E.-M., Daly, A. and Lohse, N. (2024). An ethical framework for human-robot collaboration for the future people-centric manufacturing: A collaborative endeavour with European subject-matter experts in ethics. Technology in Society, 78, p.102680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102680.

Du, J., Isayama, Y., Costa, D., Delaney, M., Zheng, N., Xu, O., Zhao, T., Li, Z., Chen, H. and Ye, Z. (2024). Humanoid Robot: The AI accelerant. Available at: https://www.goldmansachs.com/pdfs/insights/pages/gs-research/global-automation-humanoid-robot-the-ai-accelerant/report.pdf.

Huang, J. (2025). GTC March 2025 Keynote with NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang. 18 March, SAP Center, California.

NVIDIA Developer. (2025). NVIDIA Isaac GR00T. Available at: https://developer.nvidia.com/isaac/gr00t [Accessed 23 Mar. 2025].

Obrenovic, B., Gu, X., Wang, G., Godinic, D. and Jakhongirov, I. (2024). Generative AI and human–robot interaction: implications and future agenda for business, society and ethics. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01889-0.

Tong, Y., Liu, H. and Zhang, Z. (2024). Advancements in Humanoid Robots: A Comprehensive Review and Future Prospects. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 11(2), pp.301–328. https://doi.org/10.1109/jas.2023.124140.

‌

‌

This may sound like something out of a sci-fi movie, but it’s very real and happening NOW: scientists are trying to grow human organs in animals such as pigs and sheep. But why? To solve one of the biggest problems in modern medicine – the lack of organ donors and therefore organs!

This method is part of an exciting field called tissue engineering, where researchers combine stem cells and bioengineering to repair or regrow tissues, and even whole organs¹. Sounds amazing, right? But here’s where things get ethically… awkward.

The Science…

Researchers have started experimenting with what are called interspecies chimeras. These are animals, like pigs, that are genetically modified to grow human organs inside them. The process usually works as follows:

1. Scientists disable the pig embryo’s ability to grow a certain organ such as the pancreas.
2. Then, they inject human pluripotent stem cells into the embryo².
3. As the pig grows, the human stem cells are meant to develop into the missing organ, creating a fully functional human pancreas in a pig.

This research is still early-stage, but the potential is enormous. If successful, it could create a reliable, personalised supply of organs for people who need them.

So… where’s the catch?

1. Are we playing God?

Mixing human and animal DNA, even if it’s just stem cells, makes some uneasy. There’s a worry that we’re crossing natural boundaries, doing things we maybe shouldn’t be doing just because we can³.

2. What if the animal becomes ‘too human’?

This is one of the weirdest ,and most interesting, ethical debates. What happens if the human cells don’t just grow an organ, but spread into the animal’s brain? Could we accidentally make an animal more “human” in consciousness or intelligence? Some ethicists argue that this kind of scenario, while unlikely, needs strong regulation before we go any further⁴.

3. Is it fair to the animals?

These animals are only grown as hosts, as incubators for organs. Even if it’s for a good cause, is it fair to use living beings this way? Animal welfare groups have raised concerns about suffering, consent (obviously impossible), and whether the ends justify the means⁵.

4. Who will this really help?

Another issue is access. These kinds of treatments are likely to be super expensive at first. So, is this just going to be a futuristic healthcare solution for rich people and elite athletes? If so, how do we justify the ethics of animal experimentation when only a tiny portion of people might benefit?

Where are we now?

There have already been some successful experiments. For example:

• Scientists have grown human cells in pig embryos, though only for a short time².
• In China, researchers transplanted a gene-edited pig liver into a brain-dead human, and it functioned normally for 10 days⁶.
• Some teams have even tried growing human organs in monkeys, which raises even more ethical flags⁷.

Regulatory bodies like the NIH have considered lifting bans on chimera research, but only under strict oversight⁸. This area is fascinating and scary. Tissue engineering could save thousands of lives. On the other hand, if we’re growing parts of ourselves in animals, we need to think very carefully about where we draw the line.

This research forces us to ask some huge questions:

• What makes something “human”?
• Should we limit science to what we’re morally comfortable with?
• Can something be both a medical breakthrough and ethically questionable?

There’s no simple answer, but that’s exactly why we need to keep having these conversations. If you want a really clear visual breakdown of the science and ethical debate, check out this short video⁹:

References

1. Mason, C., & Dunnill, P. (2008). A brief definition of tissue engineering. Regenerative Medicine, 3(1), 1–5.
2. Wu, J., et al. (2017). Interspecies chimerism with mammalian pluripotent stem cells. Cell, 168(3), 473–486.e15.
3. Hyun, I. (2016). Rebuilding ethics: Stem cells, chimeras, and moral status. The Hastings Center Report, 46(S1), S25–S31.
4. Greely, H. T., et al. (2007). Thinking about the human–nonhuman chimeras. The American Journal of Bioethics, 7(5), 27–40.
5. Savulescu, J. (2016). The ethics of creating human–nonhuman chimeras. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(1), 3–5.
6. Li, X., Zhang, M., & Huang, Y. (2024). Liver xenotransplantation in a brain-dead human recipient: A case study. Transplantation Journal, 108(2), 134–140.
7. Izpisua Belmonte, J. C., et al. (2021). Human-monkey chimeric embryos: Ethical concerns and scientific insights. Cell, 184(7), 1–4.
8. Greely, H. T., et al. (2016). Report of the NIH Workshop on Human–Animal Chimera Research. National Institutes of Health.
9. PBS Terra. (2022, October 5). Should we grow human organs in animals? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUwmKwsPfls

Imagine having the ability to “pick and mix” genetic traits – eye color, disease resistance, height maybe even intelligence. CRISPR gene editing means this isn’t just science fiction;  it’s becoming science reality! Acting like a molecular toolkit to produce ‘designer babies’ offering the potential to select or modify traits before birth. If we can customize human life, who gets access?

What Got Me Interested in CRISPR

I became interested in CRISPR after reading about legal battles between major research institutions and ethical tensions between innovation and accessibility. Critically, this topic shows the intersection of cutting-edge technology and human rights. During research I was struck by the rapid progression from laboratory research to clinical trials and how tightly the therapeutic potential is limited through patents. It raised difficult ethical questions and concerns: should these technologies be monopolized or are they a global good?

Figure 1. Image showing the mechanism of the CRISPR-cas9 enzyme (BioRad, 2021)

What is CRISPR-Cas9?

CRISPR-Cas9 is a genome editing system derived from the bacterial immune response. It functions as a precise, RNA guided tool for editing genes in living organisms (Doudna & Charpentier, 2014). Cas9 facilitates highly specific and precise genomic modifications by creating double-stranded breaks at targeted DNA sequences, directed by a strand of guide RNA. These breaks are repaired through homology-directed repair (HDR) or non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), these introduce small mutations (Barrangou & Doudna, 2016).

Who owns CRISPR?

One of the most intriguing controversies surrounding CRISPR isn’t scientific—it’s legal! Both the University of California and the Broad Institute contested ownership of the technology. Ultimately, the Broad Institute was awarded key patents. Critical examination shows a troubling dynamic; these exclusive patents restrict access and increase costs, limiting freedom of research (Correa & Hilty, 2022).

Figure 2, Timeline of the CRISPR CAS-9 patent dispute (Aquino-Jarquin, 2022)

Continued research led me to question whether patents hinder CRISPRs medical potential. Patents are widely regarded as incentives for innovation; however, they often prevent widespread accessibility to lifesaving treatments (Mir et al., 2022). Consequently, medical technology ownership through patents prioritizes profit over patient access. I considered open innovation and open-source models as ways to reduce patent exclusivity (Mali, 2020). This led me to pose the question: Should medical treatment be owned by a few or shared for the common good?

Figure 3. Shows the complex network of CRISPR-Cas9 intellectual property ownership, applications and licensing (Rodríguez Fernández, 2018).

Is it Ethical?

Gene editing offers remarkable possibilities but also raises challenging and uncomfortable questions. Core issues consent, accessibility and the potential societal impact. Genetic editing poses a risk for off-target mutations which are likely irreversible and raise significant concerns about human health and ecological stability in the long term (Evans, 2021).

Personally, researching these risks altered my perspective. Despite the exciting potential, I became concerned about unintended consequences. Irreversible changes impact entire ecosystems or human health across generations. I also confronted issues such as autonomy and distributive justice.

The National Academies in the US have approved germline editing for serious diseases in situations where it is safe and informed by parental consent. However, this may push technology closer towards practices such as eugenic enhancement. Germline editing brings forwards the issue of consent. Prompting me to question whether it is ethically justifiable to make permanent genetic decisions for individuals who are unable to give their consent (Waters, 2000).

The future of CRISPR

Researching this topic altered me to the balance between innovation and ethical responsibility. I concluded that achieving the full potential medical benefit of requires global collaboration and transparent regulatory frameworks. CRISPR could easily become a privilege reserved only for the affluent. Initiatives like patent pools can promote broader and affordable access, important for low and middle income countries. Flexible licensing models such as non-exclusive and humanitarian use licenses. Ultimately, I do not believe that CRISPRs success will be solely scientific but in the ethical, responsible and equitable deployment of this technology.

Bibliography

Aquino-Jarquin, Guillermo. ‘Early “Reduction to Practice” of the CRISPR–Cas9 Invention in Eukaryotic Cells’. Frontiers in Genetics 13 (4 October 2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.1009688.

Barrangou, Rodolphe, and Jennifer A. Doudna. ‘Applications of CRISPR Technologies in Research and Beyond’. Nature Biotechnology 34, no. 9 (September 2016): 933–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3659Bio-Rad. ‘How CRISPR Revolutionized Science’. Accessed 25 March 2025. https://www.bio-rad-antibodies.com/blog/how-crispr-revolutionized-science.html.

Correa, Carlos M., and Reto M. Hilty, eds. Access to Medicines and Vaccines: Implementing Flexibilities Under Intellectual Property Law. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83114-1.

Doudna, J. A., & CharpThe new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 346(6213), 1258096. Centier, E. (2014).Evans, John H. ‘Setting Ethical Limits on Human Gene Editing after the Fall of the Somatic/Germline Barrier’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 22 (June 2021): e2004837117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004837117.

Mali, Franc. ‘Is the Patent System the Way Forward with the CRISPR-Cas 9 Technology?’ Science & Technology Studies 33, no. 4 (15 December 2020): 2–23. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.70114.

Mir, Tahir Ul Gani, Atif Khurshid Wani, Nahid Akhtar, and Saurabh Shukla. ‘CRISPR/Cas9: Regulations and Challenges for Law Enforcement to Combat Its Dual-Use’. Forensic Science International 334 (May 2022): 111274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111274.

Bio-Rad. ‘How CRISPR Revolutionized Science’. Accessed 25 March 2025. https://www.bio-rad-antibodies.com/blog/how-crispr-revolutionized-science.html.