The United States Department of Defense has, for at least 20 years, held the stated intention to enhance active military personnel (“warfighters”). This intention has become more acute in the face of dropping recruitment, an aging fighting force, and emerging strategic challenges. However, developing and testing enhancements is clouded by the ethically contested status of enhancements, the long history of abuse by military medical researchers, and new legislation in the guise of “health security” that has enabled the Department of Defense to apply medical interventions without appropriate oversight. This paper aims to reconcile existing legal and regulatory frameworks on military biomedical research with ethical concerns about military enhancements. In what follows, we first outline one justification for military enhancements. The authors then briefly address existing definitional issues over what constitutes enhancement before addressing existing research ethics regulations governing military biomedical research. Next, they argue that two common justifications for rapid military innovation in science and technology, including enhancement, fail. These justifications are (a) to satisfy a compelling military need and (b) strategic dominance. The authors then turn to an objection that turns on the idea that we need not have these justifications if warfighters are willing to adopt enhancement, and argue that laissez-faire approaches to enhancement fail in the context of the military due to pressing and historically significant concerns about coercion and exploitation. The paper concludes with what is referred to as the “least-worst” justification: Given the rise of untested enhancements in civilian and military life, we have good reason to validate potential enhancements even if they do not satisfy reasons (a) or (b) above.

We engage with the nature and the value of achievement through a critical examination of an argument according to which biomedical “enhancement” of our capacities is impermissible because enhancing ourselves in this way would threaten our achievements. We call this the argument against enhancement from achievement. We assess three versions of it, each admitting to a strong or a weak reading. We argue that strong readings fail, and that weak readings, while in some cases successful in showing that enhancement interferes with the nature or value of achievement, fail to establish that enhancement poses an unusual threat to achievement.

Since the advent of recombinant DNA technology, expectations (and trepidations) about the potential for altering genes and controlling our biology at the fundamental level have been sky high. These expectations have gone largely unfulfilled. But though the dream (or nightmare) of being able to control our biology is still far off, gene editing research has made enormous strides toward potential clinical use. This paper argues that when it comes to determining permissible uses of gene editing in one important medical context—germline intervention in reproductive medicine—issues about enhancement and eugenics are, for the foreseeable future, a red herring. Current translational goals for gene editing research involve a different kind of editing than would be required to achieve manipulation of complex traits such as intelligence, and there are more pressing (and unresolved) questions that need attention if clinical use of gene editing in reproductive medicine ever becomes a possibility.

Consider a bipartite random geometric graph on the union of two independent homogeneous Poisson point processes in d-space, with distance parameter r and intensities λ,μ. For any λ>0 we consider the percolation threshold μc(λ) associated to the parameter μ. Denoting by λc the percolation threshold for the standard Poisson Boolean model with radii r, we show the lower bound μc(λ)≥clog(c∕(λ−λc)) for any λ>λc with c>0 a fixed constant. In particular, there is no phase transition in μ at the critical value of λ, that is, μc(λc) =∞.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of computer-assisted “drill-and-strategy” cognitive remediation (CR) for community-dwelling individuals with schizophrenia on cognition, everyday self-efficacy, and independent living skills. Methods: Fifty-six people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were randomized into CR or computer game (CG) playing (control), and offered twenty 1-hr individual sessions in a group setting over 10 weeks. Measures of cognition, psychopathology, self-efficacy, quality of life, and independent living skills were conducted at baseline, end-group and 3 months following intervention completion. Results: Forty-three participants completed at least 10 sessions and the end-group assessment. Linear mixed-effect analyses among completers demonstrated a significant interaction effect for global cognition favoring CR (p=.028). CR-related cognitive improvement was sustained at 3-months follow-up. At end-group, 17 (77%) CR completers showed a reliable improvement in at least one cognitive domain. A significant time effect was evident for self-efficacy (p=.028) with both groups improving over time, but no significant interaction effect was observed. No significant effects were found for other study outcomes, including the functional measure. Conclusions: Computer-assisted drill-and-strategy CR in schizophrenia improved cognitive test performance, while participation in both CR and CG playing promoted enhancements in everyday self-efficacy. Changes in independent living skills did not appear to result from CR, however. Adjunctive psychosocial rehabilitation is likely necessary for improvements in real-world community functioning to be achieved. (JINS, 2018, 24, 549–562)

Field and laboratory studies were conducted to examine the influence of continuous use and rotation of extenders on EPTC persistence in soils from Clay Center and Scottsbluff, NE. Rotation of EPTC + dietholate and EPTC + fonofos in soils with three prior annual treatments of each combination did not improve weed control compared to continuous use. SC-0058 was generally effective in slowing EPTC biodegradation in soils previously treated with EPTC, EPTC + dietholate, EPTC + fonofos, or EPTC + SC-0058. Dietholate was effective in slowing EPTC biodegradation in soil previously treated with EPTC or EPTC + SC-0058. SC-0058 appeared to have an inhibitory influence on the initial development of soil-enhanced EPTC biodegradation. Any enhanced biodegradation of dietholate or SC-0058 that may occur after repeated use was not a factor in enhanced EPTC degradation in EPTC + extender history soils.

Field and laboratory studies were conducted to examine the influence of previous pesticide use, number of prior EPTC (S-ethyl dipropyl carbamothioate) and butylate [S-ethyl bis(2-methylpropyl)carbamothioate] applications, and pretreatment of soil with EPTC and butylate metabolites on EPTC and butylate degradation. EPTC degradation was enhanced in Clay Center and Scottsbluff soils following three annual EPTC, butylate, or vernolate (S-propyl dipropylcarbamothioate) applications, but was not affected in soils following three annual atrazine [6-chloro-N-ethyl-N′-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine], cyanazine {2-[[4-chloro-6-(ethylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl] amino]-2-methylpropanenitrile}, metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide], alachlor [2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)acetamide], or cycloate (S-ethyl cyclohexylethylcarbamothioate) applications. EPTC degradation rate was not affected in a Scottsbluff soil following three annual carbofuran (2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl methylcarbamate) applications, but was partially enhanced in a Clay Center soil. Self- and cross-enhanced degradation of EPTC and butylate did not change regardless of the number of prior annual applications of each herbicide. The degradation rates of EPTC and butylate were not affected by soil pretreated with butylate sulfone, but the degradation rates-were fully enhanced by pretreatment with the respective sulfoxides of each herbicide. In cross-enhancement testing, EPTC and butylate degradation was partially enhanced in Clay Center soil pretreated with the sulfoxides of each.

Field experiments were conducted from 1983 through 1985 to evaluate the influence of tridiphane at 0.3, 0.6, 1.1, and 2.2 kg ai/ha when tank mixed with propanil at 2.2 or 3.4 kg ai/ha on control of 3- to 4-leaf or 4- to 6-leaf barnyardgrass in rice. Tridiphane at 0.6 kg/ha or greater tank mixed with propanil at 2.2 or 3.4 kg/ha enhanced control of 3- to 4-leaf barnyardgrass compared to propanil applied alone at 3.4 kg/ha. Rates of tridiphane at 1.1 kg/ha or greater plus propanil at 3.4 kg/ha were necessary to control 4- to 6-leaf barnyardgrass. ‘Starbonnet’ rice injury was minimal for all treatments.