In a recent medical breakthrough, Elon Musk's startup company Neuralink implanted the first brain chip in a human patient, purportedly for aiding paralysis. While certainly representing a significant medical milestone for many patients afflicted with debilitating brain and spinal cord injuries, as well as devastating neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, it must be noted that this very same technology can also be manipulated for human memory or cognitive enhancement. What happens if a brain chip were to be developed that can significantly improve either IQ (intelligence quotient) or memory, and these were then implanted in people to enhance their performance in highly competitive national examinations for college entrance or gaining employment in civil service positions? This article therefore discusses the ethical implications of this nascent technology platform, and whether its use in competitive national examinations should be banned.
In recent years, the genetic testing and selection of IVF embryos, known as preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), has gained much traction in clinical assisted reproduction for preventing transmission of genetic defects. However, a more recent ethically and morally controversial development in PGT is its possible use in selecting IVF embryos for optimal intelligence quotient (IQ) and other non-disease-related socially desirable traits, such as tallness, fair complexion, athletic ability, and eye and hair colour, based on polygenic risk scores (PRS), in what is referred to as PGT-P. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning-based analysis of big data sets collated from genome sequencing of specific human ethnic populations can be used to estimate an individual embryo's likelihood of developing such multifactorial traits by analysing the combination of specific genetic variants within its genome. Superficially, this technique appears compliant with Islamic principles and ethics. Because there is no modification of the human genome, there is no tampering with Allah's creation (taghyīr khalq Allah). Nevertheless, a more critical analysis based on the five maxims of Islamic jurisprudence (qawa'id fiqhiyyah) that are often utilized in discourses on Islamic bioethics, namely qaṣd (intention), yaqın̄ (certainty), ḍarar (injury), ḍarūra (necessity), and `urf (custom), would instead reveal some major ethical and moral flaws of this new medical technology in the selection of non-disease-related socially desirable traits, and its non-compliance with the spirit and essence of Islamic law (shariah). Muslim scholars, jurists, doctors, and biomedical scientists should debate this further and issue a fatwa on this new medical technology platform.