The Moral (Un)Desirability of New Biomedical Technologies as Potential Techno-Fixes

The techno-fix argument, used to argue against technological interventions that address the consequences of social problems instead of their underlying causes, is increasingly invoked in biomedical discussions. However, especially in biomedicine, the techno-fix argument remains conceptually underdeveloped. Therefore, in this paper, we critically examine the techno-fix argument in the context of new biomedical technologies, using stem cell therapy as a central case study. First, a taxonomy is developed to determine if, and if so, for which conditions, new biomedical technologies such as stem cell therapy can be considered techno-fixes. Then, the ethical implications of the taxonomy are discussed. We argue that stem cell therapy functions as a techno-fix when developed for medical conditions and disabilities that are largely caused by an underlying social problem, and that its moral (un)desirability depends, at a minimum, on whether it (1) silences or highlights the social problem involved, and (2) hinders or supports the development of alternative, social solutions. With this paper, we aim to clarify and stimulate debate on how techno-fixes should be understood and evaluated within the context of biomedicine, and beyond.