What ethical considerations lead an individual to accept or refuse the implantation of a smart microchip under their skin to "enhance" themselves? A study conducted by Grenoble Ecole de Management reveals the complexity of this debate: considering becoming a cyborg means questioning one’s relationship with oneself, one’s body, technology, and society.
Interview with Stéphanie Gauttier, head of the "Information Systems for Society" research team at Grenoble Ecole de Management (GEM)
In 2025, are implanted microchips a reality or still science fiction?
Stéphanie Gauttier: In 2018, there were a few experiments in Belgium, Sweden, and the United States. But they didn’t last. Today, the simplest way to "enhance" oneself is by using AI...
However, the topic has not been abandoned; Neuralink continues to work on brain implants. We cannot rule out the possibility of seeing cyborgs emerge—individuals made of flesh, bone, and augmentation technologies, endowed with "superhuman" physical, cognitive, or psychological abilities.
Why make this a research topic?
SG: The ethical debate around the acceptance of this technology is often reduced to security and data privacy—as if there were no philosophical, religious, or societal questions at stake.
Moreover, the governance of enhancement technologies is an international challenge that is currently at a standstill: cultural differences between countries are significant, and we lack the material to deepen the discussion.
For this reason, we conducted a study with 55 students from France, Spain, and Japan, identifying four ethical perspectives (see below).
What are the key takeaways from your research?
SG: No ethical stance is purely binary: opinions on implanted microchips result from compromises and a mix of different values. Our work reflects this complexity and, in a way, gives a voice to those who have an opinion on the subject but struggle to articulate it. It also provides public authorities with insights on how to communicate, explain, or warn those who might too quickly embrace transhumanism, solely because it is practical and useful.
The four identified ethical perspectives
- Unreserved acceptance: Respondents fully embrace the idea of merging their bodies with technology and anticipate its benefits. They see no need for a societal debate or precautions regarding consent.
- Personal reservations: These respondents find the concept of "enhancement" incompatible with their vision of a human being made of flesh and blood, shaped by learning, growth, and personal development.
- Societal reservations: Respondents fear risks such as mass surveillance, competition between individuals, or the emergence of genetic selection. However, they recognize the personal benefits of the technology as long as they remain in control.
- Rejection: For these respondents, the concept of human enhancement violates their religious beliefs and their perception of the natural order. They see no advantages in adopting it and are concerned about its impact on mental health.
The publication
Stéphanie Gauttier, Mario Arias-Oliva, Kiyoshi Murata, Jorge Pelegrín-Borondo: " The ethical acceptability of human enhancement technologies: A cross-country Q-study of the perception of insideables" In Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, Volume 2, Issue 2, August–December 2024, 100092
Bio
Stéphanie Gauttier is an Associate Professor andh of the "Information Systems for Society" team at Grenoble Ecole de Management. Her research focuses on the acceptability and dissemination of human enhancement technologies. She is also a member of the Digital Organizations and Society Chair, which studies the impact of digital technologies on individuals, organizations, health, and society.
GEM program that integrates the issue of innovative technologies
▶ MSc Managing with Data and Artificial Intelligence
▶ Master in Digital Management and Information System
▶ Advanced Master in Technology Management and Responsible Innovation
- GEM Research
