Q: In More Than Human, you discuss some exciting new technologies for human enhancement. What do you anticipate will be the first of these technologies to be available on the market? What can we look forward to in the near future?

A: A lot of enhancement technologies are on the market and in use already. Jose Canseco and Arnold Schwarzenegger have admitted to using steroids to boost their athletic careers. Musicians, stage actors, and public speakers have been using beta blockers like Propranolol to keep themselves calm and focused during their performances for years. And there are increasing reports of students and white collar workers using modafanil (Provigil) to stay awake or boost alertness.

I think the next big wave will be around memory enhancement drugs. There's a huge potential market in helping patients with Alzheimer's disease or at risk of developing it. In the US alone, about $100 billion a year gets spent on care for these patients. So every major drug company and a number of small biotech firms are working on drugs to restore memory function in these patients. The animal studies for these drugs show that not only can they help older animals hang onto their memories, but they can boost the memory and learning ability of healthy young animals. There's a good chance that will be true in humans as well.

Think of it as memory Viagra. It'll be marketed to the elderly who have problems, but it won't be hard for 40, 30, or 20somethings to get their hands on it either.

Q: If you personally could have any one of these technologies now, which one would you want, and how would you use it?

A: Frankly I want them all! But if I had to choose one, slowing the rate of aging is probably the most key. It's something best done early, in the sense that it's probably going to prove easier to slow or head off age-related damage than to undo it later on. And if we can maintain our health and youth a bit longer, that gives us more time to see the other technologies come to fruition.

Q: Personal background seems to play a big part in determining how people view human enhancement, as something positive or something threatening. How has your background and experience shaped your attitudes towards these technologies?

A: For many people, just the fact that enhancement is new and different can be threatening. We have a pretty good life, at least those of us in the West. Why not stick with it? Why try this new unknown thing with these risks?

For me, I'm a first generation immigrant. I moved to the US from Egypt at an early age with my parents. That taught me two things. First, I learned to go try the new and the different. You really don't have a choice in that situation. So newness in and of itself holds little fear for me.

Second, I learned that some cultures really do provide a better way of life than others. Egypt is relatively moderate compared to other parts of the middle east, but it's still a poor and repressive place. The thing that makes the US so great - both economically and philosophically - is the incredible freedom we have here. That is, to a large extent, why I come down so strongly on the side of individual and family freedom in the book. Because the societies that have most flourished in the past century have been those that have embraced personal freedom, and I think that logic extends to enhancement technologies in particular.

Q: Part of your argument in More Than Human is that these technologies need to be available to everyone, not only people living in certain nations, and not only the rich. What steps can society take to ensure equal access to enhancement?

A: Really there are two key things. The first is to keep these technologies legal. One of the best ways to limit something to the rich is to ban it. When you do that, you create a black market. On the black market, prices rise, quality and safety suffer, and the legal punishments tend to get applied far more frequently to the poor than the rich. This is what we see in the War on Drugs today, or what we saw in Prohibition in the 20s.

The second is to recognize enhancement technologies as investments in the most valuable natural resource we have - people. Governments support these sorts of investments already. We give out scholarships and guarantee student loans. We provide free primary and secondary schooling. We immunize poor children for free. All of those steps actually pay for themselves and more in the long run - they prevent later health care costs or they produce citizens who contribute more to the economy after they've grown up and entered the work force.

In the US alone, a 1% reduction in health care costs would save almost $200 billion over 10 years. And a 1% productivity boost would earn the country $1 TRILLION over 10 years. If we could achieve that by subsidizing the cost of using biotech to slow the aging rate or boost mental capacity, wouldn't it be worth it?

Q: What are some of the greatest risks these technologies pose to society, and how should we handle them?

A: There are definitely risks - no doubt about that. Every new technology brings its share of problems. Antibiotics contributed to the population boom. Cars degrade air quality and lead produce traffic accidents, and so on.

In the case of enhancement technologies, I think equality is going to be one of the biggest challenges, as we just discussed.

The other, I think, is safety. Schwarzenegger said recently that when he started taking steroids, everyone thought they were safe. It looks like he ended up okay, but others have been hurt by using performance enhancers they didn't know the full effects of. In the 1980s, competitive cyclists started taking synthetic EPO - a compound that increases the number of red blood cells you have. Between 1987 and 1990, several Dutch and Belgian cyclists died of it. Their blood had become so thick that their hearts just couldn't keep on pumping it. The problem in both of these cases is that the medical profession never tested the use of these drugs to enhance performance. The FDA forced Amgen to test EPO on patients with anemia, where it does wonders. But it should have been obvious that people were going to use this stuff to try to boost their athletic performance as well. Because the FDA doesn't acknowledge that there might be such enhancement use, they don't require Amgen to do any testing of safety in athletes.

So one of the keys to the safety question, in my mind, is acknowledging that people are going to use drugs, gene therapies, and other technologies to enhance themselves. We need to understand that, study that kind of usage, and provide consumers good accurate information they can use to keep themselves safe.

Q: And now a fun question: In More Than Human, you mention how enchancement technologies will offer individuals new ways of reinventing and customizing themselves. Name a celebrity who could benefit from one of these products, and describe how it could improve their life or career. In other words, Imagine an episode of "More Than Human Celebrity makeover."

A: Hah. This is a tricky one. I'm sure a lot of actors or actresses would love to be able to permanently modify their skin tone or physique.

One person who could really benefit is Stephen Hawking. He has such a brilliant mind and such a low bandwidth interface to the outside world. Over the next decade, it looks like brain computer interfaces will make it easier and easier for the paralyzed to communicate and interact with the rest of us. Already there are clinical trials going on of brain implants that let patients control computers and robot arms just by thinking about it. With one of these, eventually he might be able to communicate as quickly and easily as someone who retains their voice. I think that would be a win for him and for the rest of humanity.

I suppose I could also mention some celebrities who could use help reigning in their public behavior or politicians who would benefit from enhancing their mental abilities, but that would be rude. :)