Journal article icon

Journal article

Pharmacological cognitive enhancement—how neuroscientific research could advance ethical debate

Abstract:
There are numerous ways people can improve their cognitive capacities: good nutrition and regular exercise can produce long-term improvements across many cognitive domains, whilst commonplace stimulants such as coffee temporarily boost levels of alertness and concentration. Effects like these have been well-documented in the medical literature and they raise few (if any) ethical issues. More recently, however, clinical research has shown that the off-label use of some pharmaceuticals can, under certain conditions, have modest cognition-improving effects. Substances such as methylphenidate and modafinil can improve capacities such as working memory and concentration in some healthy individuals. Unlike their more mundane predecessors, these methods of “cognitive enhancement” are thought to raise a multitude of ethical issues. This paper presents the six principal ethical issues raised in relation to pharmacological cognitive enhancers (PCEs)—issues such as whether: (1) the medical safety-profile of PCEs justifies restricting or permitting their elective or required use; (2) the enhanced mind can be an “authentic” mind; (3) individuals might be coerced into using PCEs; (4), there is a meaningful distinction to be made between the treatment vs. enhancement effect of the same PCE; (5) unequal access to PCEs would have implications for distributive justice; and (6) PCE use constitutes cheating in competitive contexts. In reviewing the six principal issues, the paper discusses how neuroscientific research might help advance the ethical debate. In particular, the paper presents new arguments about the contribution neuroscience could make to debates about justice, fairness, and cheating, ultimately concluding that neuroscientific research into “personalized enhancement” will be essential if policy is to be truly informed and ethical. We propose an “ethical agenda” for neuroscientific research into PCEs.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions


Access Document


Publisher copy:
10.3389/fnsys.2014.00107

Authors


More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
HUMS
Department:
Philosophy
Role:
Author
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MSD
Department:
Experimental Psychology
Role:
Author
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
HUMS
Department:
Philosophy
Role:
Author


Publisher:
Frontiers Media
Journal:
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience More from this journal
Volume:
8
Article number:
107
Publication date:
2014-06-11
Acceptance date:
2014-05-20
DOI:
EISSN:
1662-5137


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
pubs:466927
UUID:
uuid:1849d33b-41a7-48bc-8b32-d1ba89aeb722
Local pid:
pubs:466927
Source identifiers:
466927
Deposit date:
2014-07-03

Terms of use



Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP