Ethics

Nature survey on cognitive enhancement (Reiner)

By Peter Reiner

Nature has published the results of their recent survey on cognitive enhnacement. The survey focused (sorry) on the use of ritalin, provigil and beta-blockers in an attempt to glean information on both licit and illicit use of these agents (one might argue that including beta-blockers somewhat distorts the picture, but it turns out that only 15% of respondents used beta-blockers.)

There is much to digest in the data itself, but a few items stand out.  First, the number of respondents: 1427 individuals took the survey, making this the largest survey of cognitive enhancement to date.   Then there is the widespread acceptance of cognitive enhancers: 79% felt that healthy people should be allowed to take cognitive enhancers.  Finally, there is this neuroethical nugget which merited commentary in the piece in Nature.

When asked whether healthy children under the age of 16 should be restricted from taking these drugs, unsurprisingly, most respondents (86%) said that they should. But one-third of respondents said they would feel pressure to give cognition-enhancing drugs to their children if other children at school were taking them. Morein-Zamir found this coercive factor very interesting. ?These numbers strongly suggest that even if policies restricted their use by kids, pressure would be high for parents,? she says.

Accompanying the survey results is an editorial entitled Defining 'natural'.  The editorial is focused more on Thomas Beatie's disclosure last week on Oprah that he is pregnant than the cognitive enhancement survey, but the essential point - that humans have an aversion to manipulations that seem unnatural - is certainly relevant to the debate over cognitive enhancers.  The survey data seem to suggest that many are ready to jettison their concerns so long as the result is improved cognitive capacity.   

Full post as published by Neuroethics and Law on April 09, 2008 (boomark / email).