Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Ethics Blogs -> Neuroethics and Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Ethics

: Neuroethics and Law

Responsible use of cognitive enhancers

By Peter Reiner

ADVERTISEMENTS

In a widely-read commentary published online in Nature this past weekend, Hank Greely and an all-star cast (including Philip Campbell, Editor in Chief of Nature) put forward muscular support for moving forward the ongoing scientific advances in developing cognitive enhancers in a responsible fashion. They cite the familiar concerns - safety, coercion & fairness - but argue that enhancement is neither a dirty word nor a novel endeavour. Indeed, they remind us that enhancement of the human condition is the essence of what we do, and that cognitive enhancement fits well into the history of utilizing the written word, education and other devices to improve cognitive ability. Most notably, they offer the following seven suggestions:

Based on our considerations, we call for a presumption that mentally competent adults should be able to engage in cognitive enhancement using drugs.
We call for an evidence-based approach to the evaluation of the risks and benefits of cognitive enhancement.
We call for enforceable policies concerning the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs to support fairness, protect individuals from coercion and minimize enhancement-related socioeconomic disparities.
We call for a programme of research into the use and impacts of cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy individuals.
We call for physicians, educators, regulators and others to collaborate in developing policies that address the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy individuals.
We call for information to be broadly disseminated concerning the risks, benefits and alternatives to pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement.
We call for careful and limited legislative action to channel cognitive-enhancement technologies into useful paths.

The authors conclude with this:

"Like all new technologies, cognitive enhancement can be used well or poorly. We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function. In a world in which human workspans and lifespans are increasing, cognitive enhancement tools ? including the pharmacological ? will be increasingly useful for improved quality of life and extended work productivity, as well as to stave off normal and pathological age-related cognitive declines. Safe and effective cognitive enhancers will benefit both the individual and society.

But it would also be foolish to ignore problems that such use of drugs could create or exacerbate. With this, as with other technologies, we need to think and work hard to maximize its benefits and minimize its harms."

The paper is open for comments, and the ones posted already run the gamut of opinion from "How dare they have the audacity to suggest such a thing?", to "As a scientist I do not relish my peers or younger colleagues taking such drugs for the extra edge in career success. I do not relish getting ?confidential? advice from a tenure review committee member that next time I should try taking a daily dose of ?X?.", to "I for one, believe that if they can be taken safely, they should be allowed.".

A final note of interest to our readers. It may be surprising to see the Editor of Nature as a co-author of this commentary. His interest in the subject was foreshadowed in his response to the Edge 2008 question, "What have you changed your mind about?". It would seem that having opinions, even controversial ones, is not incompatible with editing one of the world's premiere scientific journals.

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