Cognitive neuroenhancement: false assumptions in the ethical debate

Abstract

The present work critically examines two assumptions frequently stated by supporters of cognitive neuroenhancement. The first, explicitly methodological, assumption is the supposition of effective and side effect-free neuroenhancers. However, there is an evidence-based concern that the most promising drugs currently used for cognitive enhancement can be addictive. Furthermore, this work describes why the neuronal correlates of key cognitive concepts, such as learning and memory, are so deeply connected with mechanisms implicated in the development and maintenance of addictive behaviour so that modification of these systems may inevitably run the risk of addiction to the enhancing drugs. Such a potential risk of addiction could only be falsified by in-depth empirical research. The second, implicit, assumption is that research on neuroenhancement does not pose a serious moral problem. However, the potential for addiction, along with arguments related to research ethics and the potential social impact of neuroenhancement, could invalidate this assumption. It is suggested that ethical evaluation needs to consider the empirical data as well as the question of whether and how such empirical knowledge can be obtained.

Empirical Support for the Moral Salience of the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction in the Debate Over Cognitive, Affective and Social Enhancement

“…Consensus about the propriety of brain enhancement is elusive [4,[8][9][10][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. One way of approaching the issue is to query the public about their enthusiasms and concerns with regard to enhancement of human brains [21][22][23].…”

Innovative mechanisms of action for pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement: A systematic review

“…Cognitive enhancement is a popular topic, attracting attention both from the general public and the scientific community (Eickenhorst et al, 2012;Heinz et al, 2012). Prescription stimulants such as methylphenidate and amphetamines are the most frequently consumed smart drugs, especially in college campuses (Franke et al, 2014;Franke et al, 2011;McCabe et al, 2014;Teter et al, 2010;Wilens et al, 2008).…”

Speculation and Justification in Policy-Making on Neuroenhancement

“…With regard to effectiveness, results of the limited number of laboratory studies do not allow to draw reasonable conclusions for everyday situations (Outram, 2010: 199;Lucke et al, 2011: 40). Based on theoretical considerations about mechanisms responsible for addiction, Heinz et al (2012) conclude that negative consequences of enhancement are being underestimated in the ethical debate. Without in-depth empirical research, the assumption of safe enhancement-methods remains rather speculative (Heinz et al, 2012: 374).…”