Neuroethical issues in pharmacological cognitive enhancement

Mohamed, Ahmed Dahir

doi:10.1002/wcs.1306

Cited by 20 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 111 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the advantages that some populations have over others (e.g. wealthy students can afford private tutors vs. poor students attending poorly resourced inner city public schools), increased CE could allow socioeconomic disparities to persist (Colaneri, Sheldon, and Adesman 2018;Cakic 2009;Mohamed 2014;Chatterjee 2006;Goodman 2010;Parens 2000;Hyman 2011;Levy and Levy 2011;Farah 2011;DeGrazia 2005). Health insurers are unlikely to pay for CE use, which means that only populations that can pay will have access to CE (Hyman 2011;Hotze et al 2011;Chatterjee 2006).…”

Section: Distributive Injusticementioning

confidence: 99%

Public Opinion on Cognitive Enhancement Varies across Different Situations

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Distributive Injusticementioning

confidence: 99%

Public Opinion on Cognitive Enhancement Varies across Different Situations

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Mental practice and representation with all the other neuroenhancers described recently at least five elements; three of which are environmental (1-3) and two are structural (4-5) 1-Exercise [24] 2-Practice [32] 3-Videogames [33] 4-Biochemical approach with methylene blue or methylphenidate [34] 5-Electro-mechanical stimulation of the brain [35] All of these mandate a strategic approach [36] and a strict neuroethics [37]. With the recent description of asymptotic [38] curve of expertise, the use of a global strategic approach will contribute to achieve expertise in complex systems.…”

Section: Mental Practice and Neuroenhancersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Towards Expertise

Martín¹,

Ouellet²,

Aslam³

2016

Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Advanced Technologies Enhancing Education (ICAT2E 2017)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To build towards expertise, one has to accept to modify his way of practicing, including: 1) A need to reflect on and about the action and near the action in 'in situ' laboratory, 2) A continuous concern about our competence to practice, (presently medical education is in fact discontinuous with periods of incompetence) 3) Tireless effort to combine metacognition and mental practice in a trans-disciplinary approach, 4) Practice cannot be complete without adding research with neuroscience, understanding neuroplasticity, modulation and artificial intelligence.

show abstract

“…To an extent, there are an increasing number of such calls in the literature. For instance, Mohamed [74] calls for larger surveys on diverse populations to determine the motives and attitudes behind stimulant misuse, as well as greater dialogue between researchers, clinicians, parents, teachers and regulatory bodies in the evaluation of putative PCEs. Pustovrh and Mali similarly stress the need for more empirical investigations on user populations in different sociocultural contexts as well as societal debates on how to address the issue [9].…”

Section: A Positive Shiftmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Myth of Cognitive Enhancement Drugs

Zohny

2015

Neuroethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are a number of premises underlying much of the vigorous debate on pharmacological cognitive enhancement. Among these are claims in the enhancement literature that such drugs exist and are effective among the cognitively normal. These drugs are deemed to enhance cognition specifically, as opposed to other non-cognitive facets of our psychology, such as mood and motivation. The focus on these drugs as cognitive enhancers also suggests that they raise particular ethical questions, or perhaps more pressing ones, compared to those raised by other kinds of neuroenhancement. Finally, the use of these drugs is often claimed to be significant and increasing. Taken together, these premises are at the heart of the flurry of debate on pharmacological cognitive enhancement. In this article, it is argued that these are presumptions for which the evidence does not hold up. Respectively, the evidence for the efficacy of these drugs is inconsistent; neurologically it makes little sense to distinguish the cognitive from non-cognitive as separate targets of pharmacological intervention; ethically, the questions raised by cognitive enhancement are in fact no different from those raised by other kinds of neuroenhancement; and finally the prevalence rates of these drugs are far from clear, with the bulk of the claims resting on poor or misrepresented data. Greater conceptual clarity along with a more tempered appreciation of the evidence can serve to deflate some of the hype in the associated literature, leading to a more realistic and sober assessment of these prospective technologies.

show abstract

Neuroethical issues in pharmacological cognitive enhancement

Abstract: The author has declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

Cited by 20 publications

References 111 publications

Public Opinion on Cognitive Enhancement Varies across Different Situations

Public Opinion on Cognitive Enhancement Varies across Different Situations

Building Towards Expertise

The Myth of Cognitive Enhancement Drugs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About