Skip to main content
Log in

Weak evidence for large claims contribute to the phantom debate

  • Response
  • Published:
BioSocieties Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Farah, M.J. (2002) Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience 5 (11): 1123–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maher, B. (2008) Poll results: Look who's doping. Nature 452 (7188): 674–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quednow, B.B. (2010) Ethics of neuroenhancement: A phantom debate. BioSocieties 5 (1): 153–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teter, C.J., Falone, A.E., Cranford, J.A., Boyd, C.J. and McCabe, S.E. (2010) Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants and depressed mood among college students: Frequency and routes of administration. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 38 (3): 292–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lucke, J., Bell, S., Partridge, B. et al. Weak evidence for large claims contribute to the phantom debate. BioSocieties 5, 482–483 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2010.31

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2010.31

Navigation