Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Concerns in HCE: The Examples of Cognitive Enhancing Drugs and Noninvasive Brain Stimulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evaluating Ethical Frameworks for the Assessment of Human Cognitive Enhancement Applications

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Ethics ((BRIEFSETHIC))

Abstract

In the mapping of ethical issues regarding human cognitive enhancement, we used a two-tiered approach in which we first carried out a systematic search, followed by the addition of references found in the literature identified in this search. We will here first present the two applications (or rather, areas of applications) that we focused on in our literature search. Then we will go through the main ethical issues that we identified in the search.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The “intelligence” trait is too complex and multi-faceted to be enhanced by one single intervention (Schermer et al. 2009).

  2. 2.

    A variety of practices of medication use for enhancement purposes may exist and develop further in future. These include occasional boosts for special occasions; continuous use to improve performance in high-pressure competitive environments; experimentation for curiosity or fun; substance abuse; and auto-medication of mental problems (Schermer et al. 2009).

  3. 3.

    We only discuss noninvasive brain stimulation here, as the use of noninvasive brain stimulation faces much lower hurdles for non-therapeutic use than is the case for invasive technology (Heinrichs 2012).

  4. 4.

    Interestingly, while universities have academic codes of conduct that prohibit cheating and plagiarism, they have yet to directly address the use of cognitive enhancers as violations of academic integrity, as they “are regarded in a moral gray zone” (Whetstine 2015, 175).

  5. 5.

    Beyer et al. (2014) hold that all regulation and justification of PCEs must take into account autonomy. They further see PCEs as a tool for potentially improving individual autonomy.

  6. 6.

    While Davis discusses brain stimulation in relation to treating neurological disorders in pediatric cases (thus for a therapeutic application), the gaps in knowledge that affect our ability to assess risk in translating brain stimulation procedures to pediatric cases similarly apply to its non-therapeutic use.

References

  • Agar, N. 2014. Truly Human Enhancement. A Philosophical Defense of Limits. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, C., C. Staunton, and K. Moodley. 2014. The implications of methylphenidate use by healthy medical students and doctors in South Africa. BMC Medical Ethics 15: 20. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biedermann, F. 2010. Argumente für und wider das Cognitive Enhancement. Ethik in der Medizin, 22 (4): 317–329. doi:10.1007/s00481-010-0070-3.

  • Boot, B.P., B. Partridge, and W. Hall. 2012. Letter to the editor: Better evidence for safety and efficacy is needed before neurologists prescribe drugs for neuroenhancement to healthy people. Neurocase 18 (3): 181–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A. 2008. Enhancement and the ethics of development. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (1): 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A., D.W. Brock, N. Daniels, & D. Wikler. 2000. From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cakic, V. 2009. Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: Ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology. Journal of Medical Ethics 35: 611–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castaldi, S., U. Gelatti, G. Orizio, U. Hartung, A.M. Moreno-Londono, M. Nobile, and P.J. Schulz. 2012. Use of cognitive enhancement medication among Northern Italian University students. Journal of Addict Medicine 6 (2): 112–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S., and J. Harris. 2006. Cognitive regeneration or enhancement: The ethical issues. Regenerative Medicine 1 (3): 361–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • COMECE. 2008. Ethical questions raised by nanomedicine. Science and Ethics. Opinions Elaborated by the Bioethics Reflexion Group 1: 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, N.J. 2014. Transcranial stimulation of the developing brain: A plea for extreme caution. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jongh, R., I. Bolt, M. Schermer, and B. Olivier. 2008. Botox for the brain: Enhancement of cognition, mood and pro-social behavior and blunting of unwanted memories. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 32: 760–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGrazia, D. 2005. Human identity and bioethics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614484.

  • Dresler, M., A. Sandberg, K. Ohla, C. Bublitz, C. Trenado, A. Mroczko-Wąsowicz, S. Kühn, and D. Repantis. 2013. Non-pharmacological cognitive enhancement. Neuropharmacology 64: 529–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubljević, Veljko. 2015. Neurostimulation devices for cognitive enhancement: Towards a comprehensive regulatory framework. Neuroethics 8: 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop, M. and Savulescu, J. 2014. Distributive justice and cognitive enhancement in lower, normal intelligence. Monash Bioethics Review 32 (3): 189–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, C. 2003. Better than well: American medicine meets the American dream. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farah, M.J., J. Illes, R. Cook-Deegan, H. Gardner, E. Kandel, P. King, E. Parens, B. Sahakian, and P.R. Wolpe. 2004. Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5: 421–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farah, M.J., M.E. Smith, I. Ilieva, and R.H. Hamilton. 2014. Cognitive enhancement. WIREs Cognitive Science 5: 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, A. 2009. Buddhism and neuroethics: The ethics of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement. Developing World Bioethics 9 (2): 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitz, N.S., and P.B. Reiner. 2013. The challenge of crafting policy for do-it-yourself brain stimulation. Journal of Medical Ethics 0: 1–3. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101458.

  • Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2009. Autonomy and coercion in academic “cognitive enhancement” using methylphenidate: Perspectives of key stakeholders. Neuroethics 2 (3): 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forlini, C., W. Hall, B. Maxwell, S.M. Outram, S. M., P.B. Reiner, D. Repantis, M. Schermer, and E. Racine. 2013. Navigating the enhancement landscape. Ethical issues in research on cognitive enhancers for healthy individuals. EMBO Reports 14 (2): 123–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forlini, C., J. Schildmann, P. Roser, R. Beranek and J. Vollmann. 2015. Knowledge, experiences and views of german university students toward neuroenhancement: An empirical-ethical analysis. Neuroethics 8 (2): 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaucher, N., A. Payot, and E. Racine. 2013. Cognitive enhancement in children and adolescents: Is it in their best interests? Acta Paediatrica 102: 1118–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giubilini, A., and S. Sanyal. 2015. The ethics of human enhancement. Philosophy Compass 10 (4): 233–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, R. 2010. Cognitive enhancment, cheating and accomplishment. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (2): 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greely, H., B. Sahakian, J. Harris, R.C. Kessler, M. Gazzaniga, P. Campbell, and M.J. Farah. 2008. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456: 702–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, W. 2004. Feeling ‘better than well’. EMBO Reports 5 (12): 1105–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, W.D., and J.C. Lucke. 2010. The enhancment use of neuropharmaceuticals: More scepticism and caution needed. Addiction 105: 2041–2043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R., S. Messing, and A. Chatterjee. 2011. Rethinking the thinking cap: Ethics of neural enhancement using noninvasive brain stimulation. Neurology 76: 187–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrichs, J.-H. 2012. The promises and perils of non-invasive brain stimulation. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 35: 121–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinz, A., R. Kipke, H. Heimann, and U. Wiesing. 2012. Cognitive neuroenhancement: False assumptions in the ethical debate. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (6): 372–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hildt, E., K. Lieb, and A.G. Franke. 2014. Life context of pharmacological academic performance enhancement among university students—a qualitative approach. BMC Medical Ethics 15: 23. doi:http://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-23.

  • Hofmann, B., D. Haustein, and L. Landeweerd. 2016. Smart-glasses: Exposing and elucidating the ethical issues. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9792-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ida, R. 2009. Should We Improve Human Nature? An Interrogation from an Asian Perspective. In Human Enhancment, eds. J. Savulescu and N. Bostrom. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadosh, R.C., N. Levy, J. O’Shea, N. Shea, and J. Savulescu. 2012. The neuroethics of non-invasive brain stimulation. Current Biology 22 (4): R108–R111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kass, L.R. 2003. Ageless bodies, happy souls. The New Atlantis 1: 9–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapenta, O.M., C.A. Valasek, A.R. Brunoni, and P.S. Boggio. 2014. An ethical discussion of the use of transcranial direct current stimulation for cognitive enhancement in healthy individuals: a fictional case study. Psychology & Neuroscience 7 (2): 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucke, J.C. 2012. Empirical research on attitudes toward cognitive enhancement is essential to inform policy and practice guidelines. AJOB Primary Research 3 (1): 58–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mache, S., P. Eickenhorst, K. Vitzthum, B.F. Klapp, and D.A. Groneberg. 2012. Cognitive-enhancing substance use at German universities: Frequency, reasons and gender differences. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift 162: 262–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslen, H., N. Faulmüller, and J. Savulescu. 2014a. Pharmacological cognitive enhancement—how neuroscientific research could advance ethical debate. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 8: 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslen, H., B.D. Earp, R. Cohen Kadosh, and J. Savulescu. 2014b. Brain stimulation for treament and enhancement in children: An ethical analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 1–5. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKibben, B. 2004. Enough. Staying human in an engineered age. An Owl Book. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micoulaud-Franchi, Jean-A, J. Vion-Dur, and C. Lancon. 2012. Peut-on Prescrire Des Psychostimulants Chez Un Étudiant Sain? Exemple D’un Cas Clinique. Thérapie 67 (3): 213–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohamed, A.D. 2014. Neuroethical issues in pharmacological cognitive enhancement. WIREs Cognitive Science 5: 533–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, R.C., and P.B. Reiner. 2010. A call for data to inform discussion on cognitive enhancement. BioSocieties 5 (4): 481–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam, J. (2015). Biomedical Enhancements as Justice. Bioethics 29 (2): 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12061

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2013. Novel neurotechnologies: Intervening in the brain. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, R. and N. Biller-Andorno. 2014. Neuroenhancement among Swiss Students – A Comparison of Users and Non-Users. Pharamcopsychiatry 47: 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, B., S. Bell, J. Lucke and W. Hall. 2013. Australian university students’ attitudes towards the use of prescription stimulants as cognitive enhancers: Perceived patterns of use, efficacy and safety. Drug and Alcohol Review 32: 295–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proust, J. 2011. Cognitive enhancement, human evolution and bioethics. Journal International De Bioéthique. 23 (3–4): 149–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Racine, E., and C. Forlini. 2009. Expectations regarding cognitive enhancement create substantial challenges. Journal of Medical Ethics 35: 469–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragan, C.I., I. Bard, and I. Singh. 2013. What should we do about student use of cognitive enhancers? An analysis of current evidence. Neuropharmacology 64 (2013): 588–593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.06.016

  • Sahakian, B.J., and S. Morein-Zamir. 2011. Neuroethical issues in cognitive enhancement. Journal of Psychopharmacology 25 (2): 197–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahakian, B., and S. Morein-Zamir. 2007. Professor’s little helper. Nature 450 (20): 1157–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, A., and N. Bostrom. 2006. Converging cognitive enhancements. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1093 (1): 201–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. 2004. The case against perfection. Atlantic Monthly, 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, S., C. Sauer, G. Mehlkop, and P. Graeff. 2013. The rationale for consuming cognitive enhancement drugs in university students and teachers. PLoS ONE 8 (7): e68821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schermer, M. 2008. On the argument that enhancement is “cheating”. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 85–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schermer, M., I. Bolt, R. de Jongh, and B. Olivier. 2009. The Future of psychopharmalogical enhancements: Expectations and policies. Neuroethics 2 (2): 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA). 2009. Human enhancement study (IP/A/STOA/FWC/2005-28/SC35, 41 and 45), ed. C. Coenen, M. Schuijff, M. Smits, P. Klaassen, L. Hennen, M. Rader, and G. Wolbring. https://www.itas.kit.edu/downloads/etag_coua09a.pdf. Accessed October 22, 2015.

  • Singh, I., I. Bard, and J. Jackson. 2014. Robust resilience and substantial interest: A survey of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among university students in the UK and Ireland. PLoS ONE 9 (10): e105969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The President’s Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. New York: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetstine, L.M. 2015. Cognitive enhancement: Treating or cheating? Seminars in Pediatric Neurology 22: 172–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Work Research Institute, Research Group on Responsible Innovation, Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo, Norway

    Ellen-Marie Forsberg, Clare Shelley-Egan, Erik Thorstensen & Laurens Landeweerd

  2. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Gjøvik, Norway

    Bjorn Hofmann

Authors
  1. Ellen-Marie Forsberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clare Shelley-Egan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erik Thorstensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laurens Landeweerd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bjorn Hofmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen-Marie Forsberg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Forsberg, EM., Shelley-Egan, C., Thorstensen, E., Landeweerd, L., Hofmann, B. (2017). Ethical Concerns in HCE: The Examples of Cognitive Enhancing Drugs and Noninvasive Brain Stimulation. In: Evaluating Ethical Frameworks for the Assessment of Human Cognitive Enhancement Applications. SpringerBriefs in Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53823-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation