Responsible Cognitive Enhancement: Neuroethical Considerations

Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, Sep 2018

Cognitive enhancement is the use of any (legitimate) means to reach one’s personal best cognitive performance. Cognitive enhancement can help delay cognitive decline in the elderly. Along the same lines, training children could speed up the education and reduce the risk of behavioral deviance and pathology. Nonetheless, cognitive enhancement is one of the most widely discussed topics in neuroethics because it is considered by some authors to be “unnatural” and to create “positional benefits.” In this opinion article, I will present examples of cognitive enhancement from the field of food supplements, pharmacology, and brain stimulation. I propose the idea of a responsible cognitive enhancement supported by clear mechanisms of action, that takes into account individual differences and that evaluates the far-reaching, sweeping claims from the media and the industry.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs41465-018-0090-3.pdf

Responsible Cognitive Enhancement: Neuroethical Considerations

Journal of Cognitive Enhancement pp 1–4 | Cite as Responsible Cognitive Enhancement: Neuroethical Considerations AuthorsAuthors and affiliations Lorenza S. Colzato Open Access Original Article First Online: 06 September 2018 Received: 26 June 2018 Accepted: 20 August 2018 4 Shares 136 Downloads Abstract Cognitive enhancement is the use of any (legitimate) means to reach one’s personal best cognitive performance. Cognitive enhancement can help delay cognitive decline in the elderly. Along the same lines, training children could speed up the education and reduce the risk of behavioral deviance and pathology. Nonetheless, cognitive enhancement is one of the most widely discussed topics in neuroethics because it is considered by some authors to be “unnatural” and to create “positional benefits.” In this opinion article, I will present examples of cognitive enhancement from the field of food supplements, pharmacology, and brain stimulation. I propose the idea of a responsible cognitive enhancement supported by clear mechanisms of action, that takes into account individual differences and that evaluates the far-reaching, sweeping claims from the media and the industry. KeywordsCognitive enhancement Neuroethics Theory-driven Tyrosine Brain stimulation Microdosing psychedelics  Introduction Cognitive enhancement is the use of any (legitimate) means (e.g., meditation, smart drugs, brain stimulation, neurofeedback, physical exercise, or food supplements) to reach one’s personal best. Cognitive enhancement can help compensate for cognitive decline in the elderly, which would prolong the time people can live autonomously and, thus, reduce the welfare costs for the time thereafter. Along the same lines, training children could “accelerate” the education of healthy individuals and minimize the risk of behavioral deviance and pathology, again with considerable savings for welfare and education systems. Notwithstanding these potential benefits, cognitive enhancement is one of the most extensively discussed issues in neuroethics (Bostrom and Sandberg 2009). There are at least two ethical aspects to take into consideration. The first regards the “fairness” of the intervention. It has been suggested that techniques of cognitive enhancement may disregard human nature and dignity and encourage cheating behavior and an unrestrained tendency to perfectionism (Habermas 2003; Kass 2002). These worries are real given the growing use of cognitive-enhancing drugs, such as Modafinil (Colzato and Mourits 2017) and Ritalin (Colzato and Arntz 2017), by students to enhance their academic skills and output. It is not to exclude that in the future universities might consider banning the use of those drugs or to allow them only under certain circumstances (exams). The same applies not only to drugs but to commercially brain stimulation devices, which can be bought online without any restrictions (Steenbergen et al. 2016). The second ethical aspect emerges from the discrepancy between two widely shared ethical principles underlying Western society: individual freedom and equality. Even though effective cognitive-enhancing programs can be regarded as a manifestation of individual freedom, they may collide with equality. Given that contemporary globalized societies are based on competition, which underlines individual skills and performance, cognitive enhancement might cause “positional benefits” by ameliorating one’s social and economic status as compared to others. Despite the fact that this could be regarded as a fair individual choice, it may have repercussions for general public expectations and standards. Indeed, a general public pressure to improve one’s cognitive abilities could arise once a number of individuals have shown that this is possible. That is, the simple option to enhance one’s cognitive abilities could increase social competition by boosting the pressure of always “being on top” and to work harder, longer, and more intensively, which in the end may exacerbate the problems one was initially aiming to solve. Further, as the probability to profit from cognitive-enhancing interventions may differ between individuals, the availability of enhancing programs may contribute to the emergence, and increase the size of, societal gaps (Bostrom and Sandberg 2009). Nevertheless, cognitive-enhancing interventions could be used as a way of decreasing, rather than increasing societal/social inequalities by allowing all, and not just the economically privileged individuals, to fully achieve their cognitive potential. This would not eliminate competition but create more equal terms (Savulescu 2009). Indeed, it is important to consider that the extensive use of cognitive-enhancing methods and the accompanying cognitive benefits might have important social benefits. Some studies estimate that boosting the average IQ of the world population by no more than 3% would reduce poverty rates by 25% (Schwartz 19 (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs41465-018-0090-3.pdf

Lorenza S. Colzato. Responsible Cognitive Enhancement: Neuroethical Considerations, Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 2018, pp. 1-4, DOI: 10.1007/s41465-018-0090-3