Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? (original) (raw)

Nature Reviews Neuroscience volume 5, pages 421–425 (2004) Cite this article

Abstract

Our growing ability to alter brain function can be used to enhance the mental processes of normal individuals as well as to treat mental dysfunction in people who are ill. The prospect of neurocognitive enhancement raises many issues about what is safe, fair and otherwise morally acceptable. This article resulted from a meeting on neurocognitive enhancement that was held by the authors. Our goal is to review the state of the art in neurocognitive enhancement, its attendant social and ethical problems, and the ways in which society can address these problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

$209.00 per year

only $17.42 per issue

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

References

  1. Donogue, J. Connecting cortex to machines: recent advances in brain interfaces. Nature Neurosci. (Suppl.) 5, 1085–1088 (2002).
    Article Google Scholar
  2. Malhi, G. S. & Sachdev, P. Novel physical treatments for the management of neuropsychiatric disorders. J. Psychosom. Res. 53, 709–719 (2002).
    Article Google Scholar
  3. George, M. S. & Belmaker, R. H. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Neuropsychiatry (American Psychiatric Press, Washington DC, 2000).
    Google Scholar
  4. Barondes, S. Better Than Prozac: Creating the Next Generation of Psychiatric Drugs (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2003).
    Google Scholar
  5. Diller, L. H. The run on Ritalin. Attention deficit disorder and stimulant treatment in the 1990s. Hastings Center Report 26, 12–18 (1996).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  6. Babcock, Q. & Byrne, T. Student perceptions of methylphenidate abuse at a public liberal arts college. J. Am. College Health 49, 143–145 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  7. Hall, S. S. The quest for a smart pill. Sci. Am. 54–65 (September 2003).
  8. Gold, P. E., Cahill, L. & Wenk, G. L. Ginkgo Biloba: a cognitive enhancer? Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 3, 2–11 (2002).
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Farah, M. Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Nature Neurosci. 5, 1123–1129 (2002).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  10. Farah, M. J. & Wolpe, P. R. Monitoring and manipulating brain function: new neuroscience technologies and their ethical implications. Hastings Center Report (in the press).
  11. Rose, S. P. R. 'Smart drugs': do they work? Are they ethical? Will they be legal? Nature Rev. Neurosci. 3, 975–979 (2002).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  12. Lynch, G. Memory enhancement: the search for mechanism-based drugs. Nature Neurosci. 5, 1035–1038 (2002).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  13. Craik, F. I. M. & Salthouse, T. A. The Handbook of Aging and Cognition (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1992).
    Google Scholar
  14. Yesavage, J. A. et al. Donepezil and flight simulator performance: effects on retention of complex skills. Neurology 59, 123–125 (2002).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  15. Pittman, R. K. et al. Pilot study of secondary prevention of posttraumatic stress disorder with propranolol. Biol. Psychiatry 15, 189–192 (2002).
    Article Google Scholar
  16. Mehta, M. A. et al. Methylphenidate enhances working memory by modulating discrete frontal and parietal lobe regions in the human brain. J. Neurosci. 20, RC65 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  17. Elliott, R. et al. Effects of methylphenidate on spatial working memory and planning in healthy young adults. Psychopharmacology 131, 196–206 (1997).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  18. Kimberg, D. Y., D'Esposito, M. & Farah, M. J. Effects of bromocriptine on human subjects depend on working memory capacity. Neuroreport 8, 3581–3585 (1997).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  19. Teitelman, E. Off-label uses of modafinil. Am. J. Psychiatry 158, 1341 (2001).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  20. Turner, D. C. et al. Cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl.) 165, 260–269 (2003).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  21. Holland, T., Clare, I. C. & Mukhopadhyay, T. Prevalence of criminal offending by men and women with intellectual disability and the characteristics of offenders. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 46, (Suppl.) 6–20 (2002).
    Article Google Scholar
  22. Brower, M. C. & Price, B. H. Neuropsychiatry of frontal lobe dysfunction in violent and criminal behaviour: a critical review. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 71, 720–726 (2001).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  23. Legislative Commissioners' Office. General Statutes of Connecticut. Title 10, Ch. 169, Sect. 10-212b (1 Jan 2003).
  24. United States District Court, New Hampshire, Case No. C-88-412-L (August 1, 1991).
  25. Kass, L. Beyond Therapy — Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness (Harper Collins, New York, 2003).
    Google Scholar
  26. Francis, F. Our Posthuman Future (Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York, 2002).
    Google Scholar
  27. Chatterjee, A. Cosmetic neurology: the dilemma of altering movement, mood and cognition. Neurology (in the press).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is based, in part, on a meeting held at the New York Academy of Sciences in June 2003, supported by a grant to J.I. from the National Science Foundation with co-sponsorship of a Mushett Family Foundation grant to the Academy. The writing of this paper was supported by NSF and NIH grants to M.J.F. and an NIH grant and a Greenwald Foundation grant to J.I.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, 3720 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, 19104, Pennsylvania, USA
    Martha J. Farah
  2. the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and the Department of Radiology, 701 Welch Road, Stanford, 94304-5748, California, USA
    Judy Illes
  3. the Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy and Department of Public Policy Studies, Center for Genome Ethics, Law and Policy, Duke University, Room 127C, North Building, Research Drive, Box 90141, Durham, 27708-0141, North Carolina, USA
    Robert Cook-Deegan
  4. the Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Roy E. Larsen Hall, 2nd Floor, Appian Way, Cambridge, 02138, Massachusetts, USA
    Howard Gardner
  5. the Center for Neurobiology and Behavior, Columbia University and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, 10032, New York, USA
    Eric Kandel
  6. the Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, 20001, DC, USA
    Patricia King
  7. the The Hastings Center, 21 Malcolm Gordon Drive, Garrison, 10524-5555, New York, USA
    Eric Parens
  8. the Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 189, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ, UK
    Barbara Sahakian
  9. the Departments of Psychiatry, Medical Ethics, and Sociology, Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Market Street, Philadelphia, 19104-3319, Pennsylvania, USA
    Paul Root Wolpe

Authors

  1. Martha J. Farah
  2. Judy Illes
  3. Robert Cook-Deegan
  4. Howard Gardner
  5. Eric Kandel
  6. Patricia King
  7. Eric Parens
  8. Barbara Sahakian
  9. Paul Root Wolpe

Corresponding authors

Correspondence toMartha J. Farah or Judy Illes.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

E.K. is a co-founder and Chariman of the scientific board of directors of Memory Pharmaceuticals.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farah, M., Illes, J., Cook-Deegan, R. et al. Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do?.Nat Rev Neurosci 5, 421–425 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1390

Download citation

This article is cited by