Bottom Up Ethics - Neuroenhancement in Education and Employment (original) (raw)

Neuroethical Issues in Cognitive Enhancement: the Undergraduates' Point of View

2018

To date, legitimacy of the application of cognitive enhancement programs to healthy individuals is still fueling neuroethics discussions. The aim of the present investigation is analyzing naïve conceptions of the ethical implications of different prac-tices—namely, non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), psychotropic drugs, diet, hydration, and physical activity—which can be followed to enhance cognitive performance. An online survey targeted the opinions of the general public about the efficacy of the neuroenhancement techniques and ethical concerns in different contexts. Measures of general self-efficacy and beliefs about intelligence have been collected as well. Responses of 89 Italian undergraduate students of medicine or psychology were analyzed statistically and thematically. Findings supported the notion that passive ways of enhancing human performance, which fail to imply any personal effort and individual responsibility, are conceived as infringing moral rules, regardless of the context where they are implemented.

Ethical and legal implications of neuro-enhancement: New concerns and future perspectives

Neuro-enhancement can be broadly defined as the attempt to improve the brain's functioning in healthy individuals through the use of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological means. Although the rapid development of these technologies in the last decade has been received with enthusiasm by many, an increasing number of scholars have raised important ethical, moral, social and legal concerns associated with their use. In general lines, these issues can be grouped into six different classes: medical safety and effectiveness, enhancement vs. treatment, distributive justice, coercion, human authenticity, and fairness and the value of achievement. In this paper, I add some ideas to the previous categories and I try to contribute to the neuroethical debate by addressing three issues that have barely received attention on the literature: the re-stigmatization of people with mental health disorders, the depoliticization of sociocultural struggles and the "technocratization of the brain." The legal and policy implications of cognitive enhancers are discussed in the conclusion.

Straining their brains: why the case against enhancement is not persuasive

Cerebrum : the Dana forum on brain science, 2004

Your kid’s schoolwork not up to par? Looking for Mr. or Ms. Right? Any other problems caused by a mind’s eye seemingly not quite on the ball? Answers might lie in a brain-enhancing pill. Some argue this is merely better living through chemistry and in line with humanity’s self-improving actions throughout history, but others suggest that quick-fix medications could well distort the very things that make us human. Here a leading bioethicist squares off with a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics on the controversy about pursuing better brains with a little help from biotechnology. Comments © 2004. Permission from Dana Press. Reprinted from Cerebrum, Volume 6, Issue 4, Fall 2004, pages 13-29. Publisher URL: http://www.dana.org/books/press/cerebrum/ This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/neuroethics\_pubs/29

Treatments Approved, Boosts Eschewed: Moral Limits of Neurotechnological Enhancement

2020

In six vignette-based experiments, we assessed people’s moral reactions toward various cognition-enhancing brain implants, including their overall approval and perceived fairness, as well as the dehumanization of brain-implanted agents. Across the domains of memory (Studies 1-4, 6), general intelligence (Study 5A), and emotional stability (Study 5B), people in general approved of alleviating ailments, and even of attaining optimal human performance, but expressed greater opposition toward superhuman levels of enhancement. Further analyses of individual differences indicated that the tendency to condemn transhumanist technologies, such as brain implants, was linked to sexual disgust sensitivity and the binding moral foundations – two characteristic correlates of a conservative worldview. In turn, exposure to science fiction was tied to greater approval of brain implants. We also examined potential idiosyncrasies associated with our stimulus materials and did not find reliable effects...