Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The value and pitfalls of speculation about science and technology in bioethics: the case of cognitive enhancement

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the debate on the ethics of the non-medical use of pharmaceuticals for cognitive performance enhancement in healthy individuals there is a clear division between those who view “cognitive enhancement” as ethically unproblematic and those who see such practices as fraught with ethical problems. Yet another, more subtle issue, relates to the relevance and quality of the contribution of scholarly bioethics to this debate. More specifically, how have various forms of speculation, anticipatory ethics, and methods to predict scientific trends and societal responses augmented or diminished this contribution? In this paper, we use the discussion of the ethics of cognitive enhancement to explore the positive and negative contribution of speculation in bioethics scholarship. First, we review and discuss how speculation has relied on different sets of assumptions regarding the non-medical use of stimulants, namely: (1) terminology and framing; (2) scientific aspects such as efficacy and safety; (3) estimates of prevalence and consequent normalization; and (4) the need for normative reflection and regulatory guidelines. Second, three methodological guideposts are proposed to alleviate some of the pitfalls of speculation: (1) acknowledge assumptions more explicitly and identify the value attributed to assumptions; (2) validate assumptions with interdisciplinary literature; and (3) adopt a broad perspective to promote more comprehensive reflection. We conclude that, through the examination of the controversy about cognitive enhancement, we can employ these methodological guideposts to enhance the value of contributions from bioethics and minimize potential epistemic and practical pitfalls in this case and perhaps in other areas of bioethical debate.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Our own reflection was part of a project examining the legal, ethical and social consequences of memory technologies in an effort to engage in meta-ethical questions about bioethics itself. Some of the authors of this paper have directly intervened in this debate and therefore take a reflexive stance on their own scholarship and the claims made in their contributions.

  2. Throughout debates about the non-medical use of stimulants, a further complicating factor has been the evolving definition of the term “cognitive enhancement”. Ferrari et al. (2012) identify these shifts in meaning by looking at the history of human enhancement: “the term ‘cognitive enhancement’ was originally used to describe the treatment of disease-associated cognitive impairment…the meaning of the term was subsequently broadened to encompass the use of interventions for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (…) More recently ‘cognitive enhancement’ has been applied to interventions in normal ageing processes and in ‘healthy’ people for non-medical purposes” (Ferrari et al. 2012).

References

  • Am, T.G. 2011. Trust in nanotechnology? On trust as analytical tool in social research on emerging technologies. Nanoethics 5(1): 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S., J. Lucke, and W. Hall. 2012. Lessons for enhancement from the history of cocaine and amphetamine use. AJOB Neuroscience 3(2): 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boot, B.P., B. Partridge, and W. Hall. 2011. 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 

  • Bostrom, N., and A. Sandberg. 2009. Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 15(3): 311–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. 2012. Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. Nanoethics 6(1): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A. 2011. Beyond humanity? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, A., and C. Elliott. 2004. Is it ethical to use enhancement technologies to make us better than well? PLoS Medicine 1(3): e52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, A., and P. McHugh. 2004. Shall we enhance? A debate. Cerebrum. http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=1076.

  • Carter, A., P. Bartlett, and W. Hall. 2009. Scare-mongering and the anticipatory ethics of experimental technologies. American Journal of Bioethics 9(5): 47–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colander, D., H. Follmer, A. Haas, M.D. Goldberg, K. Juselius, A. Kirman, T. Lux, and B. Sloth. 2009. The financial crisis and the systemic failure of academic economics. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Department of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connemann, B.J. 2003. Donepezil and flight simulator performance: Effects on retention of complex skills. Neurology 61(5): 721. author reply 721.

    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(4): 760–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dees, R.H. 2004. Slippery slopes, wonder drugs, and cosmetic neurology: The neuroethics of enhancement. Neurology 63(6): 951–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1922. Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ETHENTECH. 2012. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from http://www.kth.se/abe/om-skolan/organisation/inst/philhist/phil/research/bioethics/projects/ethentech-1.64802.

  • Evans, J.H. 2002. Playing God? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durand, G. 1999. Introduction générale à la bioéthique: Histoire, concepts et outils. Fides-Cerf: Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farah, M.J. 2011. Overcorrecting the neuroenhancement discussion. Addiction 106(6): 1190. author reply 1190–1191.

    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(5): 421–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, A., C. Coenen, and A. Grunwald. 2012. Visions and ethics in current discourse on human enhancement. Nanoethics 6(3): 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fins, J.J. 2008. A leg to stand on: Sir William Osler and Wilder Penfield’s “neuroethics”. American Journal of Bioethics 8(1): 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2009b. Disagreements with implications: Diverging discourses on the ethics of non-medical use of methylphenidate for performance enhancement. BMC Medical Ethics 10.

  • Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2012. Stakeholder perspectives and reactions to “academic” cognitive enhancement: Unsuspected meaning of ambivalence and analogies. Public Understanding of Science 21(5): 606–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2013. Does the cognitive enhancement debate call for a renewal of the deliberative role of bioethics? In Cognitive enhancement: An interdisciplinary perspective, ed. E. Hildt, and A. Franke, 173–186. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fortun, M. 2005. For an ethics of promising, or: A few kind words about James Watson. New Genetics & Society 24(2): 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, A., C. Bonertz, M. Christmann, S. Engeser, and K. Lieb. 2012. Attitudes toward cognitive enhancement in users and nonusers of stimulants for cognitive enhancement: A pilot study. AJOB Primary Research 3(1): 48–57.

    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(7223): 702–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, W., and J. Lucke. 2010. The enhancement use of neuropharmaceuticals: More scepticism and caution needed. Addiction 105(12): 2041–2043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedgecoe, A. 2010. Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science 40(2): 163–186.

    Article  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 

  • Henry, M., J.R. Fishman, and S.J. Youngner. 2007. Propranolol and the prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder: Is it wrong to erase the “sting” of bad memories? American Journal of Bioethics 7(9): 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illes, J., and E. Racine. 2005. Neuroethics: A dialogue on a continuum from tradition to innovation. American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): W3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, L. 2006. Speed, ecstasy, ritalin: The science of amphetamines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. 2008. Neuroethics: Adrift from a clinical base. American Journal of Bioethics 8(1): 49–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G., M. Whitaker, and M. King. 2011. Speculative ethics: Valid enterprise or tragic cul-de-sac. In Bioethics in the 21st Century, edited by A. Rudnick. InTech: 139-158. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/24279/InTech-Speculative_ethics_valid_enterprise_or_tragic_cul_de_sac_.pdf. Accessed March 19 2013.

  • Jonsen, A.R. 1995. Casuistry: An alternative or complement to principles? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5(3): 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A.R., M. Siegler, and W.T. Winslade. 1998. Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keulartz, J., M. Schermer, M. Korthals, and T. Swierstra. 2004. Ethics in technological culture: A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Science, Technology and Human Values 29(1): 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolber, A. 2008. Freedom of memory today. Neuroethics 1(2): 145–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larriviere, D., M.A. Williams, M. Rizzo, and R.J. Bonnie. 2009. Responding to requests from adult patients for neuroenhancements: Guidance of the ethics, law and humanities committee. Neurology 73(17): 1406–1412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Launis, V. 2010. Cosmetic neurology: Sliding down the slippery slope? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19(2): 218–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucke, J., S. Bell, B. Partridge, and W. Hall. 2010. Weak evidence for large claims contribute to the phantom debate Response. Biosocieties 5(4): 482–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucke, J., S. Bell, B. Partridge, and W. Hall. 2011. Deflating the neuroenhancement bubble. AJOB Neuroscience 2(4): 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucke, J., B. Partridge, and W. Hall. 2012. Dealing with ennui: To what extent is “cognitive enhancement” a form of self-medication for symptoms of depression? AJOB Neuroscience 4(1): 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohamed, A.D., and B.J. Sahakian. 2012. The ethics of elective psychopharmacology. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 15(4): 559–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuro-Enhancement: Responsible Research and Innovation. 2013. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from http://www.nerri.eu/eng/home.aspx.

  • Nordmann, A. 2007. If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics 1(1): 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, J., and D. Cocking. 2005. Consequentialism, complacency, and slippery slope arguments. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26(3): 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Outram, S. 2010a. Negotiating an inevitable future? AJOB Neuroscience 1(1): 29–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Outram, S. 2010b. The use of methylphenidate among students: The future of enhancement? Journal of Medical Ethics 36(4): 198–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Outram, S. 2012. Ethical considerations in the framing of the cognitive enhancement debate. Neuroethics 5(2): 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Outram, S., and E. Racine. 2011a. Examining reports and policies on cognitive enhancement: Approaches, rationale, and recommendations. Accountability in Research 18(5): 323–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Outram, S., and E. Racine. 2011b. Public health ethics approaches to cognitive enhancement: Current models and points to consider. Public Health Ethics 4(1): 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parens, E. 2005. Authenticity and ambivalence: Toward understanding the enhancement debate. Hastings Center Report 35(3): 34–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parens, E. (ed.). 1998. Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parens, E., and J. Johnston. 2007. Does it make sense to speak of neuroethics? Three problems with keying ethics to hot new science and technology. EMBO Reports 8 Spec No: S61–S64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, B., S. Bell, J. Lucke, S. Yeates, and W. Hall. 2011. Smart drugs “as common as coffee”: Media hype about neuroenhancement. PLoS ONE 6(11): e28416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racine, E. 2010. Pragmatic neuroethics: Improving treatment and understanding of the mind-brain. In Basic Bioethics, ed. G. McGee, and A. Caplan. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Racine, E. 2008. Which naturalism for bioethics? A defense of moderate pragmatic naturalism. Bioethics 22(2): 92–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racine, E., and C. Forlini. 2010a. Cognitive enhancement, lifestyle choice or misuse of prescription drugs? Ethics blind spots in current debates. Neuroethics 3(1): 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racine, E., and C. Forlini. 2010b. Responding to requests from adult patients for neuroenhancements: Guidance of the ethics, law and humanities committee. Neurology 74(19): 1555–1556. author reply 1556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racine, E., and J. Illes. 2006. Neuroethical responsibilities. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 33(3): 269–277.

    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: 588–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repantis, D., P. Schlattmann, O. Lainsey, and I. Heuser. 2008. Antidepressants for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Poiesis Praxis 6: 139–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repantis, D., O. Laisney, and I. Heuser. 2010a. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research 61(6): 473–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repantis, D., P. Schlattmann, O. Laisney, and I. Heuser. 2010b. Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research 62(3): 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roache, R. 2008. Ethics, speculation, and values. Nanoethics 2(3): 317–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherwin, S. 1999. Foundations, frameworks, lenses: The role of theories in bioethics. Bioethics 13(3–4): 198–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tone, A. 2005. Listening to the past: History, psychiatry, and anxiety. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 50(7): 373–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. 1982. How medicine saved the life of ethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 25(4): 736–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Wilt, G.J., R. Reuzel, and H.D. Banta. 2000. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21(1): 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrecko, S. 2010. Neuroscience, power and culture: An introduction. History of the Human Sciences 23(1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S.M. 1994. Shifting paradigms in bioethics and health law: The rise of a new pragmatism. American Journal of Law and Medicine 20(4): 395–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolraich, M., L. Brown, R.T. Brown, G. DuPaul, M. Earls, H.M. Feldman, T.G. Ganiats, B. Kaplanek, B. Meyer, J. Perrin, K. Pierce, M. Reiff, M.T. Stein, and S. Visser. 2011. ADHD: Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 128(5): 1007–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoloth, L. 2007. Mistakenness and the nature of the “post”: The ethics and the inevitability of error in theoretical work. Israel Affairs 13(4): 757–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support for this work comes from a catalyst grant of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; Jennifer Chandler, PI; Eric Racine co-PI), a University of Queensland Travel Award for International Collaborative Research (Jayne Lucke), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (New Investigator Award, Eric Racine) as well as the Fonds de recherche du Québec—Santé (Career Award, Eric Racine). We extend our thanks to members of the Neuroethics Research Unit for feedback on a previous version of this manuscript and to Ms. Allison Yan and Mr. John Aspler for editorial support. Thanks to Brad Partridge who was a visiting researcher at the Neuroethics Research Unit in 2012 for feedback on the concept of this paper. Thanks also to Dr. Emily Bell and Dr. Veljko Dubljevic for comments on a draft version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal (IRCM), 110 Avenue des Pins Ouest, Montreal, QC, H2W lR7, Canada

    Eric Racine, Tristana Martin Rubio & Cynthia Forlini

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

    Jennifer Chandler

  3. UQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia

    Jayne Lucke

  4. Department of Medicine and Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

    Eric Racine

  5. Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Medicine and Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

    Eric Racine

Authors
  1. Eric Racine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tristana Martin Rubio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Chandler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cynthia Forlini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jayne Lucke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Racine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Racine, E., Martin Rubio, T., Chandler, J. et al. The value and pitfalls of speculation about science and technology in bioethics: the case of cognitive enhancement. Med Health Care and Philos 17, 325–337 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-013-9539-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-013-9539-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation