Regulating the Use of Cognitive Enhancement: an Analytic Framework

A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals

This study is a pilot literature review that compares the interest of neuroethicists and neuroscientists. It aims to determine whether there is a significant gap between the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics journals and neuroscience journals. We retrieved 614 articles from two specialist neuroethics journals (Neuroethics and AJOB Neuroscience) and 82 neuroethics-focused articles from three specialist neuroscience journals (Neuron, Nature Neuroscience, and Nature Reviews Neuroscience). We classified these articles in light of the neuroethical issue in question before we compared the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics with those addressed by neuroscientists. A notable result is a parallelism between them as a general tendency. Neuroscientific articles cover most neuroethical issues discussed by philosophical ethicists and vice versa. Subsequently, there are notable discrepancies between the two bodies of neuroethics literature. For instance, theoretical questions, such as the ethics of moral enhancement and the philosophical implications of neuroscientific findings on our conception of personhood, are more intensely discussed in philosophical-neuroethical articles. Conversely, neuroscientific articles tend to emphasize practical questions, such as how to successfully integrate ethical perspectives into scientific research projects and justifiable practices of animal-involving neuroscientific research. These observations will help us settle the common starting point of the attempt at "ethics integration" in emerging neuroscience, contributing to better governance design and neuroethical practice.

Super-Men and Wonder-Women: the Relationship Between the Acceptance of Self-enhancement, Personality, and Values

Due to ongoing technological innovations, self-enhancement methods are publicly discussed, researched from different perspectives, and part of ethical debates. However, only few studies investigated the acceptance of these methods and its relationship with personality traits and values. The present study investigated to what extent people accept different enhancement methods and whether acceptance can be predicted by Big Five and Dark Triad traits, vulnerable narcissism, and values. In an online survey (N = 450), we measured personality traits and values. Additionally, participants read scenarios about enhancement methods and answered questions about their acceptance of these scenarios. Factor analysis indicated a general factor of acceptance across scenarios. Correlation analyses showed that high agreeableness, agreeableness-compassion, conscientiousness, conscientiousness-industriousness, and conservation- and self-transcendence values are related to less acceptance of self-enhancement. Moreover, individuals high on Dark Triad traits, vulnerable narcissism, and self-enhancement values exhibit more acceptance. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that said values and Big Five traits explained unique variance in the acceptance of self-enhancement. These findings highlight the importance of considering personality and values when investigating self-enhancement—a topic that is receiving increasing attention by the public, politicians, and scientists.

Acceptability of Neuroscientific Interventions in Education

Researchers are increasingly applying neuroscience technologies that probe or manipulate the brain to improve educational outcomes. However, their use remains fraught with ethical controversies. Here, we investigate the acceptability of neuroscience applications to educational practice in two groups of young adults: those studying bioscience who will be driving future basic neuroscience research and technology transfer, and those studying education who will be choosing among neuroscience-derived applications for their students. Respondents rated the acceptability of six scenarios describing neuroscience applications to education spanning multiple methodologies, from neuroimaging to neuroactive drugs to brain stimulation. They did so from two perspectives (student, teacher) and for three recipient populations (low-achieving, high-achieving students, students with learning disabilities). Overall, the biosciences students were more favorable to all neuroscience applications than the education students. Scenarios that measured brain activity (i.e., EEG or fMRI) to assess or predict intellectual abilities were deemed more acceptable than manipulations of mental activity by drug use or stimulation techniques, which may violate body integrity. Enhancement up to the norm for low-achieving students and especially students with learning disabilities was more favorably viewed than enhancement beyond the norm for high-achieving students. Finally, respondents rated neuroscientific applications to be less acceptable when adopting the perspective of a teacher than that of a student. Future studies should go beyond the acceptability ratings collected here to delineate the role that concepts of access, equity, authenticity, agency and personal choice play in guiding respondents' reasoning.

Ethical and Legal Considerations of Alternative Neurotherapies

Neurotherapies for diagnostics and treatment-such as electroencephalography (EEG) neurofeedback, single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) imaging for neuropsychiatric evaluation, and off-label/experimental uses of brain stimulation-are continuously being offered to the public outside mainstream healthcare settings. Because these neurotherapies share many key features of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) techniques-and meet the definition of CAM as set out in Kaptchuk and Eisenberg-here we refer to them as "alternative neurotherapies." By explicitly linking these alternative neurotherapy practices under a common conceptual framework, this paper draws attention to, and critically considers, the cross-cutting ethical and legal issues related to the provision of these services. The first section of this paper provides an updated empirical overview of uses of SPECT neuropsychiatric evaluations, EEG neurofeedback, and experimental/off-label forms of brain stimulation. Next, drawing on CAM bioethics scholarship, we highlight the pertinent ethical issues in the alternative neurotherapy context, including the truthful representation of evidence base, marketing to vulnerable populations, potential harms, provider competency, and conflicts of interest. Finally, we consider the principal legal issues at stake for the provision of alternative neurotherapies in the U.S., namely those related to licensing and scope-of-practice considerations. We conclude with recommendations for future research in this domain.

Would Nonconsensual Criminal Neurorehabilitation Express a more Degrading Attitude Towards Offenders than Consensual Criminal Neurorehabilitation?

It has been proposed that reoffending could be reduced by manipulating the neural underpinnings of offenders’ criminogenic mental features with what have been called neurocorrectives. The legitimacy of such use of neurotechnology – criminal neurorehabilitation, as the use is called – is usually seen to presuppose valid consent by the offenders subjected to it. According to a central criticism of nonconsensual criminal neurorehabilitation, nonconsensual use of neurocorrectives would express a degrading attitude towards offenders. In this article, I consider this criticism of nonconsensual criminal neurorehabilitation. By using cases of autonomous persons who lead a subservient existence as an example, I propose that nonconsensual criminal neurorehabilitation need not express a more degrading attitude towards offenders than consensual criminal neurorehabilitation. The argument of this article does not show that nonconsensual criminal neurorehabilitation is morally or legally acceptable. Yet, in view of the argument, criticizing nonconsensual criminal neurorehabilitation for expressing a degrading attitude towards offenders is not compatible with simultaneously endorsing consensual criminal neurorehabilitation.

Cognitive Enhancing Drugs in Sport: Current and Future Concerns

Sporting authorities and policy makers have warned of a radical increase in the availability and use of so-called 'smart' drugs, which putatively deliver cognitive enhancements in the form of improved focus, concentration, alertness, and rapid decision-making. Although the potential for health risks is well documented when it comes to performance enhancing drugs in sport, the health implications of cognitive enhancing drugs (CEDs) remain unclear. Objectives: This article aims to provide a foundational understanding about CEDs and their application in sport. It considers what little is known about the types, nature, impact, and implications of their use for athletes and sport policy. Method: A narrative literature review was undertaken to ascertain the emerging role of CEDs beyond their clinical use to treat prescribed disorders, including the limited studies in the sporting domain. This review also considered literature pertinent to the impact of CEDs in sport and the challenges for sport policy. Results: Given the prospects of negative health impacts, policy-makers interested in preventing and controlling the use of CEDs, as well as reducing harm to athletes at all levels of performance, need guidance. This article highlights multi-faceted concerns and shines a spotlight on key issues for sporting bodies to consider regarding the critical impact that widespread use and adoption of these substances might entail. Conclusion: While the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is seemingly awake to the threat posed, actions to circumvent the spread of CEDs throughout sport are nascent and require greater understanding and attention.

Neuroenhancement, the Criminal Justice System, and the Problem of Alienation

It has been suggested that neuroenhancements could be used to improve the abilities of criminal justice authorities. Judges could be made more able to make adequately informed and unbiased decisions, for example. Yet, while such a prospect appears appealing, the views of neuroenhanced criminal justice authorities could also be alien to the unenhanced public. This could compromise the legitimacy and functioning of the criminal justice system. In this article, I assess possible solutions to this problem. I maintain that none of them qualifies as a satisfactory general solution to it, a solution that could reasonably be taken to solve the problem or to suffice for dealing with it in at least most cases. Yet I also suggest that, depending on contingent empirical circumstances, the responses – either singly or together – can sometimes amount to a sufficient answer to it.