temp_copy

By Michael N. Tennison  Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons . Bioethicists and neuroethicists distinguish therapy from enhancement to differentiate the clusters of ethical issues that arise based on the way a drug or device is used. Taking a stimulant to treat a diagnosed condition, such as ADHD , raises different and perhaps fewer ethical issues than taking it to perform better on a test. Using a drug or device to enhance performance—whether in the workplace, the classroom, the football field, or the battlefield—grants the user a positional advantage over one’s competitors. Positional enhancement raises issues of fairness, equality, autonomy, safety, and authenticity in ways that do not arise in therapy; accordingly, distinguishing enhancement from therapy makes sense as a heuristic to flag these ethical issues.  These categories, however, do not capture the entire scope of the reasons for and contexts in which people use drugs or devices to modify their experiences. Con...

By Nada Gligorov Nada Gligorov is an associate professor in the  Bioethics Program of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai . She is also faculty for the  Clarkson University-Icahn School of Medicine Bioethics Masters Program . The primary focus of Nada’s scholarly work is the examination of the interaction between commonsense and scientific theories. Most recently, she authored of a monograph titled  Neuroethics and the Scientific Revision of Common Sense  (Studies in Brain and Mind, Springer). In 2014, Nada founded the  Working Papers in Ethics and Moral Psychology speaker series –a working group where speakers are invited to present well-developed, as yet unpublished work. Within the debate on neuroenhancement, cognitive and moral enhancements have been discussed as two different kinds of improvements achievable by different biomedical means. Pharmacological means that improve memory, attention, decision-making, or wakefulness have been accorded the sta...

By Peter Reiner Dr. Reiner is Professor and co-founder of the  National Core for Neuroethics  at the University of British Columbia where he is a member of the  Department of Psychiatry  and the  Centre for Brain Health . Dr. Reiner began his research career studying the cellular and molecular physiology of the brain, with particular interests in the neurobiology of behavioural states and the molecular underpinnings of neurodegenerative disease. In 1998, Dr. Reiner became President and CEO of Active Pass Pharmaceuticals, a drug discovery company that he founded to tackle the scourge of Alzheimer's disease. Upon returning to academic life in 2004, Dr. Reiner refocused his scholarly work in the area of neuroethics, co-founding the National Core for Neuroethics with Dr. Judy Illes in 2007. Dr. Reiner has championed quantitative analysis of public attitudes towards diverse issues in neuroethics including the propriety of cognitive and moral enhancement, the contours...

The following post is part of a special series emerging from Contemporary Issues in Neuroethics, a graduate-level course out of Emory University’s Center for Ethics. Within the past two years, the media has followed the recent turn toward exploring the characteristics of a “successful” psychopath. A simple Google search on “successful psychopathy” now renders a slew of attention-grabbing articles ranging from How to Protect Yourself from a Successful Psychopath to Why Psychopaths are More Successful to Is Your Boss a Psychopath? Together, these articles reference some of America’s more fascinating psychopathic fictional characters, such as Dexter , Jordan Belfort from The Wolf of Wall Street, and Frank Underwood from House of Cards, to create a case for an adaptive psychopath. The recent discussion about the successful psychopathic personality in the media most certainly raises questions about the nature of psychopathy and the ethical implications of concluding that some psychopath...

By Lindsey Grubbs Lindsey Grubbs is a PhD student in the English Department at Emory University , where she is also working on a certificate in bioethics. She holds a master’s degree in English and gender studies from the University of Wyoming . She is interested in the relationship between literature and science, and works with American literature from the nineteenth century until today to interrogate and complicate the boundaries between health and wellness, normalcy and aberrance, and physical and mental complaints. As neuroscientists begin to approach topics usually falling under the purview of other specialties, how can they ethically incorporate various forms of knowledge rather than provide simplified metrics that will, in a data hungry society, be easier for most to latch onto? In 2013, we saw the publication of at least two high profile studies claiming neuroscientific proof for the potential moral benefits of reading fiction. Greg Berns and his associates published “ Short- ...

By Brian Earp, MSc Photo by Rob Judges Brian Earp is a Research Fellow at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford. He is an interdisciplinary researcher with training in cognitive science, experimental (social) psychology, philosophy, and ethics. With Professor Julian Savulescu , Brian is writing a book on the neuroenhancement of love and marriage, to be completed this year. There is a big debate going on about “enhancement.” For many years now, people have realized that new technologies, along with discoveries in neuroscience and pharmacology, could be used in ways that seem to go beyond mere “medicine” – the treating of deformity or disease. Instead, to use a phrase popularized by Carl Elliot, they could make us “better than well.” Faster, stronger, smarter, happier. Quicker to learn, slower to forget. It has even been suggested that we could use these new technologies to “enhance” our love and relationships , or make ourselves more moral .  These ki...