temp_copy

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and Moral Psychology speaker series –a working group where speakers are invited to present well-developed, as yet unpublished work.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 Ross Gordon In their recent paper on neuroenhancement, Brian Earp and his colleagues draw a distinction between “functional enhancement [and] enhancement of well-being,” arguing that the former, dominant construction cannot deal with the ways in which welfare is often enhanced by functional diminishment. On these grounds, the authors propose a “ welfarist ” paradigm, which defines enhancement as “any change in the biology or psychology of a person which increases the chances of leading a good life in a given set of circumstances.” On one level, I think Earp's welfarist approach both clarifies debates about enhancement and usefully broadens the set of interventions that could be understood as “enhancing.” On another level, however, I think his discussion of welfare begs a set of far more crucial questions: namely, what does it mean to talk about a “good life,” what “given set of circumstances” exist, and what is the relationship between individual welfare and broader social stru...

By Elisabeth Hildt, PhD Dr. Elisabeth Hildt is a Senior Researcher, Reader, and Head of the Research Group on Neuroethics/Neurophilosophy at the University of Mainz Department of Philosophy. She is also a member of the AJOB Neuroscience Editorial Board. Recently, non-medical uses of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) which aim at enhancing brain function in healthy individuals have raised public attention (Cohen Kadosh et al. 2012; Fitz & Reiner 2013; Levasseur-Moreau et al. 2013).There are companies selling tDCS devices, and one such company is foc.us , which offers a headset for $249.00 and promotes this headset as an advantage for gaming. With slogans such as: “Use the force: Let the force of electricity excite your neurons into firing faster” or “Stronger, faster, quicker: Excite your prefrontal cortex and get the edge in online gaming”, the headset is portrayed to be a cool and trendy game add-on. However, in first assessments, the benefit of the headset for gami...

By Anjan Chatterjee, M.D., F.A.A.N Anjan Chatterjee is a Professor of Neurology at the University of Pennsylvania.  His clinical practice focuses on patients with cognitive disorders. His research focuses on spatial cognition and language, attention, neuroethics, and neuroaesthetics. He is President of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics and the Chair of the Society for Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology . He is also a member of the AJOB Neuroscience editorial board. Alex Rodriguez is the latest in a long list of superstar athletes embroiled in a doping scandal. Lance Armstrong, Tyson Gay, Barry Bonds, Marion Jones, and Mark McGuire, among many others, preceded him. Competition in sports is predicated on athletes following rules; rules that try to codify fairness. Some combination of natural talent and effort is rewarded. Each athlete strives and may the best man and woman win. Despite this ethos, doping scandals abound. Almost a third of the athletes...

On March 28, Dr. Rommelfanger , Assistant Director of Emory's Neuroethics Program , gave a talk to the Nu Rho Psi group about the ethics of neuroenhancement technologies. These technologies can be anything from Adderall to interventions that raises IQ. This talk got me thinking about how the normal human aging process is critical in the way that a person views themselves and others.  Aging now battled with complex technologies. Across the world, doctors routinely perform appearance altering operations, even to the point of giving someone an entirely new face (like this man) , which certainly come with psychological consequences. While face transplants are an extreme example, other cosmetic procedures, like Botox injections to relax wrinkles, are performed millions of times a year.  But what about procedures to alter cognitive function? Is neuroenhancement technology ready to become mainstream, or is there some inherent feeling that altering the brain is off limits?  In th...

Director of Emory's Center for Ethics talks about the ethics of designer brains on Big Think. "Our values as a society will determine which psychopharmaceuticals and (down the road) which genetic enhancement technologies we choose to develop and how we use them. That's what concerns Dr. Paul Root Wolpe, senior Bioethicist at NASA and a pioneer in the field of neuroethics. Peering into his children's and grandchildren's future, he sees an America that rewards competitiveness and productivity over relationship-building, and suspects that future generations will face intense pressure to enhance their minds and bodies in unhealthy ways. The politics of technophilia vs technophobia aside, our power to manipulate our brains and genes is increasing dramatically – and it raises serious ethical questions."