CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

Pharmacological cognitive enhancement and cheapened achievement: A new dilemma.

Open access
Gordon, Emma C., Dunn, Lucy·2021·Neuroethics
DOI 10.1007/s12152-021-09477-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent discussions of cognitive enhancement often note that drugs and technologies that improve cognitive performance may do so at the risk of “cheapening” our resulting cognitive achievements (e.g., Kass, Life, liberty and the defense of dignity: the challenge for bioethics, Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2004; Agar, Humanity’s end: why we should reject radical enhancement, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2010; Sandel, The case against perfection. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2007; Sandel, The case against perfection: what’s wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering?”. In: Holland (ed) Arguing about bioethics, Routledge, London, 2012; Harris in Bioethics 25:102–111, 2011). While there are several possible responses to this worry, we will highlight what we take to be one of the most promising—one which draws on a recent strand of thinking in social and virtue epistemology to construct an integrationist defence of cognitive enhancement. (e.g., Pritchard in Synthese 175:133–151, 2010; Palermos in Synthese 192:2955–2286, 2015; Clark in Synthese 192:3757–3375, 2015). According to such a line, there is—despite initial appearances to the contrary—no genuine tension between using enhancements to attain our goals and achieving these goals in a valuable way provided the relevant enhancement is appropriately integrated into the agent’s cognitive architecture (in some suitably specified way). In this paper, however, we show that the kind of integration recommended by such views will likely come at a high cost. More specifically, we highlight a dilemma for users of pharmacological cognitive enhancement: they can (1) meet the conditions for cognitive integration (and on this basis attain valuable achievements) at the significant risk of dangerous dependency, or (2) remain free of such dependency while foregoing integration and the valuable achievements that such integration enables. After motivating and clarifying the import of this dilemma, we offer recommendations for how future cognitive enhancement research may offer potential routes for navigating past it.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12152-021-09477-5

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The "cheapened achievements" worry is overstated as a general argument.

    “Recent literature and bioethics suggests that the “cheapened achievements” worry is overstated as a general argument [18,72]”

    From Ethical considerations for the use of brain–computer interfaces for cognitive enhancement (2024) · cites this paper as [72]

    Section 2.2 rejects an across-the-board view that enhancement cheapens achievement, and the concluding remarks describe the bioconservative response as problematic. But section 2.1 calls the underlying worry compelling, while section 2.3 argues that it remains difficult to answer in some cases. The paper supports a more qualified claim than that the worry is generally overstated. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Agar, Nicholas. 2010. Humanity's End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement. MIT Press.
  2. Alacam H, Basay O, Tumkaya S, Mart M, Kar G. 2018. "Modafinil Dependence: A Case with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder." Psychiatry Investigation 15(4):424-427.
  3. Bostrom, Nick, and Anders Sandberg. 2009. "Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges." Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3): 311-41.
  4. Buchanan, Allen. 2017. Better Than Human: The Promises and Perils of Biomedical Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Bradford, Gwen. 2013. "The Value of Achievement." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94(2): 204- 24.
  6. Bublitz, Jan Christoph, and Reinhard Merkel. 2009. "Autonomy and Authenticity of Enhanced Personality Traits." Bioethics 23(6): 350-74.
  7. Carter, J. Adam and Emma Gordon. 2013. "Intelligence, Well-Being and Procreative Beneficence." Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2): 122-135.
  8. Carter, J. Adam and Duncan Pritchard. 2017. "Epistemology of Cognitive Enhancement." The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34: 85-88.
  9. Chatterjee, Anjan. 2007. "Cosmetic neurology and cosmetic surgery: parallels, predictions, and challenges." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16: 129-137
  10. Clark, Andy. 2008. Supersizing the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Clark, Andy. 2015. "What "Extended Me" Knows." Synthese 192 (11): 3757-75.
  12. Clarke, Steve, Julian Savulescu, Tony Coady, Alberto Giubilini, and Sagar Sanyal, (eds). 2016. The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Earp, Brian, Olga Wudarczyk, Anders Sandberg and Julian Savulescu. 2013. 'If I Could Just Stop Loving You: Anti-Love Biotechnology and the Ethics of a Chemical Breakup.' American Journal of Bioethics 13(11): 3-17.
  14. Eddy, Nathan B., Halbach, H., Isbell, Harris. and Seevers, Maurice H. 1965. "Drug Dependence: Its Significance and Characteristics." Bulletin of the World Health Organization 32(5): 721-733.
  15. Feinberg, Joel. 1970. Doing & Deserving; Essays in the Theory of Responsibility. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  16. Gordon acknowledges that this paper was written as part of the Leverhulme-funded 'A Virtue Epistemology of Trust' (#RPG-2019-302) project, which is hosted by the University of Glasgow's COGITO Epistemology Research Centre, and would like to thank the Leverhulme Trust for supporting this research. Gordon would also like to thank an audience at Kansai University's 'Striving for Perfection' conference (February 2021). Norepinephrine, Dopamine and Acetylcholine From the Brainstem Reticular Formation." Frontiers in Neuroanatomy 13.
  17. Hellman M, Majamäki M, Rolando S, Bujalski M, and Lemmens P. 2015. "What Causes Addiction Problems? Environmental, Biological and Constitutional Explanations in Press Portrayals From Four European Welfare Societies." Substance Use & Misuse 50(4):419-438.
  18. Koob G and Bloom F. 1998. "Cellular and molecular mechanisms of drug dependence. Science." 242(4879):715-723.
  19. Gilleen, J., Michalopoulou, P.G., Reichenberg, A., Drake, R.., Wykes, T. Lewis, S.W. and Kapur, S. 2014. "Modafinil combined with cognitive training is associated with improved learning in healthy volunteers -A randomised controlled trial." European Neuropsychopharmacology 24(4): 529-539.
  20. Gilman, Alfred Goodman, Joel G. Hardman and Lee E. Limbird 2001. Goodman & Gilman's the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  21. Giubilini, Alberto and Francesca Minerva. 2019. "Enhancing Equality." The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 44(3): Volume 44, 335-54.
  22. Gottlieb, Scott. 2021 "Methylphenidate works by increasing dopamine levels." British Medical Journal 322(7281): 259.
  23. Gyngell, Chris and Michael. J. Seigeld. 2016. "Human enhancement: Conceptual clarity and moral significance" in S. Clarke, J. Savulescu, C. A. J. Coady, A. Giubilini, & S. Sanyal (eds.), The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate, pp. 111- 126.
  24. Harris, John. 2011. "Moral enhancement and freedom." Bioethics 25(2):102-11.
  25. He B., Yuan H., Meng J., Gao S. 2020. "Brain-Computer Interfaces" in Neural Engineering, B. He (ed.). Springer: Cham.
  26. Heal D, Smith S, Gosden J, Nutt D. 2013. "Amphetamine, past and present -a pharmacological and clinical perspective." Journal of Psychopharmacology 27(6):479-496.
  27. Heersmink, Richard. 2015. "Dimensions of Integration in Embedded and Extended Cognitive Systems." Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 13 (3): 577-598.
  28. Hytonen-Ng, Elina. 2016. "Experiencing 'flow' in jazz performance." London: Routledge, 2016.
  29. Knott, Gavin J. and Doudna, Jennifer A. 2018. "CRISPR-Cas guides the future of genetic engineering." Science 361(6405): pp. 866-869.
  30. Kollins S, MacDonald E, Rush C. 2001. "Assessing the abuse potential of methylphenidate in nonhuman and human subjects: a review." Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. 68(3):611-627.
  31. Kraemer, Felicitas. 2011. "Authenticity Anyone? The Enhancement of Emotions via Neuro- Psychopharmacology." Neuroethics 4(1): 51-64.
  32. Linssen, A.M.W., Sambeth, A., Vuurman, E.F.P.M. and Riedel, W.J. 2014. "Cognitive effects of methylphenidate in healthy volunteers: a review of single dose studies." International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 17(60): 961-977.
  33. Morton W, Stock G. 2000. "Methylphenidate Abuse and Psychiatric Side Effects." The Primary Care Companion to The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 02(05):159-164.
  34. Nakamura, Jeanne, and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2014. "The Concept of Flow." Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. Springer, Dordrecht, 2014. 239-263.
  35. Palermos, Spyridon Orestis. 2015. "Active Externalism, Virtue Reliabilism and Scientific Knowledge." Synthese 192 (9): 2955-86.
  36. Pritchard, Duncan. 2010. "Cognitive Ability and the Extended Cognition Thesis." Synthese 175(1): 133-51.
  37. Sandel, Michael. J. 2007. The Case Against Perfection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  38. Sandel, Michael J. 2012. "The case against perfection: what's wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering?" in Arguing About Bioethics, S. Holland (ed.). London: Routledge.
  39. Persson, Ingmar and Julian Savulescu. 2008. "The Perils of Cognitive Enhancement and the Urgent Imperative to Enhance the Moral Character of Humanity." Journal of Applied Philosophy 25(3): 162-177.
  40. Persson, Ingmar and Julian Savulescu. 2012. Unfit For the Future: The Need For Moral Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  41. Pritchard, Duncan. 2012. "Anti-luck virtue epistemology." Journal of Philosophy 109: 247-79.
  42. Savulescu, J. and Sandberg, A. 2008. "Neuroenhancement of Love and Marriage: The Chemicals Between Us." Neuroethics 1(1): 31-44.
  43. Schermer, Maartje. 2008. "Enhancements, Easy Shortcuts, and the Richness of Human Activities" Bioethics 22 (7): 355-63.
  44. Simon P, Hémet C, Ramassamy C, Costentin J. 1995. "Non-amphetaminic mechanism of stimulant locomotor effect of modafinil in mice. European Neuropsychopharmacology." 5(4): 5 09-514.
  45. Sosa, Ernest. 2010. A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Vol. 1. Oxford; Oxford University Press.
  46. Sosa, Ernest. 2015. Judgement and Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  47. Sussman S and Sussman A. 2011. "Considering the Definition of Addiction." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8(10):4025-4038.
  48. Wang, Ju. 2021 "Cognitive Enhancement and the Value of Cognitive Achievement." Journal of Applied Philosophy, 38: 121-135.
  49. Zagzebski, Linda. 1996. Virtues of the mind: an inquiry into the nature of virtue and the ethical foundations of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gordon, E. C., & Dunn, L.
Affiliations
University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
Gordon, Emma C.
ORCID
Gordon, Emma C.
Venue
Neuroethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-10-28
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
409-421
ISSN
  • 1874-5490 (ISSN-L)
  • 1874-5504
DOI
10.1007/s12152-021-09477-5
OpenAlex
W3208028488
Cited by
6
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Neuroethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Leverhulme Trust (#RPG-2019-302)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
pharmacological cognitive enhancement, cognitive integration, cognitive architecture, dependency, integrationism, virtue epistemology, social epistemology, ethics of enhancement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review