Pharmacological cognitive enhancement and the value of achievements: An intervention.
Open accessAbstract
Pharmacological cognitive enhancements nontherapeutically improve cognitive functioning, though recent critics have challenged their use by claiming that cognitive success, aided by the use of cognitive enhancement, is less valuable than otherwise. We criticize two recent responses to this objection, due to Carter and Pritchard and Wang, and propose a different response on behalf of proponents of cognitive enhancement that is shown to be more promising.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Whether the cheapened achievements worry has teeth in the case of BCIs will plausibly depend on factors including the extent to which users rely on the eBCI as a mere tool versus it being deeply integrated into cognitive architecture, and whether eBCI users exhibit other abilities and skills in using eBCIs effectively.
“whether it has any teeth in the case of BCIs will plausibly depend on factors including the extent to which users rely on the eBCI as a mere tool as opposed to whether it is deeply integrated into our cognitive architecture [73] and whether eBCI users are exhibiting various other abilities and skills in the service of using eBCIs in effective ways [74].”
From Ethical considerations for the use of brain–computer interfaces for cognitive enhancement (2024) · cites this paper as [74]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
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.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ethical considerations for the use of brain–computer interfaces for cognitive enhancement
Gordon, E. C., & Seth, A. K. (2024) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002899 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Gordon, E. C., & Willis, R. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- BPP University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Gordon, Emma C.
- ORCID
- Gordon, Emma C.
- Venue
- Bioethics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-11-18
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 130-134
- ISSN
- 0269-9702 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8519
- PMC
- PMC10100424
- OpenAlex
- W4309296858
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Leverhulme Trust (#RPG‐2019‐302)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Keywords
- pharmacological cognitive enhancement, ethics of enhancement
- MeSH terms
- Achievement, Cognition, Humans
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
