Abstract
In recent years, there has been significant research and debate about whether individuals can – and should be able to – improve their memory or other aspects of their cognition with cognitive enhancement drugs.
This debate has largely been about ethics, but a debate has also emerged in legal scholarship about whether, if constitutional systems give individuals the freedom to shape their thinking in other ways (with books, conversations, software, or games), it should also give them freedom to safely do so with cognitive enhancement drugs. In the American context (which is the focus of this chapter), certain scholars argue that individuals’ long-recognized right to “freedom of thought,” under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, should, in the twenty-first century, be understood as a broad right to “cognitive liberty,” allowing us to shape our own minds medically as well as culturally.
This chapter provides an overview of this argument and then examines two major reasons why American courts might resist it. One concerns the risks and uncertainties about the safety of pharmacological cognitive enhancement. Individuals have constitutional freedom to take action that comes with at least some risks to safety: Many forms of protest can involve physical action government has cause to regulate. So it is not safety risks by themselves that weigh against finding constitutional rights. It is rather because courts may well find, in analyzing laws about cognition enhancement drugs, that it is harder to disentangle safety issues (that government does have grounds to regulate) from liberty interests (that government does not). A second reason courts may continue to treat different forms of cognition enhancement differently is that historical tradition does so – and traditional differences may, in rights jurisprudence, often override functional similarities. The chapter ends by considering how, even when individuals lack constitutional rights to use pharmacological means of cognitive enhancement, legislatures can give them “quasi-constitutional” rights to do so.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Other scholars have explored the implications of cognitive liberty in European law. Charlotte Walsh argues that right to freedom of thought and cognitive liberty in the European Convention on Human Rights justify decriminalization of psychedelics, and also argues that “should inform not only defences raised in court but also the discourse of drug policy activism more broadly.” (Walsh 2016). Understanding the constitutional status of cognitive enhancement might also be informed by a deeper exploration of scholarship on the ethics of cognitive enhancement in the United States and Europe. (See e.g., Jotterand and Dubljevic 2016; Hildt and Franke 2013; Helmchen 2021; chapter “Ethical Issues in Neuropsychopharmacotherapy: US Perspective”).
- 2.
It did so, for example, with respect to smoking cessation drug, varenicline. See Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Safety review update of Chantix (varenicline) and risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events.
References
Abigail All. for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach, 469 F.3d 129 (DC Cir. 2007) (Federal Reporter 3d, Vol. 469, 129–138).
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (United States Reports, Vol. 508, 520–580).
Clark, A. and Chalmers. D, The Extended Mind, in Clark. A., Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Experience (Oxford University Press 2008).
Cruzan by Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) (United States Reports, Vol. 497, 261–357).
Doe v. City of Lafayette, 377 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2004) (Federal Reporter 3d, Vol. 377, 757–785).
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (United States Reports, Vol. 564, 418–439).
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (United States Reports, Vol. 381, 479–531).
Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942) (Murphy, J., dissenting) (United States Reports, Vol. 316, 584–624).
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (United States Reports, Vol. 539, 558–606).
Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943) (United States Reports, Vol. 319, 141–157).
Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) (United States Reports, Vol. 491, 110–163).
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (United States Reports, Vol. 494, 431–552)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (United States Reports, Vol. 505, 883–1002).
Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992) (United States Reports, Vol. 504, 127–157).
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (United States Reports, Vol. 410, 113–178).
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (United States Reports, Vol. 539, 166–193) Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics Inc., No. 1:19-CV-6137-GHW, 2020 WL 3268495, *1-*17 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2020) Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 100,848.
Sorrell v. IMS Health, 564 U.S. 552 (2011) (United States Reports, Vol. 564, 552–603).
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S 557 (1969) (United States Reports, Vol. 394, 557–572).
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (United States Reports, Vol. 391, 367–391).
Video Software Deals Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger, 556 F.3d 950 (2009). (Federal Reporter 3d, Vol. 556, 950–967).
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (United States Reports, Vol. 521, 702–789).
Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (United States Reports, Vol. 494, 210–258).
Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965) (United States Reports, Vol. 381, 1–39).
Statutes
21 United States Code § 812.
21 United State Code §§ 821–831.
Articles, Book Chapters, and Books
Blitz MJ. Freedom of thought for the extended mind: cognitive enhancement and the constitution. Wis L Rev. 2010;2010:1049–117.
Blitz MJ. A constitutional right to thought enhancing technology. In: Dubljevic V, Jotterand F, editors. Cognitive enhancement: ethical and policy perspectives in international perspective: Oxford University Press; 2016.
Boire RG. Cognitive liberty, Part I. J Cogn Lib. 2000a;1(1):1–3.
Boire RG. Cognitive liberty, Part II. J Cogn Lib. 2000b;1(2):1–6.
Bruhl AB, Angelo CD, Sahakian B. Neuroethical issues in cognitive enhancement: modafinil as the example of a workplace drug? Brain Neurosci Adv. 2019;3
Bublitz JC, Merkel R. Crimes against minds: on mental manipulations, harms, and human right to mental self-determination. Crim L Phil. 2014;8:51–77.
Carter JA, Palermos SO. Is having your computer compromised a personal assault? The ethics of extended cognition. J Am Phil Assoc. 2016;2(4):542–60.
Deaton RJS. Neuroscience and the in Corpore-ted first amendment. First Amendment L Rev. 2006;4:181–221.
Dressler M, Sandberg A, Bublitz C, Ohla K, Trenado C, Mroczko-Wąsowicz A, Kühn S, Repantis D. Hacking the brain. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2019;10(3):1137–48.
Dubljevic V. Cognitive enhancement, rational choice and justification. Neuroethics. 2013;6:179–87.
Dubljevic V, Ryan C. Cognitive enhancement with methylphenidate and modafinil: conceptual advances and societal implications. Neurosci Neuroecono. 2015;4:25–33.
Farah MJ, Smith M, Ilieva I, Hamilton R. Cognitive enhancement. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2014;5(1):95–103.
Glannon W. Neuroethics: cognitive enhancement. In: Goldberg S, editor. Oxford philosophy handbooks. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 1–13.
Greely HT. The social effects of advances in neuroscience: legal problems, legal perspectives. In: Neuroethics: defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy, vol. 245. Judy Illes ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Greely HT, et al. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature. 2008;456:702–5.
Griffith RR, et al. Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later. J Psychopharmacol. 2008;22(6):621–32.
Heid M. Nootropics, or ‘Smart Drugs,’ are gaining popularity. But should you take them? Time. 2019;23
Helmchen H. Some remarks on the ethics of Psychopharmacotherapy from a European viewpoint. In: Riederer P, Laux G, Le W, Nagatsu T, editors. NeuroPsychopharmacotherapy; 2021.
Hildt E, Franke AG, editors. Cognitive enhancement. An interdisciplinary perspective. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013.
Jotterand F, Dubljevic V, editors. Cognitive enhancement: ethical and policy implications in international perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.
Levy N. Neuroethics: challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
Luchtman DW, Song C. Cognitive enhancement by omega-3 fatty acids from child-hood to old age: findings from animal and clinical studies. Neuropharmacology. 2013;64:550–65.
Mehlman MJ. Cognition enhancing drugs. Millbank Q. 2004;82(3):483–506.
Ricci G. Pharmacological human enhancement: an overview of the looming bioethical and regulatory challenges. Front Psych. 2020;11:–53.
Rose S. Do microdoses of LSD change your mind? Sci Am. 2019;161
Sabet KA. Much Ado about nothing: why rescheduling won’t solve advocates’ medical Marijuana problem. Wayne L Rev. 2012;58:81–101.
Sententia W. Neuroethical considerations: cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004;1013(1)
Tribe LH. American constitutional law. 2d ed. New York: Foundation Press; 1988.
Walsh C. Psychedelics and cognitive liberty: reimagining drug policy through the prism of human rights. Int J Drug Policy. 2016;29:80–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Blitz, M.J. (2022). Cognitive Enhancement and American Constitutional Law. In: Riederer, P., Laux, G., Nagatsu, T., Le, W., Riederer, C. (eds) NeuroPsychopharmacotherapy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62059-2_383
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62059-2_383
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62058-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62059-2
eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine