The value and pitfalls of speculation about science and technology in bioethics: the case of cognitive enhancement
- 925 Downloads
In the debate on the ethics of the non-medical use of pharmaceuticals for cognitive performance enhancement in healthy individuals there is a clear division between those who view “cognitive enhancement” as ethically unproblematic and those who see such practices as fraught with ethical problems. Yet another, more subtle issue, relates to the relevance and quality of the contribution of scholarly bioethics to this debate. More specifically, how have various forms of speculation, anticipatory ethics, and methods to predict scientific trends and societal responses augmented or diminished this contribution? In this paper, we use the discussion of the ethics of cognitive enhancement to explore the positive and negative contribution of speculation in bioethics scholarship. First, we review and discuss how speculation has relied on different sets of assumptions regarding the non-medical use of stimulants, namely: (1) terminology and framing; (2) scientific aspects such as efficacy and safety; (3) estimates of prevalence and consequent normalization; and (4) the need for normative reflection and regulatory guidelines. Second, three methodological guideposts are proposed to alleviate some of the pitfalls of speculation: (1) acknowledge assumptions more explicitly and identify the value attributed to assumptions; (2) validate assumptions with interdisciplinary literature; and (3) adopt a broad perspective to promote more comprehensive reflection. We conclude that, through the examination of the controversy about cognitive enhancement, we can employ these methodological guideposts to enhance the value of contributions from bioethics and minimize potential epistemic and practical pitfalls in this case and perhaps in other areas of bioethical debate.
KeywordsCognitive enhancement Methods of bioethics Speculation Neuroethics Reflexivity
Support for this work comes from a catalyst grant of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; Jennifer Chandler, PI; Eric Racine co-PI), a University of Queensland Travel Award for International Collaborative Research (Jayne Lucke), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (New Investigator Award, Eric Racine) as well as the Fonds de recherche du Québec—Santé (Career Award, Eric Racine). We extend our thanks to members of the Neuroethics Research Unit for feedback on a previous version of this manuscript and to Ms. Allison Yan and Mr. John Aspler for editorial support. Thanks to Brad Partridge who was a visiting researcher at the Neuroethics Research Unit in 2012 for feedback on the concept of this paper. Thanks also to Dr. Emily Bell and Dr. Veljko Dubljevic for comments on a draft version of this paper.
- Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Caplan, A., and P. McHugh. 2004. Shall we enhance? A debate. Cerebrum. http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=1076.
- Colander, D., H. Follmer, A. Haas, M.D. Goldberg, K. Juselius, A. Kirman, T. Lux, and B. Sloth. 2009. The financial crisis and the systemic failure of academic economics. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Department of Economics.Google Scholar
- Dewey, J. 1922. Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
- ETHENTECH. 2012. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from http://www.kth.se/abe/om-skolan/organisation/inst/philhist/phil/research/bioethics/projects/ethentech-1.64802.
- Evans, J.H. 2002. Playing God? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
- Durand, G. 1999. Introduction générale à la bioéthique: Histoire, concepts et outils. Fides-Cerf: Montréal.Google Scholar
- Farah, M.J. 2011. Overcorrecting the neuroenhancement discussion. Addiction 106(6): 1190. author reply 1190–1191.Google Scholar
- Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2009b. Disagreements with implications: Diverging discourses on the ethics of non-medical use of methylphenidate for performance enhancement. BMC Medical Ethics 10.Google Scholar
- Iversen, L. 2006. Speed, ecstasy, ritalin: The science of amphetamines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Jones, G., M. Whitaker, and M. King. 2011. Speculative ethics: Valid enterprise or tragic cul-de-sac. In Bioethics in the 21st Century, edited by A. Rudnick. InTech: 139-158. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/24279/InTech-Speculative_ethics_valid_enterprise_or_tragic_cul_de_sac_.pdf. Accessed March 19 2013.
- Jonsen, A.R., M. Siegler, and W.T. Winslade. 1998. Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Neuro-Enhancement: Responsible Research and Innovation. 2013. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from http://www.nerri.eu/eng/home.aspx.
- Outram, S., and E. Racine. 2011a. Examining reports and policies on cognitive enhancement: Approaches, rationale, and recommendations. Accountability in Research 18(5): 323–341.Google Scholar
- Parens, E. (ed.). 1998. Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- Parens, E., and J. Johnston. 2007. Does it make sense to speak of neuroethics? Three problems with keying ethics to hot new science and technology. EMBO Reports 8 Spec No: S61–S64.Google Scholar
- Racine, E. 2010. Pragmatic neuroethics: Improving treatment and understanding of the mind-brain. In Basic Bioethics, ed. G. McGee, and A. Caplan. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Racine, E., and J. Illes. 2006. Neuroethical responsibilities. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 33(3): 269–277.Google Scholar
- Sherwin, S. 1999. Foundations, frameworks, lenses: The role of theories in bioethics. Bioethics 13(3–4): 198–205.Google Scholar
- Tone, A. 2005. Listening to the past: History, psychiatry, and anxiety. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 50(7): 373–380.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. 1982. How medicine saved the life of ethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 25(4): 736–750.Google Scholar
- Van der Wilt, G.J., R. Reuzel, and H.D. Banta. 2000. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21(1): 103–115.Google Scholar
- Wolf, S.M. 1994. Shifting paradigms in bioethics and health law: The rise of a new pragmatism. American Journal of Law and Medicine 20(4): 395–415.Google Scholar
- Wolraich, M., L. Brown, R.T. Brown, G. DuPaul, M. Earls, H.M. Feldman, T.G. Ganiats, B. Kaplanek, B. Meyer, J. Perrin, K. Pierce, M. Reiff, M.T. Stein, and S. Visser. 2011. ADHD: Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 128(5): 1007–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar