Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 1017–1038 | Cite as

Converging Technologies: A Critical Analysis of Cognitive Enhancement for Public Policy Application

Original Paper


This paper investigates cognitive enhancement, specifically biological cognitive enhancement (BCE), as a converging technology, and its implications for public policy. With an increasing rate of technological advancements, the legal, social, and economic frameworks lag behind the scientific advancements that they support. This lag poses significant challenges for policymakers if it is not dealt with sufficiently within the right analytical context. Therefore, the driving question behind this paper is, “What contingencies inform the advancement of biological cognitive enhancement, and what would society look like under this set of assumptions?” The paper is divided into five components: (1) defining the current policy context for BCEs, (2) analyzing the current social and economic outcomes to BCEs, (3) investigating the context of cost-benefit arguments in relation to BCEs, (4) proposing an analytical model for evaluating contingencies for BCE development, and (5) evaluating a simulated policy, social, technological, and economic context given the contingencies. In order to manage the risk and uncertainty inherent in technological change, BCEs’ drivers must be scrutinized and evaluated.


Cognitive enhancement Biological cognitive enhancement Technology change Public values Technology governance Risk management 


  1. AAAS. (2011). AAAS news and notes. Science. 333(6045), 1108.
  2. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2008). The role of institutions in growth and development. Commission on growth and development, World Bank, Working Paper No. 10.Google Scholar
  3. Alazraki, M. (2011). The 10 biggest-selling drugs that are about to lose their patent. Daily finance.
  4. American Medical Association (AMA). (1994). Prenatal genetic screening. American Medical Association 2, 633–642.
  5. Ashby, W. (1956). Introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Bean, S. (2011). Emerging and continuing trends in vaccine opposition website content. Vaccine, 29, 1874–1880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Block, F., & Keller, M. (2008). Where do innovations come from? Transformations in the U.S. national innovation system, 19702006. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Washington D.C., USA.
  8. Bostrom, N. (2008a). Reshaping the human condition: Exploring human enhancement. In L. Zonneveld, H. Dijstelbloem, & D. Ringoir (Eds.), Collaboration with the British embassy, science and innovation network and the parliamentary office of science & technology. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Bostrom, N. (2008b). Drugs can be used to treat more than a disease. Nature, 451(7178), 520.Google Scholar
  10. Bostrom, N. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science Engineering Ethics, 15(3), 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bostrom, N., & Ord, T. (2004). Status quo bias in bioethics: The case for human enhancement.
  12. Bostrom, N., & Roache, R. (2009). Smart policy: Cognitive enhancement and public interest. England: Future of Humanity Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Bostrom, N., & Roache, R. (2011). Smart policy: Cognitive enhancement and the public interest. In J. Savulescu, R. ter Muelen, & G. Kahane (Eds.), Enhancing human capabilities. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2007). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics.Google Scholar
  15. Bozeman, B. (2002). Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 145–161.Google Scholar
  16. Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2005). Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Breithaupt, H., & Weigmann, K. (2004). Manipulating your mind. European Molecular Biology Organization. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
  18. Buchanan, A. (2011). Cognitive enhancement and education. Theory and Research in Education., 9, 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Butefisch, C., Khurana, V., Kopylev, L., & Cohen, L. (2004). Enhancing encoding of a motor memory in the primary motor cortex by cortical stimulation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91(5), 2110–2116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cacio, J. (2009). Get smarter. The Atlantic.
  21. Caldwell, J., Jr, Caldwell, H., Smyth, N., & Hall, K. (2000). A double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation of the efficacy of modafinil for sustaining the alertness and performance of aviators: A helicopter simulator study. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 150(3), 272–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Card, D. (1999). The causal effect of education on earnings. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics. volume 3, part 1, handbooks in economics (pp. 1801–1863). New York: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Card, David. (2001). Estimating the return to schooling: Progress on some persistent econometric problems. Econometrica, 69(5), 1127–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Carneiro, P., Heckman, J., & Vytlacil, E. (2011). Estimating marginal returns to education. American Economic Review, 101, 2754–2781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review.Google Scholar
  26. Cowper, P., DeLong, E., Whellan, D., LaPointe, A., & Califf, R. (2004). Economic effects of beta-blocker therapy in patients with heart failure. American Journal of Medicine, 116(2), 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cure Alzheimer’s Fund. (2012).
  28. Dee, T. (2004). Are there civic returns to education? Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1697–1720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Drutman, L. (2009). The business of America is lobbying: Explaining the growth of corporate political activity in Washington. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  30. Department of Defense. (2011). Defense advanced research projects agency fiscal year 2012 budget estimates.
  31. Eack, S., Hogarty, G., Cho, R., Prasad, K., Greenwald, D., Hogarty, S., & Keshavan, M. (2010). Neuroprotective effects of cognitive enhancement against gray matter loss in early schizophrenia: Results from a 2-year randomized controlled trial. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(7), 674–682.Google Scholar
  32. European Parliament. (2006). Technology assessment on converging technologies: Literature study and vision assessment. Scientific and technological options assessment.
  33. Fisher, R. (2000). The primate appendix: A reassessment. Anatomical Record, 261(6), 228–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2012). Regulatory information.
  35. Fregni, F., Boggio, P., Nitsche, M., et al. (2005). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal cortex enhances working memory. Experimental Brain Research, 166(1), 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402, C81–C84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gill, M., Haerich, P., Westcott, K., Godenick, L., & Tucker, J. (2006). Cognitive performance following modafinil versus placebo in sleep-deprived emergency physicians: a double-blind randomized crossover study. Academic Emergency Medicine, 13(2), 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Glover, J. (2006). Choosing children: The ethical dilemmas of genetic intervention. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Greely, H. (2010). Enhancing brains: What are we afraid of?
  40. GlaxoSmithCline (2011) 2011 Annual report for shareholders.
  41. Goyal, R. (2008). Role of public perception and regulations in the acceptance of genetically engineered foods. Institute for Food Laws and Regulations, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  42. Herman, W., & Devey, G. (2011). Future trends in medical device technologies: A 10-year forecast. Federal Drug Administration.
  43. Hills, T., & Hertwig, R. (2011). Why aren’t we smarter already: Evolutionary trade-offs and cognitive enhancements. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hofmann, S. G., Meuret, A. E., Smits, J. A. J., Simon, N. M., Pollack, M. H., Eisenmenger, K., et al. (2006). Augmentation of exposure therapy with d-Cycloserine for social anxiety disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(3), 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hon, A. (2012). Smart drugs. A history of the future. Despite being a blog, it is maintained by a seemingly well-versed individual in the field; see for a biography.
  46. Ivinson, A., Lane, R., May, P., Hosford, D., Carrillo, M., & Siemers, E. (2008). Partnership between academia and industry for drug discovery in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s and Dementia, 4, 80–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnston, S., Hauser, S., & Desmond-Hellman, S. (2011). Enhancing ties between academia and industry to improve health. Nature Medicine, 17(4), 434–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kennedy, D. O., Pace, S., Haskell, C., Okello, E. J., Milne, A., & Scholey, A. B. (2006). Effects of cholinesterase inhibiting sage (Salvia Officinalis) on mood, anxiety and performance on a psychological stressor battery. Neuropsychopharmacology, 31(4), 845–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kurzweil, R. (2000). The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  50. Legal View. (2012). Cephalon board rejects valeant’s unsolicited $5.7 billion bid as too low.
  51. Lehmann, L., Kaufman, D., Sharp, R., Moreno, T., Mountain, J., Roberts, S., et al. (2012). Navigating a research partnership between academia and industry to assess the impact of personalized genetic testing. Genetics in Medicine, 14(2), 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lucke, J. (2012). Empirical research on attitudes toward cognitive enhancement is essential to inform policy and practice guidelines. American Journal of Bioethics, 3(1), 58–60.Google Scholar
  53. Maher, B. (2008). Poll results: Look who’s doping. Nature, 453(7195), 586.Google Scholar
  54. Makridis, C. (2012). Innovations in climate policy modeling: Endogenous R&D approaches. (Under Review). Draft available at:
  55. McManus, J., Mehta, S., McClinton, A., Lorenzo, R., & Baskin, T. (2005). Informed consent and ethical issues in military medical research. American Emergency Medicine, 12(11), 1120–1126.Google Scholar
  56. Mekel-Bobrov, N., Gilbert, B., Evans, P., Vallender, E., Anderson, J., Hudson, R., et al. (2005). Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens. Science, 309(5741), 1720–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. MITRE. (2008). Human performance. The MITRE Corporation, JSR-07-625.Google Scholar
  58. Myrick, H., Malcolm, R., Taylor, B., & LaRowe, S. (2004). Modafinil: Preclinical, clinical, and post-marketing surveillance—a review of abuse liability issues. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 16(2), 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nitsche, M., Schauenburg, A., Lang, N., et al. (2003). Facilitation of implicit motor learning by weak transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex in the human. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(4), 619–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Next Big Future. (2008). $3 billion super soldier program: 10 times muscle endurance, 7 foot vertical leap, wall crawling, personal flight and more.
  61. National Science Foundation. (2012). FY 2013 budget request to congress.
  62. Partridge, B., Bell, S., Lucke, J., Yeates, S., & Hall, W. (2011). Smart drugs ‘‘as common as coffee’’: Media hype about neuroenhancement. PLoS ONE, 6(11), e28416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pascual-Leone, A., Tarazona, F., Keenan, J., et al. (1999). Transcranial magnetic stimulation and neuroplasticity. Neuropsychologia, 37(2), 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pfeizer. (2012). Research and development.
  66. Prescott, E., & Parente, S. (2002). Barriers to riches. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Ressler, K., Rothbaum, R., Tannenbaum, L., Anderson, P., Graap, K., Zimand, E., et al. (2004). Cognitive enhancers as adjuncts to psychotherapy—use of d-Cycloserine in phobic individuals to facilitate extinction of fear. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61(11), 1136–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sandberg, A., & Bostrom, N. (2006). Converging cognitive enhancements. England: Future of Humanity Institute.Google Scholar
  69. Saniotis, A. (2009). Present and future developments in cognitive enhancement technologies. Journal of Future Studies, 14(1), 27–38.Google Scholar
  70. Scotsman News. (2009). Price of intelligence is increased risk of cancer.
  71. Smart Drugs and Nootropic Information and Resources (SDNIR). (2012). History behind smart drugs.
  72. Taylor, P. (2010). Drug discovery collaborations between academia and the pharmaceutical industry: Cultural factors, intellectual property considerations, case studies, and future trends. Business Insights Ltd.
  73. Teitelman, E. (2001). Off-label uses of modafinil. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(8), 1341.Google Scholar
  74. The Presidential Bioethics Council (PBC). (2003). Beyond therapy biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness.
  75. Whitbeck, B. (2011). Taming the beast: Cognitive enhancement, ethical implications, and regulating today for tomorrow’s scientific and technological advancements in neuroscience.
  76. Whitehouse, P., Juengst, E., Mehlman, M., & Murray, T. (1997). Enhancing cognition in the intellectually intact. Hastings Center Report, 27(3), 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wiliams, E. (2006). Good, better, best: The human quest for enhancement. summary report of an invitational workshop convened by the scientific freedom, responsibility and law program. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  78. Wolbring, G. (2003). Confined to your legs. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  79. Wood, D. (2006). Army uses experimental training to bulk up brain power. Newhouse News Service.
  80. Zuckerman, A., & Markham, C. (2006). Why neuroscience business development? Healthcare Financial Management Association. Westchester, IL.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering, Huang Engineering CenterStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.North American Center for Transborder StudyTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations