Empirical Support for the Moral Salience of the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction in the Debate Over Cognitive, Affective and Social Enhancement
- 462 Downloads
The ambiguity regarding whether a given intervention is perceived as enhancement or as therapy might contribute to the angst that the public expresses with respect to endorsement of enhancement. We set out to develop empirical data that explored this. We used Amazon Mechanical Turk to recruit participants (N = 2776) from Canada and the United States. Each individual was randomly assigned to read one (and only one) vignette describing the use of a pill to enhance one of 12 cognitive, affective or social (CAS) domains. The vignettes described a situation in which an individual was using a pill to enhance the relevant domain under one of two possible enhancement conditions, one perceived as enhancing above the norm (EAN), what most people recognize as a clear case of enhancement, whereas the other perceived as enhancing towards the norm (ETN), with the individual using the enhancement having a modest, but subclinical deficit. Participants were asked how comfortable they were with the individual using the enhancement and about the impact the enhancement might have had in the individuals’ success in life. We found that irrespective of the domain to be enhanced, participants felt significantly more comfortable with ETN than with EAN, and they regarded the enhancement intervention as contributing to greater success in life with ETN rather than EAN. These data demonstrate that the therapy enhancement distinction is morally salient to the public, and that this distinction contributes to the angst that people feel when considering the propriety of CAS enhancement.
KeywordsEnhancement to the norm Enhancement above the norm Experimental neuroethics Public attitudes Cognitive Social Affective
Supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We thank Jordan Mowat for his work as a second coder.
- 1.Daniels, Norman. 1985. Just Health Care- Studies in philosophy and health policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 2.Daniels, Norman. 2008. Just health. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 3.Daniels, N. 1992. Growth Hormone Therapy for short stature: Can we support the treatment/enhancement distinction. Growth: Genetics & Hormones 8: 46–48.Google Scholar
- 4.President’s Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond therapy. Washington: President’s Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
- 5.Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2014. Gray matters: Integrative approaches for neuroscience, ethics, and society. Vol. 1. Presidential Commision for the Study of Bioethical Issues. http://www.bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/Gray%20Matters%20Vol%201.pdf. Accessed 06 June 2014.
- 6.Bostrom, Nick, and Julian Savulescu. 2009. Human enhancement ethics: The state of the debate. In Human enhancement, ed. Julian Savulescu and Nick Bostrom, 1–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 7.Harris, John. 2007. Enhancing evolution. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 8.Cabrera, Laura Y. 2011. Between different Human enhancement paradigms: the role of Nano and Neurotechnology. CSU Research Output. http://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=35277&local_base=GEN01-CSU01. Accessed 17 February 2014.
- 9.Coenen, Christopher, Mirjam Schuijff, Martijntje Smits, Pim Klaassen, Leonhard Hennen, Michael Rader, and Gregor Wolbring. 2009. Human enhancement. European Technology Assessment Group. https://www.itas.kit.edu/downloads/etag_coua09a.pdf. Accessed 17 February 2014.
- 11.Buchanan, Allen, Dan W Brock, Norman Daniels, and Daniel Wikler. 2001. From chance to choice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 13.Reiner, P B. 2013. The Biopolitics of Cognitive Enhancement. In Cognitive enhancement: An interdisciplinary perspective, eds. E. Hildt and A. G. Franke, 189–200. Trends in Augmentation of Human Performance 1. Springer.Google Scholar
- 21.Nadler, Roland C, and Peter B Reiner. 2010. A call for data to inform discussion on cognitive enhancement 5. Nature Publishing Group: 481–482. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2010.30.
- 28.Cabrera, Laura Y, and Peter B. Reiner. (submitted). A novel sequential mixed-method technique for quantification of unscripted narratives: Contrastive quantitized content analysis: 1–18.Google Scholar
- 29.Cabrera, Laura Y, Nick S. Fitz, and Peter B. Reiner. (2014). Reasons for comfort and discomfort with pharmacological enhancement of cognitive, affective, and social domains. Neuroethics. doi: 10.1007/s12152-014-9222-3.
- 30.Knobe, Joshua, and Bertram F. Malle. 2002. Self and other in the explanation of behavior: 30 years later. Psychologica Belgica 42: 113–130.Google Scholar
- 31.Willis, Gordon. 2004. Cognitive interviewing. Research Triangle Institute. http://www.uiowa.edu/~c07b209/interview.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2014.
- 34.Paolacci, Gabriele, Jesse Chandler, and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis. 2009. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5: 411–419.Google Scholar
- 36.Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G. 2010. Demographics of Mechanical Turk. Research Gate. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228140347_Demographics_of_Mechanical_Turk/links/00b7d51b0945c43fb5000000. Accessed 18 February 2014.
- 40.Chi, Michelene TH. 1997. Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 6:271–315. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1.
- 42.Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. 2003. Effect sizes in qualitative research: A prolegomenon. Quality and Quantity 37:393–409. doi: 10.1023/A:1027379223537.
- 49.Horvath, J., and T. Grundmann. 2013. Experimental philosophy and its critics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 52.Bostrom, Nick. 2011. Smart policy: Cognitive enhancement and the public interest. In Enhancing human capacities, ed. J. Savulescu, Ruud, and G. Kahane, 138–152. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- 53.Sandberg, Anders, and Julian Savulescu. 2011. The social and economic impacts of cognitive enhancement. In Enhancing human capacities, ed. J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, and G. Kahane, 92–112. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 54.Harris, J. 2009. Enhancements are a moral obligation. WellcomeScience: 16–17.Google Scholar
- 56.Quigley, Muireann. 2009. Enhancing Me, Enhancing You: Academic Enhancement as a Moral Duty. Expo 2. doi:10.1558/expo.v2i2.157.Google Scholar
- 58.Forlini, Cynthia, and Eric Racine. 2012. Added stakeholders, added value(s) to the cognitive enhancement debate: Are academic discourse and professional policies sidestepping values of stakeholders? AJOB Primary Research 3: 33–47. doi: 10.1080/21507716.2011.645116. Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.Hotze, Timothy D., Kavita Shah, Emily E. Anderson, and Matthew K. Wynia. 2011. “Doctor, would you prescribe a pill to help me … ?” A national survey of physicians on using medicine for human enhancement. The American Journal of Bioethics 11: 3–13. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2011.534957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 66.Nussbaum, Martha, and Amartya Sen. 1993. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- 67.Sen, Amartya. 1979. Equality of What? the Tanner Lecture on Human Values. Standford University.Google Scholar
- 69.Little, M.O. 2000. Cosmetic surgery, suspect norms, and the ethics of complicity. In Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications, ed. E. Parens, 162–176. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- 70.Conrad, Peter, and Valerie Leiter. 2004. Medicalization, markets and consumers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45: 158–176.Google Scholar