Advertisement

Monash Bioethics Review

, Volume 32, Issue 3–4, pp 189–204 | Cite as

Distributive justice and cognitive enhancement in lower, normal intelligence

  • Mikael Dunlop
  • Julian Savulescu
Original Article

Abstract

There exists a significant disparity within society between individuals in terms of intelligence. While intelligence varies naturally throughout society, the extent to which this impacts on the life opportunities it affords to each individual is greatly undervalued. Intelligence appears to have a prominent effect over a broad range of social and economic life outcomes. Many key determinants of well-being correlate highly with the results of IQ tests, and other measures of intelligence, and an IQ of 75 is generally accepted as the most important threshold in modern life. The ability to enhance our cognitive capacities offers an exciting opportunity to correct disabling natural variation and inequality in intelligence. Pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers, such as modafinil and methylphenidate, have been shown to have the capacity to enhance cognition in normal, healthy individuals. Perhaps of most relevance is the presence of an ‘inverted U effect’ for most pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers, whereby the degree of enhancement increases as intelligence levels deviate further below the mean. Although enhancement, including cognitive enhancement, has been much debated recently, we argue that there are egalitarian reasons to enhance individuals with low but normal intelligence. Under egalitarianism, cognitive enhancement has the potential to reduce opportunity inequality and contribute to relative income and welfare equality in the lower, normal intelligence subgroup. Cognitive enhancement use is justifiable under prioritarianism through various means of distribution; selective access to the lower, normal intelligence subgroup, universal access, or paradoxically through access primarily to the average and above average intelligence subgroups. Similarly, an aggregate increase in social well-being is achieved through similar means of distribution under utilitarianism. In addition, the use of cognitive enhancement within the lower, normal intelligence subgroup negates, or at the very least minimises, several common objections to cognitive enhancement. Subsequently, this paper demonstrates that there is a compelling case for cognitive enhancement use in individuals with lower, normal intelligence.

Keywords

Cognitive enhancement Pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement Egalitarianism Prioritarianism Utilitarianism Lower normal intelligence 

References

  1. Advokat, C. 2010. What are the cognitive effects of stimulant medications? Emphasis on adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 34: 1256–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnsten, A., J. Cai, B. Murphy, and P. Goldman-Rakic. 1994. Dopamine D1 receptor mechanisms in the cognitive performance of young adult and aged monkeys. Psychopharmacology 116: 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bain, J., M.A. Prendergast, and A.V. Terry Jr. 2003. Enhanced attention in rhesus monkeys as a common factor for the cognitive effects of drugs with abuse potential. Psychopharmacology 169(2): 150–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barch, D.M. 2004. Pharmacological manipulation of human working memory. Psychopharmacology 174: 126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batty, G.D., I.J. Deary, and L.S. Gottfredson. 2007. Pre-morbid (early life) IQ and later mortality risk: Systematic review. Annals of Epidemiology 17(4): 278–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, S.K., J.C. Lucke, and W.D. Hall. 2012. Lessons for enhancement from the history of cocaine and amphetamine use. AJOB Neuroscience 3: 24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bostrom, N., and R. Roache. 2008. Ethical issues in human enhancement. Nanoethics 2(3): 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caldwell, J.A., J.L. Caldwell, and E. Al. 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 150: 272–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Jongh, R., I. Bolt, M. Schermer, and B. Olivier. 2008. Botox for the brain: Enhancement of cognition, mood and pro-social behavior and blunting of unwanted memories. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 32: 760–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Wit, H., J.D. Flory, A. Acheson, M. McCloskey, and S.B. Manuck. 2007. IQ and nonplanning impulsivity are independently associated with delay discounting in middle-aged adults. Personality and Individual Differences 42: 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edgerton, R.B. 1993. The cloak of competence, revised and updated edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Elliott, R., B.J. Sahakian, K. Matthews, A. Bannerjea, J. Rimmer, and T.W. Robbins. 1997. Effects of methylphenidate on spatial working memory and planning in healthy young adults. Psychopharmacology 131: 196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farah, M.J., J. Illes, R. Cook-Deegan, H. Gardener, E. Kandel, P. King, and E. Al. 2004. Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5: 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fukuyama, F. 2002. Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.Google Scholar
  15. Gill, M., P. Haerich, K. Westcott, K.L. Godenick, and J.A. Tucker. 2006. Cognitive performance following modafinil versus placebo in sleep-deprived emergency physicians: A double-blind randomized crossover study. Academic Emergency Medicine 13: 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gottfredson, L.S. 1997. Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence 24: 79–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gottfredson, L.S. 2003. g, jobs, and life. In The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen, ed. H. Nyborg. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  18. Gottfredson, L.S. 2006. Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability. In Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais Porto Allegre, ed. H. Flores-Mendoza, and R. Colom. Brazil: ArtMed Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Gottfredson, L.S. 2011. Intelligence and social inequality: Why the biological link? In Handbook of individual differences, ed. T. Chamorro-Premuzic, A. Furhnam, and S. von strumm. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Gottfredson, L.S., and I.J. Deary. 2004. Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why? Current Directions in Psyhological Science 13: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gow, A.J., M.C. Whiteman, A. Pattie, L. Whalley, J. Starr, and I.J. Deary. 2005. Lifetime intellectual function and satisfaction with life in old age: Longitudinal cohort study. BMJ 331: 141–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herrnstein, R.J., and C.A. Murray. 1994. The bell curve: Lntelligence and class structure in American life. Salt Lake: Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hoffman, S.G., A.E. Meuret, and E. Al. 2006. Augmentation of exposure therapy with D-cy-closerine for social anxiety disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry 63: 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Housden, C.R., S. Morein-Zamir, and B.J. Sahakian. 2011. Cognitive enhancing drugs: Neuroscience and society. In Enhancing human capacities, ed. J. Savulescu, R.T. Meulen, and G. Kahane. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Hunter, J.E., and F.L. Schmidt. 1996. Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2: 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hyman, S.E. 2011. Cognitive enhancement: Promises and perils. Neuron 69: 595–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kass, L. 2003. Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. The president’s council on bioethics. New York: Regan Books.Google Scholar
  28. Kirsch, I.S., A. Jungeblut, L. Jenkins, and A. Kolstad. 1993. Adult literacy in America: A first look at the results of the national adult literacy survey. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  29. Koegel, P., and R.B. Edgerton. 1984. Black “six-hour retarded children” as young adults. Monographs of the American Association on Mental Deficiency 6: 145–171.Google Scholar
  30. Koelega, H. 1993. Stimulant drugs and vigilance performance: A review. Psychopharmacology 111: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumar, R. 2008. Approved and investigational uses of modafinil: An evidence-based review. Drugs 68: 1803–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lamont, J., and C. Favor. 2005. “Distributive justice”, the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mehta, M., R. Swainson, A. Ogilvie, B. Sahakian, and T. Robbins. 2001. Improved short-term spatial working memory but impaired reversal learning following the dopamine D2 agonist bromocriptine in human volunteers. Psychopharmacology 159: 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mehta, M.A., A.M. Owen, B.J. Sahakian, N. Mavaddat, J.D. Pickard, and T.W. Robbins. 2000. Methylphenidate enhances working memory by modulating discrete frontal and parietal lobe regions in the human brain. The Journal of Neuroscience 159: 6–RC65.Google Scholar
  35. Miah, A. 2011. Ethical issues raised by human enhacement. In Values and ethics for the 21st century, ed. F. Gonzalez. Spain: BBVA.Google Scholar
  36. Mischel, W., E.B. Ebbesen, and A. Raskoff Zeiss. 1972. Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21: 204–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mohamed, A.D. 2012. Modafinil has the potential for addiction. AJOB Neuroscience 3: 36–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Müller, U., N. Steffenhagen, R. Regenthal, and P. Bublak. 2004. Effects of modafinil on working memory processes in humans. Psychopharmacology 177: 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murray, C. 2002. IQ and income inequality in a sample of sibling pairs from advantaged family backgrounds. The American Economic Review 92: 339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Newman, L., J. Darling, and J. McGaughy. 2008. Atomoxetine reverses attentional deficits produced by noradrenergic deafferentation of medial prefrontal cortex. Psychopharmacology 200: 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Outram, S.M. 2010. The use of methylphenidate among students: the future of enhancement? Journal of Medical Ethics 36: 198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Randall, D.C., J.M. Shneerson, and S.E. File. 2005. Cognitive effects of modafinil in student volunteers may depend on IQ. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 82: 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Repantis, D., P. Schlattmann, O. Laisney, and I. Heuser. 2010. Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research 62: 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ressler, K.J., B.O. Rothbaum, and E. 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: 1136–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roache, R. 2008. Enhancement and Cheating. Expositions 2: 153–156.Google Scholar
  46. Rowe, D.C., W.J. Vesterdal, and J.L. Rodgers. 1998. Herrnstein’s syllogism: genetic and shared environmental influences on IQ, education, and income. Intelligence 26: 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sandberg, A., and J. Savulescu. 2011. The social and economic impacts of cognitive enhancement. In Enhancing human capacities, ed. J. Savulescu, R.T. Meulen, and G. Kahane. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Shamosh, N.A., C.G. Deyoung, A.E. Green, D.L. Reis, M.R. Johnson, A.R. Conway, R.W. Engle, T.S. Braver, and J.R. Gray. 2008. Individual differences in delay discounting relation to intelligence, working memory, and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychological Science 19: 904–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shamosh, N.A., and J.R. Gray. 2008. Delay discounting and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Intelligence 36: 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Singh, I., and K.J. Kelleher. 2010. Neuroenhancement in young people: Proposal for research, policy, and clinical management. AJOB Neuroscience 1: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turner, D., T. Robbins, L. Clark, A. Aron, J. Dowson, and B. Sahakian. 2003. Cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology) 165: 260–269.Google Scholar
  52. Tzavara, E.T., F.P. Bymaster, and G.G. Nomikos. 2006. The procholinergic effects of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine are independent of muscarinic autoreceptor inhibition. Mol Psychiatry 11: 619–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vijayraghavan, S., M. Wang, S.G. Birnbaum, G.V. Williams, and A.F. Arnsten. 2007. Inverted-U dopamine D1 receptor actions on prefrontal neurons engaged in working memory. Nature Neuroscience 10: 376–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whalley, L.J., and I.J. Deary. 2001. Longitudinal cohort study of childhood IQ and survival up to age 76. BMJ 322: 819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wolbring, G. 2006. The unenhanced underclass. In Better humans? The politics of human enhancement and life extension, ed. P. Miller, and J. Wilsdon. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  56. Zagorsky, J.L. 2007. Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress. Intelligence 35: 489–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Monash University 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations