Journal of Cognitive Enhancement

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 388–396 | Cite as

Cognitive Enhancement through Genetic Editing: a New Frontier to Explore (and to Regulate)?

  • Andrea LavazzaEmail author
Original Article


Not too many years ago, the possibility of cognitive enhancement through genetic engineering interventions seemed to be not only very distant, but also a dead end. In few years the situation has changed: today we have available new generation of genetic editing techniques—in particular CRISPR-Cas9—which allows to cut and paste with precision into the coding sequence of bases of a single gene, yielding results that were previously unthinkable in terms of simplicity and applicative accuracy (science fiction excluded). On the other hand, recent studies have identified some genes that can play a very important role in controlling specific cognitive functions. In this article, in addition to accounting for these advances in research, I examine, from a neuroethical perspective, some emerging critical issues related to enhancement via genetic editing. First of all, I consider the safety of the practice. Secondly, I address other ethical issues, some of which seem to suggest that we need extreme caution before embarking on the path of genetic editing. Finally, I discuss the parents’ will to give their children better cognitive skills. In general, faced with the prospect of a radical and sudden change in cognitive endowments, the most pertinent course of action seems to be to identify the individual and social factors of human well-being that are most shared, and assess whether cognitive enhancement through genetic editing goes in that direction.


Neuroethics CRISPR Liberal eugenics Parental genetic shaping Biohacker 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.


  1. Agar, N. (2004). Liberal eugenics. In Defence of human enhancement. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Bess, M. (2015). Our grandchildren redesigned: life in the bioengineered society of the near future. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bonduriansky, R., & Day, T. (2018). Extended heredity: a new understanding of inheritance and evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brighouse, H., & Swift, A. (2006). Equality, priority, and positional goods. Ethics, 116(3), 471–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, A. E. (2011). Beyond humanity? The ethics of biomedical enhancement. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaway, E. (2018). Controversial CRISPR ‘gener drives’ tested in mammals for the first time. Nature, 559(7713), 164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Clayton, M. (2006). Justice and legitimacy in upbringing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrenberg, A. (2016). The weariness of the self: Diagnosing the history of depression in the contemporary age. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Food and Drug Administration (2017). Information about self-administration of gene therapy.
  10. Forlini, C., & Racine, E. (2009). Autonomy and coercion in academic “cognitive enhancement” using methylphenidate: perspectives of key stakeholders. Neuroethics, 2, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garasic, M. D., & Lavazza, A. (2015). Performance enhancement in the workplace: why and when healthy individuals should disclose their reliance on pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 9, 13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Garasic, M. D., & Lavazza, A. (2016). Moral and social reasons to acknowledge the use of cognitive enhancers in competitive-selective contexts. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Genetics Home Reference (NIH) (2018). What are genome editing and CRISPR-Cas9?
  14. Gheaus, A. (2017). Parental genetic shaping and parental environmental shaping. The Philosophical Quarterly, 67(267), 263–281.Google Scholar
  15. Habermas, J. (2003). The future of human nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hamer, D. (2004). The god gene: how faith is hardwired into our genes. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  17. Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making ethical people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Huentelman, M. J., Piras, I. S., Siniard, A. L., et al. (2018). Associations of MAP2K3 gene variants with superior memory in SuperAgers. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 10, 155. Scholar
  19. Kamm, F. M. (2005). Is there a problem with enhancement? The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(3), 5–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K., & Bradley, A. (2018). Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nature Biotechnology.
  21. Lam, M., Trampush, J. W., Yu, J., et al. (2017). Large-scale cognitive GWAS meta-analysis reveals tissue-specific neural expression and potential nootropic drug targets. Cell Reports, 21(9), 2597–2613.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Lavazza, A. (2015). Erasing traumatic memories: when context and social interests can outweigh personal autonomy. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 10(1), 3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Lavazza, A. (2016). A Rawlsian version of the opportunity maintenance thesis. The American Journal of Bioethics, 16(6), 50–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ledford, H. (2017). FDA advisers back gene therapy for rare form of blindness. Nature, 550(7676), 314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, S. M. (2017). This guy says he’s the first person to attempt editing his DNA with CRISPR. BuzzFeedNews.
  26. Lee, B., Lee, K., Panda, S., et al. (2018a). Nanoparticle delivery of CRISPR into the brain rescues a mouse model of fragile X syndrome from exaggerated repetitive behaviours. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 2, 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, J. J., Wedow, R., Okbay, A., et al. (2018b). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nature Genetics.
  28. Maier, L. J., Ferris, J. A., & Winstock, A. R. (2018). Pharmacological cognitive enhancement among non-ADHD individuals-a cross-sectional study in 15 countries. International Journal of Drug Policy, 58, 104–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mosher, D. S., Quignon, P., Bustamante, C. D., et al. (2007). A mutation in the myostatin gene increases muscle mass and enhances racing performance in heterozygote dogs. PLoS Genetics, 3(5), e79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2018). Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
  31. Pearlman, A. (2017). Biohackers are using CRISPR on their DNA and we can’t stop it. New Scientist.
  32. Plomin, R. (1999). Genetics and general cognitive ability. Nature, 402(6761supp), C25–C29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Reardon, S. (2016). First CRISPR clinical trial gets green light from US panel. Nature.
  34. Sandel, M. J. (2007). The case against perfection: What’s wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Santoni de Sio, F., Faulmüller, N., & Vincent, N. A. (2014). How cognitive enhancement can change our duties. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 131.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Savulescu, J. (2001). Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics, 15(5–6), 413–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Savulescu, J. (2006). Justice, fairness, and enhancement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1093(1), 321–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Savulescu, J. (2009). Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in philosophy of technology (pp. 417–430). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  39. Scheggia, D., Zamberletti, E., Realini, N., et al. (2018). Remote memories are enhanced by COMT activity through dysregulation of the endocannabinoid system in the prefrontal cortex. Molecular Psychiatry, 23(4), 1040–1050.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine. (2017). Human genome editing. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. The President’s Council on Bioethics. (2003). Beyond therapy: biotechnology and the pursuit of human improvement. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  42. Zhang, S. (2018). A biohacker regrets publicly injecting himself with CRISPR. The Atlantic.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro Universitario InternazionaleArezzoItaly

Personalised recommendations