Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 325–337 | Cite as

The value and pitfalls of speculation about science and technology in bioethics: the case of cognitive enhancement

  • Eric RacineEmail author
  • Tristana Martin Rubio
  • Jennifer Chandler
  • Cynthia Forlini
  • Jayne Lucke
Scientific Contribution


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.


Cognitive 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.


  1. Am, T.G. 2011. Trust in nanotechnology? On trust as analytical tool in social research on emerging technologies. Nanoethics 5(1): 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, S., J. Lucke, and W. Hall. 2012. Lessons for enhancement from the history of cocaine and amphetamine use. AJOB Neuroscience 3(2): 24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boot, B.P., B. Partridge, and W. Hall. 2011. Letter to the editor: Better evidence for safety and efficacy is needed before neurologists prescribe drugs for neuroenhancement to healthy people. Neurocase 18(3): 181–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bostrom, N., and A. Sandberg. 2009. Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 15(3): 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brey, P. 2012. Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. Nanoethics 6(1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, A. 2011. Beyond humanity? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caplan, A., and C. Elliott. 2004. Is it ethical to use enhancement technologies to make us better than well? PLoS Medicine 1(3): e52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caplan, A., and P. McHugh. 2004. Shall we enhance? A debate. Cerebrum.
  10. Carter, A., P. Bartlett, and W. Hall. 2009. Scare-mongering and the anticipatory ethics of experimental technologies. American Journal of Bioethics 9(5): 47–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Connemann, B.J. 2003. Donepezil and flight simulator performance: Effects on retention of complex skills. Neurology 61(5): 721. author reply 721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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(4): 760–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dees, R.H. 2004. Slippery slopes, wonder drugs, and cosmetic neurology: The neuroethics of enhancement. Neurology 63(6): 951–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dewey, J. 1922. Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  16. Dresler, M., A. Sandberg, K. Ohla, C. Bublitz, C. Trenado, A. Mroczko-Wasowicz, S. Kuhn, and D. Repantis. 2013. Non-pharmacological cognitive enhancement. Neuropharmacology 64: 529–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans, J.H. 2002. Playing God? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Durand, G. 1999. Introduction générale à la bioéthique: Histoire, concepts et outils. Fides-Cerf: Montréal.Google Scholar
  19. Farah, M.J. 2011. Overcorrecting the neuroenhancement discussion. Addiction 106(6): 1190. author reply 1190–1191.Google Scholar
  20. Farah, M.J., J. Illes, R. Cook-Deegan, H. Gardner, E. Kandel, P. King, E. Parens, B. Sahakian, and P.R. Wolpe. 2004. Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5(5): 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferrari, A., C. Coenen, and A. Grunwald. 2012. Visions and ethics in current discourse on human enhancement. Nanoethics 6(3): 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fins, J.J. 2008. A leg to stand on: Sir William Osler and Wilder Penfield’s “neuroethics”. American Journal of Bioethics 8(1): 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2009a. Autonomy and coercion in academic “cognitive enhancement” using methylphenidate: perspectives of key stakeholders. Neuroethics 2(3): 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2012. Stakeholder perspectives and reactions to “academic” cognitive enhancement: Unsuspected meaning of ambivalence and analogies. Public Understanding of Science 21(5): 606–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2013. Does the cognitive enhancement debate call for a renewal of the deliberative role of bioethics? In Cognitive enhancement: An interdisciplinary perspective, ed. E. Hildt, and A. Franke, 173–186. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fortun, M. 2005. For an ethics of promising, or: A few kind words about James Watson. New Genetics & Society 24(2): 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Franke, A., C. Bonertz, M. Christmann, S. Engeser, and K. Lieb. 2012. Attitudes toward cognitive enhancement in users and nonusers of stimulants for cognitive enhancement: A pilot study. AJOB Primary Research 3(1): 48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greely, H., B. Sahakian, J. Harris, R.C. Kessler, M. Gazzaniga, P. Campbell, and M.J. Farah. 2008. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456(7223): 702–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall, W., and J. Lucke. 2010. The enhancement use of neuropharmaceuticals: More scepticism and caution needed. Addiction 105(12): 2041–2043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hedgecoe, A. 2010. Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science 40(2): 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heinz, A., R. Kipke, H. Heimann, and U. Wiesing. 2012. Cognitive neuroenhancement: False assumptions in the ethical debate. Journal of Medical Ethics 38(6): 372–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Henry, M., J.R. Fishman, and S.J. Youngner. 2007. Propranolol and the prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder: Is it wrong to erase the “sting” of bad memories? American Journal of Bioethics 7(9): 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Illes, J., and E. Racine. 2005. Neuroethics: A dialogue on a continuum from tradition to innovation. American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): W3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Iversen, L. 2006. Speed, ecstasy, ritalin: The science of amphetamines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, G. 2008. Neuroethics: Adrift from a clinical base. American Journal of Bioethics 8(1): 49–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. Accessed March 19 2013.
  38. Jonsen, A.R. 1995. Casuistry: An alternative or complement to principles? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5(3): 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Keulartz, J., M. Schermer, M. Korthals, and T. Swierstra. 2004. Ethics in technological culture: A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Science, Technology and Human Values 29(1): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kolber, A. 2008. Freedom of memory today. Neuroethics 1(2): 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Larriviere, D., M.A. Williams, M. Rizzo, and R.J. Bonnie. 2009. Responding to requests from adult patients for neuroenhancements: Guidance of the ethics, law and humanities committee. Neurology 73(17): 1406–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Launis, V. 2010. Cosmetic neurology: Sliding down the slippery slope? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19(2): 218–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lucke, J., S. Bell, B. Partridge, and W. Hall. 2010. Weak evidence for large claims contribute to the phantom debate Response. Biosocieties 5(4): 482–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lucke, J., S. Bell, B. Partridge, and W. Hall. 2011. Deflating the neuroenhancement bubble. AJOB Neuroscience 2(4): 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lucke, J., B. Partridge, and W. Hall. 2012. Dealing with ennui: To what extent is “cognitive enhancement” a form of self-medication for symptoms of depression? AJOB Neuroscience 4(1): 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mohamed, A.D., and B.J. Sahakian. 2012. The ethics of elective psychopharmacology. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 15(4): 559–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Neuro-Enhancement: Responsible Research and Innovation. 2013. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from
  49. Nordmann, A. 2007. If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics 1(1): 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oakley, J., and D. Cocking. 2005. Consequentialism, complacency, and slippery slope arguments. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26(3): 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Outram, S. 2010a. Negotiating an inevitable future? AJOB Neuroscience 1(1): 29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Outram, S. 2010b. The use of methylphenidate among students: The future of enhancement? Journal of Medical Ethics 36(4): 198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Outram, S. 2012. Ethical considerations in the framing of the cognitive enhancement debate. Neuroethics 5(2): 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Outram, S., and E. Racine. 2011b. Public health ethics approaches to cognitive enhancement: Current models and points to consider. Public Health Ethics 4(1): 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parens, E. 2005. Authenticity and ambivalence: Toward understanding the enhancement debate. Hastings Center Report 35(3): 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Parens, E. (ed.). 1998. Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Partridge, B., S. Bell, J. Lucke, S. Yeates, and W. Hall. 2011. Smart drugs “as common as coffee”: Media hype about neuroenhancement. PLoS ONE 6(11): e28416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Racine, E. 2008. Which naturalism for bioethics? A defense of moderate pragmatic naturalism. Bioethics 22(2): 92–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Racine, E., and C. Forlini. 2010a. Cognitive enhancement, lifestyle choice or misuse of prescription drugs? Ethics blind spots in current debates. Neuroethics 3(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Racine, E., and C. Forlini. 2010b. Responding to requests from adult patients for neuroenhancements: Guidance of the ethics, law and humanities committee. Neurology 74(19): 1555–1556. author reply 1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Racine, E., and J. Illes. 2006. Neuroethical responsibilities. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 33(3): 269–277.Google Scholar
  65. Ragan, C.I., I. Bard, and I. Singh. 2013. What should we do about student use of cognitive enhancers? An analysis of current evidence. Neuropharmacology 64: 588–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Repantis, D., P. Schlattmann, O. Lainsey, and I. Heuser. 2008. Antidepressants for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Poiesis Praxis 6: 139–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Repantis, D., O. Laisney, and I. Heuser. 2010a. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research 61(6): 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Repantis, D., P. Schlattmann, O. Laisney, and I. Heuser. 2010b. Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research 62(3): 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roache, R. 2008. Ethics, speculation, and values. Nanoethics 2(3): 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sherwin, S. 1999. Foundations, frameworks, lenses: The role of theories in bioethics. Bioethics 13(3–4): 198–205.Google Scholar
  71. Tone, A. 2005. Listening to the past: History, psychiatry, and anxiety. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 50(7): 373–380.Google Scholar
  72. Toulmin, S. 1982. How medicine saved the life of ethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 25(4): 736–750.Google Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Vrecko, S. 2010. Neuroscience, power and culture: An introduction. History of the Human Sciences 23(1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. Zoloth, L. 2007. Mistakenness and the nature of the “post”: The ethics and the inevitability of error in theoretical work. Israel Affairs 13(4): 757–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Racine
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  • Tristana Martin Rubio
    • 1
  • Jennifer Chandler
    • 2
  • Cynthia Forlini
    • 1
  • Jayne Lucke
    • 3
  1. 1.Neuroethics Research UnitInstitut de recherches cliniques de Montréal (IRCM)MontrealCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of LawUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.UQ Centre for Clinical ResearchThe University of QueenslandHerstonAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Medicine and Department of Social and Preventive MedicineUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Medicine and Biomedical Ethics UnitMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations