Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toward a Method for Exposing and Elucidating Ethical Issues with Human Cognitive Enhancement Technologies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To develop a method for exposing and elucidating ethical issues with human cognitive enhancement (HCE). The intended use of the method is to support and facilitate open and transparent deliberation and decision making with respect to this emerging technology with great potential formative implications for individuals and society. Literature search to identify relevant approaches. Conventional content analysis of the identified papers and methods in order to assess their suitability for assessing HCE according to four selection criteria. Method development. Amendment after pilot testing on smart-glasses. Based on three existing approaches in health technology assessment a method for exposing and elucidating ethical issues in the assessment of HCE technologies was developed. Based on a pilot test for smart-glasses, the method was amended. The method consists of six steps and a guiding list of 43 questions. A method for exposing and elucidating ethical issues in the assessment of HCE was developed. The method provides the ground work for context specific ethical assessment and analysis. Widespread use, amendments, and further developments of the method are encouraged.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Assasi, N., Schwartz, L., Tarride, J. E., Campbell, K., & Goeree, R. (2014). Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 14(2), 203–220. doi:10.1586/14737167.2014.894464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, T., Fitzgerald, M., Kitzinger, J., Laurie, G., Price, J., Rose, N., et al. (2013). Novel neurotechnologies: Intervening in the brain. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beekman, V., De Bakker, E., Baranzke, H., Baune, O., Deblonde, M., & Forsberg, E.-M., et al. (2006). Ethical bio-technology assessment tools for agriculture and food production. Final Report Ethical Bio-TA Tools (QLG6-CT-2002-02594). LEI, The Hague.

  • Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(3), 311–341. doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9142-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. A. (2012). Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. Nanoethics, 6(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J. (2003). Cognitive enhancement raises ethical concerns. Academics urge pre-emptive debate on neurotechnologies. Lancet, 362(9378), 132–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cakic, V. (2009). Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: Ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(10), 611–615. doi:10.1136/jme.2009.030882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, A. (2013). The ethics of neuroenhancement. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 118, 323–334. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-53501-6.00027-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coenen, C., Schuijff, M., & Smits, M. (2011). The politics of human enhancement and the European Union. In J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, & G. Kahane (Eds.), Enhancing human capacities (pp. 521–535). London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, M. (2014). Ethical matrix and agriculture. In P. B. Thompson, & D. M. Kaplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics (pp. 622–629). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Droste, S., Herrmann-Frank, A., Scheibler, F., & Krones, T. (2011). Ethical issues in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in advanced breast cancer: A systematic literature review. BMC Medical Ethics, 12(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ely, A., Van Zwanenberg, P., & Stirling, A. (2014). Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches to enhance international development, co-ordination and democratisation. Research Policy, 43(3), 505–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farah, M. J. (2015). The unknowns of cognitive enhancement. Science, 350(6259), 379–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 26(6), 485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitz, N. S., Nadler, R., Manogaran, P., Chong, E. W., & Reiner, P. B. (2014). Public attitudes toward cognitive enhancement. Neuroethics, 7(2), 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forlini, C., Hall, W., Maxwell, B., Outram, S. M., Reiner, P. B., Repantis, D., et al. (2013). Navigating the enhancement landscape. Ethical issues in research on cognitive enhancers for healthy individuals. EMBO Reports, 14(2), 123–128. doi:10.1038/embor.2012.225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaucher, N., Payot, A., & Racine, E. (2013). Cognitive enhancement in children and adolescents: Is it in their best interests? Acta Paediatrica, 102(12), 1118–1124. doi:10.1111/apa.12409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, R. (2014). Humility pills: Building an ethics of cognitive enhancement. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 39(3), 258–278. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhu017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyngell, C., & Easteal, S. (2015). Cognitive diversity and moral enhancement. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(1), 66–74. doi:10.1017/s0963180114000310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. (2011). Moral enhancement and freedom. Bioethics, 25(2), 102–111. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01854.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heintz, E., Lintamo, L., Hultcrantz, M., Jacobson, S., Levi, R., Munthe, C., et al. (2015). Framework for systematic identification of ethical aspects of healthcare technologies: The SBU approach. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 31(03), 124–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B. (2005). Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 21(3), 312–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B., Droste, S., Oortwijn, W., Cleemput, I., & Sacchini, D. (2014). Harmonization of ethics in health technology assessment: A revision of the Socratic approach. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 30(1), 3–9. doi:10.1017/S0266462313000688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B., Lysdahl, K. B., & Droste, S. (2015a). Evaluation of ethical aspects in health technology assessment: More methods than applications? Expert review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 15(1), 5–7. doi:10.1586/14737167.2015.990886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B., Oortwijn, W., Lysdahl, K., Refolo, P., Sacchini, D., Wilt, G. J. V. D., et al. (2015b). Integrating ethics in health technology assessment: many ways to Rome. [Vitenskapelig artikkel]. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 31(3), 131–137. doi:10.1017/S0266462315000276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B., Haustein, D., & Landeweerd, L. (2016). Smart-glasses: Exposing and elucidating the ethical issues. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9792-z.

  • Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiran, A. H., Oudshoorn, N., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2015). Beyond checklists: Toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(1), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klüver, L., Nentwich, M., Peissl, W., Torgersen, H., Gloede, F., Hennen, L., et al. (2000). European participatory technology assessment. Participatory methods in technology assessment and technology decision-making. Copenhagen: The Danish Board of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klüver, L., Nielsen, R. Ø., & Jørgensen, M. L. (2015). Policy-oriented technology assessment across Europe: Expanding capacities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lampe, K., Makela, M., Garrido, M. V., Anttila, H., Autti-Ramo, I., Hicks, N. J., et al. (2009). The HTA core model: A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 25(Suppl 2), 9–20. doi:10.1017/S0266462309990638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanni, C., Lenzken, S. C., Pascale, A., Del Vecchio, I., Racchi, M., Pistoia, F., et al. (2008). Cognition enhancers between treating and doping the mind. Pharmacological Research, 57(3), 196–213. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2008.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mordacci, R. (2014). Cognitive enhancement and personal identity. Humana.Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies, 26, 141–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palm, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2006). The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. (2015). Good and not so good medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(1), 71–74. doi:10.1136/medethics-2014-102312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., & Te Kulve, H. (2008). Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios. In E. Fischer (Ed.), Presenting futures (Vol. 1, pp. 49–70). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Sahakian, B. J., & Morein-Zamir, S. (2011). Neuroethical issues in cognitive enhancement. J Psychopharmacol, 25(2), 197–204. doi:10.1177/0269881109106926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, A., & Bostrom, N. (2006). Cognitive enhancement: A review of technology. EU ENHANCE Project.

  • Santoni de Sio, F., Faulmuller, N., & Vincent, N. A. (2014). How cognitive enhancement can change our duties. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 131. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D., & Karas, T. H. (2012). Policy implications of technologies for cognitive enhancement. In J. Giordano (Ed.), Neurotechnology: Premises, potential, and problems (pp. 267–285). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schermer, M., Bolt, I., de Jongh, R., & Olivier, B. (2009). The future of psychopharmacological enhancements: Expectations and policies. Neuroethics, 2(2), 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Est, R., Stemerding, D., Kukk, P., Hüsing, B., van Keulen, I., & Schuijff, M., et al. (2012). Making perfect life: European governance challenges in 21st century bio-engineering. Brussels: European Parliament STOA–Science and Technology Options Assessment.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am most thankful to Ellen-Marie Forsberg, Erik Thorstensen, and Claire Shelley-Egan for valuable discussions on the method and contributions to the list of questions (Table 3). Likewise I am grateful for the wise comments and suggestions for improvement from the Editor and two anonymous reviewers. Part of the research leading to these results has received funding from the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009–2014 and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports under Project Contract No. MSMT-28477/2014, Project No. 7F14236.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Health, Technology and Social Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), PO Box 1, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway

    Bjørn Hofmann

  2. Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, PO Box 1130, Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway

    Bjørn Hofmann

Authors
  1. Bjørn Hofmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bjørn Hofmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hofmann, B. Toward a Method for Exposing and Elucidating Ethical Issues with Human Cognitive Enhancement Technologies. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 413–429 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9791-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9791-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation