, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 173–188 | Cite as

Public Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement

  • Nicholas S. Fitz
  • Roland Nadler
  • Praveena Manogaran
  • Eugene W. J. Chong
  • Peter B. Reiner
Original Paper


Vigorous debate over the moral propriety of cognitive enhancement exists, but the views of the public have been largely absent from the discussion. To address this gap in our knowledge, four experiments were carried out with contrastive vignettes in order to obtain quantitative data on public attitudes towards cognitive enhancement. The data collected suggest that the public is sensitive to and capable of understanding the four cardinal concerns identified by neuroethicists, and tend to cautiously accept cognitive enhancement even as they recognize its potential perils. The public is biopolitically moderate, endorses both meritocratic principles and the intrinsic value of hard work, and appears to be sensitive to the salient moral issues raised in the debate. Taken together, these data suggest that public attitudes toward enhancement are sufficiently sophisticated to merit inclusion in policy deliberations, especially if we seek to align public sentiment and policy.


Cognitive enhancement Public attitudes Fairness Authenticity Experimental neuroethics Regulatory policy Moral psychology 

Supplementary material

12152_2013_9190_MOESM1_ESM.docx (79 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 78.5 kb)


  1. 1.
    Beddington, John, Cary L. Cooper, John Field, Usha Goswami, Felicia A. Huppert, Rachel Jenkins, Hannah S. Jones, Tom B.L. Kirkwood, Barbara J. Sahakian, and Sandy M. Thomas. 2008. The mental wealth of nations. Nature 455: 1057–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hughes, James. 2009. TechnoProgressive biopolitics and human enhancement. In Progress in bioethics, eds. J. Moreno and S. Berger, 163–188. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reiner, P.B. 2013. The biopolitics of cognitive enhancement. In Cognitive Enhancement: an interdisciplinary perspective. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hyman, Steven E. 2011. Cognitive enhancement: Promises and perils. Neuron 69: 595–598. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farah, Martha J., Judy Illes, Robert Cook-Deegan, Howard Gardner, Eric Kandel, Patricia King, Eric Parens, Barbara Sahakian, and Paul Root Wolpe. 2004. Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5: 421–425. doi:10.1038/nrn1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greely, Henry, Barbara Sahakian, John Harris, Ronald C. Kessler, Michael Gazzaniga, Philip Campbell, and Martha J. Farah. 2008. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456: 702–705. doi:10.1038/456702a. Nature Publishing Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy, Neil. 2007. Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Connor, Cliodhna, Geraint Rees, and Helene Joffe. 2012. Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron 74: 220–226. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allport, Gordon. 1935. Attitudes. In A handbook of social psychology, 798–844. Worcester: Clark University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Albarracin, Dolores, Blair T Johnson, and Mark P Zanna. 2005. The handbook of attitudes. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eagly, Alice H, and Shelly Chaiken. 1993. Psychology of attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taylor, Charles. 1991. The malaise of modernity. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bostrom, Nick, and Rebecca Roache. 2011. Smart policy: cognitive enhancement in the public interest. In Enhancing Human Capabilities, eds. Julian Savulescu, Ruud ter Meulen, Guy Kahane, 138–152. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greely, Henry T. 2010. Of nails and hammers: Human biological enhancement and U.S. policy tools. In Enhancing Human Capacities, eds. Julian Savulescu, Ruud ter Meulen, Guy Kahane, 503–520. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schermer, Maartje, Ineke Bolt, Reinoud Jongh, and Berend Olivier. 2009. The future of psychopharmacological enhancements: Expectations and policies. Neuroethics 2: 75–87. doi:10.1007/s12152-009-9032-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lucke, Jayne, and Brad Partridge. 2013. Towards a smart population: A public health framework for cognitive enhancement. Neuroethics. 6:419–427. doi: 10.1007/s12152-012-9167-3.
  17. 17.
    Dubljevic, Veljko. 2012. Toward a legitimate public policy on cognition-enhancement drugs. AJOB Neuroscience 3: 29–33. doi:10.1080/21507740.2012.700681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin, P., and F. Allhoff. 2008. Against unrestricted human enhancement. Journal of Evolution & Technology 18: 35.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The President’s Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Washington: The President’s Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    British Medical Association. 2007. Boosting your brainpower: Ethical aspects of cognitive enhancements. A discussion paper from the British Medical Association. London: British Medical Association.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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: 1406–1412.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cote, Marie-Claude. 2009. Psychotropic drugs and expanded uses: An ethical perspective. Quebec City: Commission de l’ethique de la science et de la technologie.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society. 2012. Human enhancement and the future of work. London: Academy of Medical Sciences.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2013. Novel neurotechnologies: Intervening in the brain. Swindon: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Slob, Marjan, Peter Raeymaekers, and Karin Rondia. 2005. Meeting of minds: European citizen’s deliberation on brain science. London: Meeting of Minds Partner Consortium.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maher, Brendan. 2008. Poll results: Look who’s doping. Nature 452: 674–675. doi:10.1038/452674a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Banjo, Opeyemi C., Roland Nadler, and Peter B. Reiner. 2010. Physician attitudes towards pharmacological cognitive enhancement: Safety concerns are paramount. PLoS ONE 5(12): e14322. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014322.t003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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: 606–625. doi:10.1177/0963662510385062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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
  30. 30.
    Franke, Andreas G., Christiana Bagusat, Pavel Dietz, Isabell Hoffmann, Perikles Simon, Rolf Ulrich, and Klaus Lieb. 2013. Use of illicit and prescription drugs for cognitive or mood enhancement among surgeons. BMC Medicine 11: 102. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bell, Stephanie, Brad Partridge, Jayne Lucke, and Wayne Hall. 2013. Australian university students’ attitudes towards the acceptability and regulation of pharmaceuticals to improve academic performance. Neuroethics 6: 197–205. doi:10.1007/s12152-012-9153-9. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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
  33. 33.
    Franke, Andreas G., Caroline Bonertz, Michaela Christmann, Stefan Engeser, and Klaus Lieb. 2012. Attitudes toward cognitive enhancement in users and nonusers of stimulants for cognitive enhancement: A pilot study. AJOB Primary Research 3: 48–57. doi:10.1080/21507716.2011.608411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sabini, John, and John Monterosso. 2005. Judgments of the fairness of using performance enhancing drugs. Ethics & Behavior 15: 81–94. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1501_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sattler, Sebastian, Carsten Sauer, Guido Mehlkop, and Peter Graeff. 2013. The rational for consuming cognitive enhancement drugs in university students and teachers. PLoS ONE 8(7): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pillow, David R., Lavelda J. Naylor, and Glenn P. Malone. 2012. Beliefs regarding stimulant medication effects among college students with a history of past or current usage. Journal of Attention Disorders. doi:10.1177/1087054712459755.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bolt, Ineke, and Maartje Schermer. 2009. Psychopharmaceutical enhancers: Enhancing identity? Neuroethics 2: 103–111. doi:10.1007/s12152-008-9031-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Singh, Ilina. 2012. VOICES Study: Final Report. London, UK.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sarewitz, Daniel. 2010. World view: Not by experts alone. Nature 466: 688–688. doi:10.1038/466688a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schicktanz, Silke, Mark Schweda, and Brian Wynne. 2012. The ethics of ‘public understanding of ethics’–why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients’ voices. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 15: 129–139. doi:10.1007/s11019-011-9321-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Salloch, Sabine, Jochen Vollmann, and Jan Schildmann. 2013. Ethics by opinion poll? The functions of attitudes research for normative deliberations in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101253.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Knobe, Joshua, and Shaun Nichols. 2008. Experimental philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy D. Wilson. 1977. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological review 84: 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Murphy, James J., P. Geoffrey Allen, Thomas H. Stevens, and Darryl Weatherhead. 2005. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30: 313–325. doi:10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Burstin, K., E.B. Doughtie, and A. Raphaeli. 1980. Contrastive vignette technique: An indirect methodology designed to address reactive social attitude measurement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 10: 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nichols, Austin L., and Jon K. Maner. 2008. The good-subject effect: Investigating participant demand characteristics. The Journal of general psychology 135: 151–165. doi:10.3200/GENP.135.2.151-166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Finch, J. 1987. The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology 21: 105–114. Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Knobe, Joshua. 2003. Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis 63: 190–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nichols, Shaun. 2011. Experimental philosophy and the problem of free will. Science 331: 1401–1403. doi:10.1126/science.1192931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Krosnick, J.A. 1999. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 50: 537–567. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Eriksson, Kimmo, and Brent Simpson. 2010. Emotional reactions to losing explain gender differences in entering a risky lottery. Judgment and Decision Making 5: 159–163.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rand, David G. 2012. The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of theoretical biology 299: 172–179. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Paolacci, Gabriele, Jesse Chandler, and Panagiotis Ipeirotis. 2010. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5: 411–419.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Horton, John J., David G. Rand, and Richard J. Zeckhauser. 2011. The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics 14: 399–425. doi:10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Berinsky, Adam J., Gregory A. Huber, and Gabriel S. Lenz. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis 20: 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Buhrmester, Michael, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D. Gosling. 2011. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Henrich, Joseph, Steven J. Heine, and Ara Norenzayan. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? The Behavioral and brain sciences 33: 61–135. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Martel, Laurent, and France-Pascale Menard. 2012. The Canadian population in 2011: age and sex. 98-311-X2011001. Minister of Industry, Statistics Canada.
  60. 60.
    Howden, L.M., and J.A. Meyer. 2011. Age and sex composition: 2010. Washington: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Harris, John. 2007. Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fukuyama, Francis. 2002. Our posthuman future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Reiner, P.B. 2010. Distinguishing between restoration and enhancement in neuropharmacology. Virtual Mentor 12: 885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Parens, Erik. 1998. Is better always good?: The enhancement project. Hastings Center Report 28: s1–s17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Daniels, Norman. 2000. Normal functioning and the treatment-enhancement distinction. Camb Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9: 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Nitsche, Michael A., and Walter Paulus. 2011. Transcranial direct current stimulation–update 2011. Restorative neurology and neuroscience 29: 463–492. doi:10.3233/RNN-2011-0618.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica XLVII: 263–291.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Vedder, A., and L. Klaming. 2010. Human enhancement for the common good—Using neurotechnologies to improve eyewitness memory. AJOB Neuroscience 1. Taylor & Francis: 22–33.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ariely, Dan. 2008. Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Fernandes, Maria F., and Donna M. Randall. 1992. The nature of social desirability response effects in ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly 2: 183–205. doi:10.2307/3857570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    King, Maryon F., and Gordon C. Bruner. 2000. Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology & Marketing 17: 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fisher, Robert J. 1993. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research 20: 303–315.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Parens, Erik. 1998. Enhancing human traits. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Chatterjee, A. 2004. Cosmetic neurology. Neurology 63: 968–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Fehr, Ernst, and Colin F. Camerer. 2007. Social neuroeconomics: The neural circuitry of social preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11: 419–427. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Arrow, Kenneth Joseph, Samuel Bowles, and Steven N Durlauf. 2000. Meritocracy and economic inequality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Almås, Ingvild, Alexander W. Cappelen, Erik Ø. Sørensen, and Bertil Tungodden. 2010. Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance. Science 328: 1176–1178. doi:10.1126/science.1187300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Cappelen, A.W., E.Ø. Sørensen, and B. Tungodden. 2010. Responsibility for what? Fairness and individual responsibility. European Economic Review 54: 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Schermer, Maartje. 2008. Enhancements, easy shortcuts, and the richness of human activities. Bioethics 22: 355–363. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00657.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Parens, Erik. 2005. Authenticity and ambivalence. Hastings Center Report: 35:34–41.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sandberg, Anders, and Nick Bostrom. 2006. Cognitive enhancement: a review of technology. EU ENHANCE Project.
  83. 83.
    Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2012. Unfit for the future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Elliott, Carl. 2004. Better than well: American medicine meets the American dream. New York: W. W. Norton. Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2013. The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    McNamee, Stephen, and Robert K Miller. 2009. The meritocracy myth. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Norton, M.I., and D. Ariely. 2011. Building a better America–one wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 9–12. doi:10.1177/1745691610393524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Harris, John. 2005. Enhancements are a moral obligation. WellcomeScience: 16–17.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Baumard, Nicolas, Jean-Baptiste Andre, and Dan Sperber. 2013. A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Science 36: 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1969. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In Handbook of socialization theory and research. ed. D.A. Goslin. Chicago: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Turiel, Elliot, 1983. The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108: 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Greene, J.D., R.B. Sommerville, L.E. Nystrom, J.M. Darley, and J.D. Cohen. 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293: 2105–2108. doi:10.1126/science.1062872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Greene, Joshua D., Leigh E. Nystrom, Andrew D. Engell, John M. Darley, and Jonathan D. Cohen. 2004. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron 44: 389–400. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Paxton, Joseph M., Leo Ungar, and Joshua D. Greene. 2012. Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cognitive Science 36: 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Jacobson, Daniel. 2013. Moral dumbfounding and moral stupefaction. In Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, ed. M. Timmons, 2: 289–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Haidt, Jonathan. 2013. The righteous mind. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Haidt, Jonathan, and Fredrik Bjorklund. 2008. Social intuitionists answer six questions about morality. In Moral Psychology, ed. W. Sinnott-Armstrong, 181–218. Cambridge: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Haidt, Jonathan, Fredrik Bjorklund, and Scott Murphy. 2000. Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reason. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Bostrom, Nick, and Toby Ord. 2006. The reversal test: Eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics 116: 656–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Nadler, Roland C., and Peter B. Reiner. 2010. A call for data to inform discussion on cognitive enhancement. BioSocieties 5: 481–482. doi:10.1057/biosoc.2010.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Nadler, R., and P.B. Reiner. 2011. Prototypes or pragmatics? The open question of public attitudes toward enhancement. AJOB Neuroscience 2: 49–50. Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Guston, David H. 2004. Forget politicizing science. Let’s democratize science! Issues in Science and Technology 28: 25–28.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Gupta, N., A.R.H. Fischer, and L.J. Frewer. 2012. Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review. Public Understanding of Science 21: 782–795. doi:10.1177/0963662510392485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Erikson, Robert S, Gerald C Wright, and John P McIver. 1993. Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Levine, Michael E., and Jennifer L. Forrence. 1990. Regulatory capture, public interest, and the public agenda: Toward a synthesis. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 6: 167–198. JSTOR.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Burstein, Paul. 2003. The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56: 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Kraft, Michael E, and Scott R Furlong. 2012. Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives, 4th Edition. Los Angeles: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Kleiman, Mark A R, Jonathan P Caulkins, and Angela Hawken. 2011. Drugs and drug policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    DeSantis, Alan D., Elizabeth M. Webb, and Seth M. Noar. 2008. Illicit use of prescription ADHD medications on a college campus: A multimethodological approach. Journal of American college health 57: 315–324. doi:10.3200/JACH.57.3.315-324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Outram, Simon M. 2010. The use of methylphenidate among students: The future of enhancement? Journal of Medical Ethics 36: 198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Appel, J.M. 2008. When the boss turns pusher: A proposal for employee protections in the age of cosmetic neurology. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 616–618. doi:10.1136/jme.2007.022723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas S. Fitz
    • 1
  • Roland Nadler
    • 1
  • Praveena Manogaran
    • 1
  • Eugene W. J. Chong
    • 1
  • Peter B. Reiner
    • 1
  1. 1.National Core for Neuroethics, Department of Psychiatry and Brain Research CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations