Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Neuroethical Issues in Cognitive Enhancement: the Undergraduates’ Point of View

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Cognitive Enhancement Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To date, legitimacy of the application of cognitive enhancement programs to healthy individuals is still fueling neuroethics discussions. The aim of the present investigation is analyzing naïve conceptions of the ethical implications of different practices—namely, non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), psychotropic drugs, diet, hydration, and physical activity—which can be followed to enhance cognitive performance. An online survey targeted the opinions of the general public about the efficacy of the neuroenhancement techniques and ethical concerns in different contexts. Measures of general self-efficacy and beliefs about intelligence have been collected as well. Responses of 89 Italian undergraduate students of medicine or psychology were analyzed statistically and thematically. Findings supported the notion that passive ways of enhancing human performance, which fail to imply any personal effort and individual responsibility, are conceived as infringing moral rules, regardless of the context where they are implemented.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 311–341.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A. (2009). Human nature and enhancement. Bioethics, 23, 141–150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castaldi, S., Gelatti, U., Orizio, G., Hartung, U., Moreno-Londono, A. M., Nobile, M., & Schulz, P. J. (2012). Use of cognitive enhancement medication among Northern Italian university students. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 6, 112–117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen Kadosh, R., Levy, N., O’Shea, J., Shea, N., & Savulescu, J. (2012). The neuroethics of non-invasive brain stimulation. Current Biology, 21-22, R108–R111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colzato, L. S., & Hommel, B. (2016). The future of cognitive training. In T. Strobach & J. Karbach (Eds.), Cognitive training: an overview of features and applications (pp. 201–211). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, N. (2000). Normal functioning and the treatment-enhancement distinction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 9, 309–322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greely, H., Sahakian, B., Harris, J., Kessler, R. C., Gazzaniga, M., Campbell, P., & Farah, M. J. (2008). Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature, 456, 702–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lapenta, O. M., Valasek, C. A., Brunoni, A. R., & Boggio, P. S. (2014). An ethic discussion of the use of transcranial direct current stimulation for cognitive enhancement in healthy individuals: a fictional case study. Psychology & Neuroscience, 7, 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Looi, C. Y., & Cohen Kadosh, R. (2015). The use of transcranial direct current stimulation for cognitive enhancement. In S. Knafo & C. Venero (Eds.), Cognitive enhancement: pharmacologic, environmental and genetic factors (pp. 307–341). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parens, E. (1998). Is better always good? The enhancement project. In E. Parens (Ed.), Enhancing human traits: ethical and social implications (pp. 1–28). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragan, C. I., Bard, I., & Singh, I. (2013). What should we do about student use of cognitive enhancers? An analysis of current evidence. Neuropharmacology, 64, 588–595.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Riggall, K., Forlini, C., Carter, A., Hall, W., Weier, M., Partridge, B., & Meinzer, M. (2015). Researchers’ perspectives on scientific and ethical issues with transcranial direct current stimulation: an international survey. Scientific Reports, 5, 10618.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. (2007). The case against perfection. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelle, K. J., Faulmüller, N., Caviola, L., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement—a review. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 17, 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermer, M. (2008). Enhancement, easy shortcuts, and the richness of human activities. Bioethics, (7), 355–363.

  • Sibilia, L., Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Italian adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale: self-efficacy generalized. Retrieved July 18, 2018, from http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/health/italian.htm.

  • Singh, I., Bard, I., & Jackson, J. (2014). Robust resilience and substantial interest: a survey of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among university students in the UK and Ireland. PLoS One, 9(10), e105969.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy

    Alice Cancer & Alessandro Antonietti

  2. University of Lugano, Institute of Communication and Health, Lugano, Switzerland

    Peter J. Schulz

  3. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Silvana Castaldi

  4. Quality Unit Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda OMP, Milan, Italy

    Silvana Castaldi

Authors
  1. Alice Cancer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter J. Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silvana Castaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessandro Antonietti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Cancer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cancer, A., Schulz, P.J., Castaldi, S. et al. Neuroethical Issues in Cognitive Enhancement: the Undergraduates’ Point of View. J Cogn Enhanc 2, 323–330 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0110-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0110-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation