Advertisement

BioSocieties

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 484–485 | Cite as

Second thoughts on the prevalence of enhancement

  • Stephan Schleim
Response

References

  1. Babcock, Q. and Byrne, T. (2000) Student perceptions of methylphenidate abuse at a public liberal arts college. Journal of American College Health 49 (3): 143–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Farah, M.J., Parens, E., Sahakian, B. and Wolpe, P.R. (2004) Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5 (5): 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Greely, H. et al (2008) Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456 (7223): 702–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. McCabe, S.E., Knight, J.R., Teter, C.J. and Wechser, H. (2005) Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: Prevalence and Correlates from a national survey. Addiction 100 (1): 96–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Putnam, H. (1975) Robots: Machines or artificially created life? In: H. Putnam (ed.) Mind, Language and Reality, Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 386–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Quednow, B.B. (2010) Ethics of neuroenhancement: A phantom debate. BioSocieties 5 (1): 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schleim, S. (2010) Cognitive enhancement – Sechs Gründe dagegen [Cognitive enhancement – Six reasons against]. In: H. Fink and R. Rosenzweig (eds.) Künstliche Sinne – Gedoptes Gehirn. Neurotechnik und Neuroethik [Artificial Senses – Doped Brains. Neurotechnics and Neuroethics]. Paderborn, Mentis, pp. 179–207.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The London School of Economics and Political Science 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan Schleim
    • 1
  1. 1.Theory and History of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations