Abstract
Discussions about human cognitive enhancement are based, in various ways, upon assumptions about neuroscientific knowledge production and the applicability of neuroscientific results. From utopian imaginings of (trans)human ascension to current practices of using pharmaceuticals, developed for different neurodegenerative conditions, as so-called ‘smart drugs’, these assumptions all seem to revolve around the expectations of and hopes for what neuroscience can or will be able to do. It is striking, but maybe not surprising, that discourses and practices surrounding cognitive enhancement have flourished in the same historical period that has seen a ‘neuroscientific turn’ in the natural sciences (Littlefield and Johnson 2012) and widespread popularity of the neuro-prefix in many different social and cultural settings (Frazetto and Anker 2009). It has become almost trivial to make the general observation that developments in neuroscience do not take place in a social or cultural vacuum — that they both affect and are affected by the context in which they are situated — and that the debates and practices related to cognitive enhancement (including this chapter) can be seen as part of this complex interrelation between science and society. It might be more interesting to move one step closer and ask what it is in the neurosciences that relates to discussions about human enhancement, or, more specifically, how the production of knowledge within the neurosciences relates to hopes and wishes for cognitive enhancement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Beckert, B., Blümel, C. and Friedewald, M. (2007): Visions and realities in converging technologies. In: Giorgi, L. and Luce, J. (eds.) Converging Science and Technologies: Research Trajectories and Institutional Settings, special issue in Innovation. The European Journal of Social Science Research, 20(4), pp. 375–395.
Beddington, J., Cooper, C. L., Field, J., Goswami, U., Huppert, F. A., Jenkins, R., Jones, H. S., Kirkwood, T. B. L., Sahakian, B. J. and Thomas, S. M. (2008): The mental wealth of nations. In: Nature, 455, pp. 1057–1060.
Bostrom, N. (2005): A history of transhumanist thought. In: Journal of Evolution and Technology, 14(1), pp. 1–25.
Cole, T. R. (1992): The Journey of Life: A Cultural History of Aging in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Collier, T. J. and Coleman, P. D. (1991): Divergence of biological and chronological aging: Evidence from rodent studies. In: Neurobiology of Aging, 12, pp. 685–693.
Daffner, K. R. (2010): Promoting successful cognitive aging: A comprehensive review. In: Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 19, pp. 1101–1122.
Dumit, J. (2004): Picturing Personhood. Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Elliot, C. (2003): Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.
European Parliament (2009): Human enhancement study 2009. In: European Parliament Science and Technology Options Assessment, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/stoa2007–13_en.pdf, http://www.humanityplus.org/learn/philosophy/transhumanist-values, date accessed 14 August 2009.
Frazetto, G. and Anker, S. (2009): Neuroculture. In: Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(11), pp. 815–821.
Giorgi, L. and Luce, J. (eds.) (2007): Special issue: Converging science and technologies: Research trajectories and institutional settings. In: Innovation. The European Journal of Social Science Research, 20(4).
Goodwin, J. S. (1991): Geriatric ideology: The myth of the myth of senility. In: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 39(6), pp. 627–631.
Greely, H., Sahakian, B., Harris, J., Kessler, R.C., Gazzaniga, M., Campbell, P. and Farah, M. J. (2008): Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. In: Nature, 456, pp. 702–705.
Holstein, M. B. and Minkler, M. (2003): Self, society, and the ‘new gerontology’. In: The Gerontologist, 43(6), pp. 787–796.
Human Enhancement Study 2009. European Parliament Science and Technology Options Assessment. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/cms/home/publications/studies?year=2009&q=Human+Enhancement&studies_search=Send+foresp%C3%B8rgsel (accessed 27 May 2014).
Humle, T. and Friislund, M. (2010): ‘Study drugs’ vinder frem på universiteter, information 1, section 4 [journalist study about the use of so-called ‘study drugs’ in Danish universities. I have access to the study data through personal contact].
Kampf, A. and Botelho, L. A. (2009): Anti-aging and biomedicine: Critical studies on the pursuit of maintaining, revitalizing and enhancing aging bodies. In: Medicine Studies, 1, pp. 187–195.
Kirk, H. (2008): Med hjernen i behold — Kognition, træning og seniorkompetencer. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
Liberati, G., Raffone, A. and Belardinelli, M. O. (2011): Cognitive reserve and its implications for rehabilitation and Alzheimer’s disease. In: Cognitive Processing, 13(1), pp. 1–12.
Littlefield, M. M. and Johnson, J. (eds.) (2012): The Neuroscientific Turn: Trandisciplinarity in the Age of the Brain. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lock, M. (2005): Alzheimer’s disease: A tangled concept. In: McKinnon, S. and Silverman, S. (eds.) Complexities: Beyond Nature & Nurture. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 196–222.
Mehlman, M. J. (2004): Cognition-enhancing drugs. In: The Milbank Quarterly, 82(3), pp. 483–506.
Petersen, A. R. (1996): Risk and the regulated self: The discourse of health promotion as politics of uncertainty. In: Journal of Sociology, 32(1), pp. 44–57.
Petersen, A. R. and Wilkinson, I. (2008): Health, risk and vulnerability: An introduction. In: Petersen, A. R. and Wilkinson, I. (eds.) Health, Risk and Vulnerability. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–15.
Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. and Lustig, C. (2005): Brain aging: Reorganizing discoveries about the aging mind. In: Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, pp. 245–251.
Roco, M. and Bainbridge, W. (eds.) (2002): Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_report.pdf, date accessed 29 May 2009.
Rose, N. (2003): Neurochemical selves. In: Society, 41(1), pp. 46–59.
Rose, N. (2007): The Politics of Life Itself. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rose, N. (2009): Normality and pathology in a biomedical age. In: Sociological Review, 57, pp. 66–83.
Rowe, J. W. and Kahn, R. L. (1987): Human aging: Usual and successful. In: Science, 237(4811), pp. 143–149.
Rowe, J. W. and Kahn, R. L. (1998): Successful Aging. New York: Pantheon Books.
Savulescu, J. and Bostrom, N. (eds.) (2009): Human Enhancement. New York: Oxford University Press.
Whitehouse, P. J. and George, D. (2008): The Myth of Alzheimer’s. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Morten H. Bülow
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bülow, M.H. (2014). Good Old Brains: How Concerns About an Aging Society and Ideas About Cognitive Enhancement Interact in Neuroscience. In: Eilers, M., Grüber, K., Rehmann-Sutter, C. (eds) The Human Enhancement Debate and Disability. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137405531_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137405531_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-48775-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-40553-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)