Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reasons for Comfort and Discomfort with Pharmacological Enhancement of Cognitive, Affective, and Social Domains

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The debate over the propriety of cognitive enhancement evokes both enthusiasm and worry. To gain further insight into the reasons that people may have for endorsing or eschewing pharmacological enhancement (PE), we used empirical tools to explore public attitudes towards PE of twelve cognitive, affective, and social (CAS) domains (e.g., attention, mood, creativity). Participants (N = 1,408) from Canada and the United States were recruited using Mechanical Turk and were randomly assigned to read one (and only one) vignette that described an individual who uses a pill to enhance a single domain. After reading the vignette, participants were asked how comfortable they were with the individual using the enhancement. People were significantly more comfortable when they read about enhancement of certain CAS domains (e.g. creativity) than others (e.g. mood). We found a modest negative correlation between comfort level and the degree to which the PE was perceived as changing core features of the person. We also found a modest correlation between comfort level and the degree to which the PE was perceived as improving success in life. Finally, using a sequential mixed method technique, we found that participants who felt uncomfortable about PE use overwhelmingly focused on a lack of need and, to a lesser degree, expressed concerns about safety; those who felt comfortable about PE use most frequently mentioned the safety of the pill and its ability to provide a positive outcome. The data provide novel insights into public enthusiasms and concerns over the use of PE.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The limitations of this analysis is that we do not know how different reasons might have influenced the level of comfort or discomfort.

  2. Using the z-score test we can compare which column proportions differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level (we used Bonferroni correction).

References

  1. McCabe, Sean Esteban, John Knight, J.C. Teter, and H. Wechser. 2005. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addiction 100: 96–106. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00944.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Teter, Christian J, Sean Esteban McCabe, Kristy LaGrange, James A Cranford, and Carol Boyd. 2006. Illicit Use of Specific Prescription Stimulants Among College Students: Prevalence, Motives, and Routes of Administration. The Journal of Pharmacotherapy 46:1501–1510.

  3. Franke, A.G., C. Bonertz, M. Christmann, M. Huss, A. Fellgiebel, E. Hildt, and K. Lieb. 2010. Non-Medical Use of Prescription Stimulants and Illicit Use of Stimulants for Cognitive Enhancement in Pupils and Students in Germany. Pharmacopsychiatry 44: 60–66. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1268417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Castaldi, Silvana, Umberto Gelatti, Grazia Orizio, Uwe Hartung, Ana Maria Moreno-Londono, Marta Nobile, and Peter J. Schulz. 2012. Use of Cognitive Enhancement Medication Among Northern Italian University Students. Journal of Addiction Medicine 6: 112–117. doi:10.1097/ADM.0b013e3182479584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. White, Barbara Prudhomme, Kathryn A. Becker-Blease, and Kathleen Grace-Bishop. 2006. Stimulant Medication Use, Misuse, and Abuse in an Undergraduate and Graduate Student Sample. Journal of American College Health 54: 261–268. doi:10.3200/JACH.54.5.261-268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Elliott, R., B.J. Sahakian, K. Matthews, A. Bannerjea, J. Rimmer, and T.W. Robbins. 1997. Effects of methylphenidate on spatial working memory and planning in healthy young adults. Psychopharmacology 131: 196–206. doi:10.1007/s002130050284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Müller, U., J.B. Rowe, T. Rittman, C. Lewis, T.W. Robbins, and B.J. Sahakian. 2013. Effects of modafinil on non-verbal cognition, task enjoyment and creative thinking in healthy volunteers. Neuropharmacology 64: 490–495. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.07.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lynch, Gary. 2002. Memory enhancement: the search for mechanism-based drugs. Nature Neuroscience 5: 1035–1038. doi:10.1038/nn935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gagnon, Geneviève, Cyril Schneider, Simon Grondin, and Sophie Blanchet. 2011. Enhancement of episodic memory in young and healthy adults: a paired-pulse TMS study on encoding and retrieval performance. Neuroscience Letters 488: 138–142. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2010.11.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. de Jongh, Reinoud, Ineke Bolt, Maartje Schermer, and Berend Olivier. 2008. Botox for the brain: enhancement of cognition, mood and pro-social behavior and blunting of unwanted memories. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 32: 760–776. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chatterjee, A. 2004. Cosmetic neurology The controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Neurology 63: 968–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Elliott, C. 2000. Pursued by happiness and beaten senseless. Prozac and the American dream. The Hastings Center Report 30: 7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kramer, Peter D. 1993. Listening to Prozac. New York: Viking Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bostrom, Nick, and Anders Sandberg. 2009. Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 15: 311–341. doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9142-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fukuyama, Francis. 2003. Our Posthuman Future. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  16. President's Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond Therapy. Washington: President's Council on Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Savulescu, Julian. 2014. The ethics of genetically enhanced monkey-slaves. Edited by David Webber. TED blog.

  18. Eickenhorst, Patrick, Karin Vitzthum, F. Burghard, David Groneberg Klapp, and Stefanie Mache. 2012. Neuroenhancement among German university students: motives, expectations, and relationship with psychoactive lifestyle drugs. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 44: 418–427. doi:10.1080/02791072.2012.736845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fitz, Nicholas S., Roland Nadler, Praveena Manogaran, Eugene W.J. Chong, and Peter B. Reiner. 2014. Public Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement. Neuroethics 7: 173–188. doi:10.1007/s12152-013-9190-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Franke, Andreas G., Klaus Lieb, and Elisabeth Hildt. 2012. What Users Think about the Differences between Caffeine and Illicit/Prescription Stimulants for Cognitive Enhancement. PloS One 7: e40047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sattler, Sebastian, Guido Mehlkop, Peter Graeff, and Carsten Sauer. 2014. Evaluating the drivers of and obstacles to the willingness to use cognitive enhancement drugs: the influence of drug characteristics, social environment, and personal characteristics. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 9: 8. doi:10.1186/1747-597X-9-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schelle, Kimberly J., Nadira Faulmüller, Lucius Caviola, and Miles Hewstone. 2014. Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement—a review. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 8: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bell, S., Brad Partridge, Jayne C. Lucke, and Wayne Hall. 2013. Australian University Students' Attitudes Towards the Acceptability and Regulation of Pharmaceuticals to Improve Academic Performance. Neuroethics 6: 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bergstrom, Lena, and Niels Lynoe. 2008. Enhancing concentration, mood and memory in healthy individuals: An empirical study of attitudes among general practitioners and the general population. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 36: 532–537. doi:10.1177/1403494807087558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Scheske, Christel, and Simone Schnall. 2012. The Ethics of “Smart Drugs”: Moral Judgments About Healthy People's Use of Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 34: 508–515. doi:10.1080/01973533.2012.711692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Asscher, Eva C.A., Ineke Bolt, and Maartje Schermer. 2012. Wish-fulfilling medicine in practice: a qualitative study of physician arguments. Journal of Medical Ethics 38: 327–331. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Forlini, Cynthia, and Eric Racine. 2009. Autonomy and Coercion in Academic “Cognitive Enhancement” Using Methylphenidate: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders. Neuroethics 2: 163–177. doi:10.1007/s12152-009-9043-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Maier, Larissa J., E. Matthias, Fiona Herzig Liechti, and Michael P. Schaub. 2013. To Dope or Not to Dope: Neuroenhancement with Prescription Drugs and Drugs of Abuse among Swiss University Students. PloS One 8: e77967. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dodge, Tonya, J. Kevin, Miesha Marzell Williams, and Rob Turrisi. 2012. Judging cheaters: Is substance misuse viewed similarly in the athletic and academic domains? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 26: 678–682. doi:10.1037/a0027872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dubljević, V. 2013. Cognitive Enhancement, Rational Choice and Justification. Neuroethics 6: 179–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Banjo, Opeyemi C., Roland Nadler, and Peter B. Reiner. 2010. Physician Attitudes towards Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement: Safety Concerns Are Paramount. PloS One 5: e14322. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014322.t003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Riis, Jason, and Joseph P. Simmons. 2008. Preferences for Enhancement Pharmaceuticals: The Reluctance to Enhance Fundamental Traits. Journal of Consumer Research 35: 495–508. doi:10.1086/588746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Degrazia, David. 2005. Enhancement Technologies and Human Identity. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30: 261–283. doi:10.1080/03605310590960166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Levy. 2007. Neuroethics. Cambridge University: Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Bolt, Ineke, and Maartje Schermer. 2009. Psychopharmaceutical Enhancers: Enhancing Identity? Neuroethics 2: 103–111. doi:10.1007/s12152-008-9031-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Focquaert, Farah, and Dirk De Ridder. 2009. Direct intervention in the brain: ethical issues concerning personal identity. Journal of Ethics in Mental Health 4: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Brey, P. 2009. Human enhancement and personal identity. In New Waves in Philosophy of Technology., eds. B. Olsen, J. Selinger, and E. Riis, 169–185. Palgrave Macmillan.

  40. Witt, Karsten, Jens Kuhn, Lars Timmermann, Mateusz Zurowski, and Christiane Woopen. 2011. Deep Brain Stimulation and the Search for Identity. Neuroethics 6: 499–511. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9100-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Forlini, Cynthia, and Eric Racine. 2011. Considering the Causes and Implications of Ambivalence in Using Medicine for Enhancement. The American Journal of Bioethics 11: 15–17. doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.534952.

  42. Aikins, Ross D. 2011. Academic Performance Enhancement: A Qualitative Study of the Perceptions and Habits of Prescription Stimulant–Using College Students. Journal of College Student Development 52: 560–576. doi:10.1353/csd.2011.0064.

  43. Burstin, Kenneth, Eugene B. Doughtie, and Avi Raphaeli. 1980. Contrastive Vignette Technique: An indirect Methodology Designed to Address Reactive Social Attitude Measurement1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 10: 147–165. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00699.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Knobe, Joshua, and Bertram F. Malle. 2002. Self and other in the explanation of behavior: 30 years later. Psychologica Belgica 42: 113–130.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Willis, Gordon. 2004. Cognitive interviewing. Research Triangle Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G. 2010. Demographics of Mechanical Turk.

  47. Paolacci, Gabriele, Jesse Chandler, and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis. 2009. Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5: 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 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. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mason, Winter, and Siddharth Suri. 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 44: 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. McCrae, Robert R., and Paul T. Costa. 1987. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 81–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. McCrae, Robert R, Antonio Terracciano, Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. 2005. Universal Features of Personality Traits From the Observer's Perspective: Data From 50 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88: 547–561. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547.

  53. McCrae, Robert R., and Oliver P. John. 1992. An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications. Journal of Personality 60: 175–215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. DeYoung, Colin G., Lena Quilty, and Jordan Peterson. 2007. Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93: 880–896. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Matthews, Gerald, Ian J. Deary, and Martha C. Whiteman. 2009. Personality Traits. Cambridge University: Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Kolber, Adam. 2006. Therapeutic Forgetting: The Legal and Ethical Implications of Memory Dampening. Vanderbilt law review 59: 1561–1626.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sandberg, A., and N. Bostrom. 2006. Converging Cognitive Enhancements. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1093: 201–227. doi:10.1196/annals.1382.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lin, Patrick, and Fritz Allhoff. 2008. Against unrestricted human enhancement. Journal of Evolution and Technology 18: 35.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Savulescu, Julian, Ruud ter Meulen, and Guy Kahane. 2011. Enhancing Human Capacities. John Wiley &: Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Watts, Susan. 2011. The dope on mental enhancement. November: New Scientist. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Petrow, Steven. 2014. The Drugs of Work-Performance Enhancement. February: The Atlantic. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Cumming, G. 2014. The New Statistics Why and How. Psychological Science.

  63. Cabrera, Laura Y. and Peter B. Reiner. (submitted). A novel sequential mixed-method technique for quantification of unscripted narratives: Contrastive quantitized content analysis: 1–18.

  64. Chi, Michelene T.H. 1997. Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 6: 271–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Lombard, Matthew, Jennifer Snyder-Duch, and Cheryl Campanella Bracken. 2002. Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability. Human Communication Research 28: 587–604. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sandelowski, Margarete, Corrine I. Voils, and G. Knafl. 2009. On Quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3: 208–222. doi:10.1177/1558689809334210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. 2003. Effect sizes in qualitative research: A prolegomenon. Quality and Quantity 37: 393–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Paolacci, Gabriele, and Jesse Chandler. 2014. Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23: 184–188. doi:10.1177/0963721414531598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Howden, Lindsay M., and Julie A. Meyer. 2011. Age and Sex Composition: 2010. US Census Bureau 1–16.

  71. Bostrom, Nick, and Toby Ord. 2006. The reversal test: eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics 116: 656–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Park, Nansook, Christopher Peterson, and M.E.P. Seligman. 2004. Strengths of Character and Well-Being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23: 603–619. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Yearley, Lee H. 1990. Mencius and Aquinas. SUNY: Press.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Hughes, James J. 2013. Using Neurotechnologies to Develop Virtues: A Buddhist Approach to Cognitive Enhancement. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality 20: 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. MacLean, Evan L., Brian Hare, L. Charles, Elsa Addessi Nunn, Federica Amici, C. Rindy, Filippo Aureli Anderson, et al. 2014. The evolution of self-control. Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences 111: E2140–E2148. doi:10.1073/pnas.1323533111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Mischel, Walter, Yuichi Shoda, and M.L. Rodriguez. 1989. Delay of Gratification in Children. Science 244: 933–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Moffitt, Terrie E., Louise Arseneault, Daniel Belsky, Nigel Dickson, J. Robert, Honalee Harrington Hancox, Renate Houts, et al. 2011. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 2693–2698. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010076108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Tangney, June P., R.F. Baumeister, and A.L. Boone. 2004. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality 72: 271–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Peterson, Christopher, and M.E.P. Seligman. 2004. Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Oxford University: Press.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Bublitz, Jan Christoph, and Reinhard Merkel. 2009. Autonomy and authenticity of enhanced personality traits. Bioethics 23: 360–374. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01725.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Parens, Erik. 2005. Authenticity and ambivalence: toward understanding the enhancement debate. The Hastings Center Report 35: 34–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Levy, Neil. 2011. Enhancing Authenticity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28: 308–318. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2011.00532.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. James, William. 1891. The Principles of Psychology. Harvard University Press.

  85. Markus, Hazel. 1977. Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35: 63–78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Haslam, Nick, Brock Bastian, and Melanie Bissett. 2004. Essentialist beliefs about personality and their implications. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30: 1661–1673. doi:10.1177/0146167204271182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Chen, Serena, Helen C. Boucher, and M.P. Tapias. 2006. The Relational Self Revealed: Integrative Conceptualization and Implications for Interpersonal Life. Psychological Bulletin 132: 151–179. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Oyserman, D, K Elmore, and George Smith. 2012. Self, Self-concept and Identity. In Handbook of Self and Identity, eds. M. R. Leary and J. P. Tangney, 69–104. Guilford Press.

  89. Sattler, Sebastian, Carsten Sauer, Guido Mehlkop, and Peter Graeff. 2013. The Rationale for Consuming Cognitive Enhancement Drugs in University Students and Teachers. PLoS ONE 8: e68821. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068821.s003.

  90. Franke, Andreas G., Carolin Papenburg, Elena Schotten, P.B. Reiner, and K. Lieb. 2014. Attitudes towards prescribing cognitive enhancers among primary care physicians in Germany. BMC Family Practice 15: 3. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-15-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Schuijff, Mirjam, and F.W. Brom. 2013. The dynamics of citizen deliberation regarding human enhancement in the Netherlands. In Beyond Therapy v. Enhancement? Multidisciplinary Analysis of a Heated Debate, ed. F. Lucivero and A. Vedder, 143–161. Pisa: Pisa University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Sattler, S., and C. Wiegel. 2012. Cognitive Test Anxiety and Cognitive Enhancement: The Influence of Students' Worries on Their Use of Performance-Enhancing Drugs. Substance Use & Misuse 48: 220–232. doi:10.3109/10826084.2012.751426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Judson, Rachel, and S.W. Langdon. 2009. Illicit use of prescription stimulants among college students: Prescription status, motives, theory of planned behaviour, knowledge and self-diagnostic tendencies. Psychology, Health & Medicine 14: 97–104. doi:10.1080/13548500802126723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Lyubomirsky, Sonja, Laura King, and Ed. Diener. 2005. The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin 131: 803–855. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Oishi, Shigehiro, Ed. Diener, and R.E. Lucas. 2007. The Optimum Level of Well-Being: Can People Be Too Happy? Perspectives on Psychological Science 2: 346–360. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00048.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Reiner, P B. 2013. The Biopolitics of Cognitive Enhancement. In Cognitive Enhancement: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, eds. E. Hildt and A. G. Franke, 189–200. Trends in Augmentation of Human Performance 1. Springer.

  97. Mill, John Stuart. 1863. On Liberty. Boston: Ticknor and Fields.

  98. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Greely, Henry, Barbara Sahakian, John Harris, C. Ronald, Michael Gazzaniga Kessler, J.M. Farah, and P. Campbell. 2008. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456: 702–705. doi:10.1038/456702a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Kaebnick, Gregory E. 2008. Nature, human nature, and biotechnology.

  101. Dworkin, Ronald. 2000. Playing God: genes, clones, and luck. In Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Harvard University Press.  

  102. Daniels, N. 1992. Growth Hormone Therapy for short stature: can we support the treatment/enhancement distinction. Growth: Genetics & Hormones 8: 46–48.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Jordan Mowat for his work as a second coder.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Core for Neuroethics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Laura Y. Cabrera, Nicholas S. Fitz & Peter B. Reiner

Authors
  1. Laura Y. Cabrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas S. Fitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter B. Reiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Y. Cabrera.

Additional information

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: LYC NF PBR. Performed the experiments: LYC NF. Analyzed the data: LCY. Wrote the paper: LYC NF PBR.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 165 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cabrera, L.Y., Fitz, N.S. & Reiner, P.B. Reasons for Comfort and Discomfort with Pharmacological Enhancement of Cognitive, Affective, and Social Domains. Neuroethics 8, 93–106 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9222-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9222-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation