ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2007
Memory enhancing drugs and Alzheimer's disease: enhancing the self or preventing the loss of it?
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical Issues in Memory Modification Technology: A Scoping Review.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- The effect of NAD-299 and TCB-2 on learning and memory, hippocampal BDNF levels and amyloid plaques in Streptozotocin-induced memory deficits in male rats.Psychopharmacology · 2018Article
- How Realistic Are the Scientific Assumptions of the Neuroenhancement Debate? Assessing the Pharmacological Optimism and Neuroenhancement Prevalence Hypotheses.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Young Blood Rejuvenates Old Bodies: A Call for Reflection when Moving from Mice to Men.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2018Article
- Limits to human enhancement: nature, disease, therapy or betterment?BMC medical ethics · 2017Review
- [Neuro-enhancement. Brain doping].Der Nervenarzt · 2009Review
- 'Self-care without a self': Alzheimer's disease and the concept of personal responsibility for health.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2008Article
- Psychopharmacology and the self: an introduction to the theme.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper we analyse some ethical and philosophical questions related to the development of memory enhancing drugs (MEDs) and anti-dementia drugs. The world of memory enhancement is coloured by utopian thinking and by the desire for quicker, sharper, and more reliable memories. Dementia is characterized by decline, fragility, vulnerability, a loss of the most important cognitive functions and even a loss of self. While MEDs are being developed for self-improvement, in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) the self is being lost. Despite this it is precisely those patients with AD and other forms of dementia that provide the subjects for scientific research on memory improvement. Biomedical research in the field of MEDs and anti-dementia drugs appears to provide a strong impetus for rethinking what we mean by 'memory', 'enhancement', 'therapy', and 'self'. We conclude (1) that the enhancement of memory is still in its infancy, (2) that current MEDs and anti-dementia drugs are at best partially and minimally effective under specific conditions, (3) that 'memory' and 'enhancement' are ambiguous terms, (4) that there is no clear-cut distinction between enhancement and therapy, and (5) that the research into MEDs and anti-dementia drugs encourages a reductionistic view of the human mind and of the self.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.