Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24999320›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2014

Pharmacological cognitive enhancement-how neuroscientific research could advance ethical debate.

Hannah Maslen, Nadira Faulmüller, Julian Savulescu

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cognitive enhancement and authenticity: moving beyond the Impasse.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Motives and Side-Effects of Microdosing With Psychedelics Among Users.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Sleep Deprivation Impairs and Caffeine Enhances My Performance, but Not Always Our Performance.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The impact of neuroscience on society: cognitive enhancement in neuropsychiatric disorders and in healthy people.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Hannah MaslenOxford Martin School, University of Oxford Oxford, UK.
Nadira FaulmüllerDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford Oxford, UK ; Department Values, Technology and Innovation, Delft University of Technology Delft, Netherlands.
Julian SavulescuOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBDelft University of Technology · NL

Funding

Wellcome Trust 086041
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

there are numerous ways people can improve their cognitive capacitiesgood nutrition and regular exercise can produce long-term improvements across many cognitive domains, whilst commonplace stimulants such as coffee temporarily boost levels of alertness and concentration. Effects like these have been well-documented in the medical literature and they raise few (if any) ethical issues. More recently, however, clinical research has shown that the off-label use of some pharmaceuticals can, under certain conditions, have modest cognition-improving effects. Substances such as methylphenidate and modafinil can improve capacities such as working memory and concentration in some healthy individuals. Unlike their more mundane predecessors, these methods of "cognitive enhancement" are thought to raise a multitude of ethical issues. This paper presents the six principal ethical issues raised in relation to pharmacological cognitive enhancers (PCEs)-issues such as whether: (1) the medical safety-profile of PCEs justifies restricting or permitting their elective or required use; (2) the enhanced mind can be an "authentic" mind; (3) individuals might be coerced into using PCEs; (4), there is a meaningful distinction to be made between the treatment vs. enhancement effect of the same PCE; (5) unequal access to PCEs would have implications for distributive justice; and (6) PCE use constitutes cheating in competitive contexts. In reviewing the six principal issues, the paper discusses how neuroscientific research might help advance the ethical debate. In particular, the paper presents new arguments about the contribution neuroscience could make to debates about justice, fairness, and cheating, ultimately concluding that neuroscientific research into "personalized enhancement" will be essential if policy is to be truly informed and ethical. We propose an "ethical agenda" for neuroscientific research into PCEs.

Indexed as

brain function augmentationcheatingcognitive enhancementethicsjusticemodafinilpersonalized enhancementritalin

Identifiers

PMID24999320
PMCPMC4052735
OpenAlexW2106645858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.