Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30220937›Full record

ArticleNeuroethics2018

Bottom Up Ethics - Neuroenhancement in Education and Employment.

Imre Bard, George Gaskell, Agnes Allansdottir, Rui Vieira da Cunha, Peter Eduard, Juergen Hampel, Elisabeth Hildt, Christian Hofmaier, Nicole Kronberger, Sheena Laursen and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Non-invasive brain stimulation and neuroenhancement.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2022
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

25 authors.

Imre Bard1Department of Methodology, London School of Economics, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6395-0335
George Gaskell1Department of Methodology, London School of Economics, London, UK.
Agnes AllansdottirToscana Life Sciences Foundation, Siena, Italy.
Rui Vieira da CunhaInstitute of Molecular and Cellulaor Biology, Porto, Portugal.
Peter Eduard4Experimentarium, Science Communication Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Juergen Hampel5Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies, Stuttgart University, Stuttgart, Germany.
Elisabeth Hildt6Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL USA.
Christian Hofmaier5Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies, Stuttgart University, Stuttgart, Germany.
Nicole Kronberger7Department of Social and Economic Psychology, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.
Sheena Laursen4Experimentarium, Science Communication Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anna Meijknecht8Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Salvör Nordal9Centre for Ethics University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Alexandre QuintanilhaInstitute of Molecular and Cellulaor Biology, Porto, Portugal.
Gema Revuelta10Centre on Science, Communication and Society Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Núria Saladié10Centre on Science, Communication and Society Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Judit Sándor11The Center for Ethics and Law in Biomedicine Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.
Júlio Borlido SantosInstitute of Molecular and Cellulaor Biology, Porto, Portugal.
Simone Seyringer7Department of Social and Economic Psychology, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.
Ilina Singh12Department of Psychiatry and Oxford Uehiro Centre University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Han Somsen8Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Winnie Toonders13Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Helge Torgersen14Institute of Technology Assessment Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria.
Vincent Torre15Centre for Neurobiology, International School for Advanced Studies, Trieste, Italy.
Márton Varju11The Center for Ethics and Law in Biomedicine Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.
Hub Zwart13Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroenhancement involves the use of neurotechnologies to improve cognitive, affective or behavioural functioning, where these are not judged to be clinically impaired. Questions about enhancement have become one of the key topics of neuroethics over the past decade. The current study draws on in-depth public engagement activities in ten European countries giving a bottom-up perspective on the ethics and desirability of enhancement. This informed the design of an online contrastive vignette experiment that was administered to representative samples of 1000 respondents in the ten countries and the United States. The experiment investigated how the gender of the protagonist, his or her level of performance, the efficacy of the enhancer and the mode of enhancement affected support for neuroenhancement in both educational and employment contexts. Of these, higher efficacy and lower performance were found to increase willingness to support enhancement. A series of commonly articulated claims about the individual and societal dimensions of neuroenhancement were derived from the public engagement activities. Underlying these claims, multivariate analysis identified two social values. The Societal/Protective highlights counter normative consequences and opposes the use enhancers. The Individual/Proactionary highlights opportunities and supports use. For most respondents these values are not mutually exclusive. This suggests that for many neuroenhancement is viewed simultaneously as a source of both promise and concern.

Indexed as

Empirical ethicsNeuroenhancementSocial values

Identifiers

PMID30220937
PMCPMC6132847

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.