ArticleWellcome open research2025
Psychedelics as moral bioenhancers: Protocol for a scoping review of ethical arguments for and against.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Moral bioenhancement typically refers to the deliberate use of drugs or biotechnologies, potentially alongside other practices, to attempt to improve oneself morally. In addition to general concerns regarding moral self-bioenhancement, the possibility of using psychedelic substances for such purposes raises distinct ethical questions. As a first step in analysing these questions, we intend to perform a scoping review of the existing arguments for and against the use of psychedelics as moral bioenhancers. We will focus primarily on voluntary use by individuals, although voluntary use by couples or small groups will be considered. The present contribution is a protocol for this scoping review. Methods: Our scoping review will adhere to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, which involves five stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) developing the search strategy, (3) setting inclusion criteria, (4) extracting data, and (5) presenting and analysing the results. We will include both published and unpublished sources if they explicitly present ethical arguments for or against the voluntary use of psychedelics as intentional moral bioenhancers in adults. We will search for relevant studies in Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, The National Library of Medicine, the Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Philosopher's Index, the Bioethics Literature Database, EthxWeb, PhilPapers, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Philosopher's Index, EBSCO, BASE, and WorldCat. Sources will be excluded if (a) the full text is inaccessible, (b) the main text is in a language other than English, or (c) the focus is not primarily on ethical arguments (for example, focusing primarily on the clinical use of psychedelics for treatment). Two raters will independently assess all articles for eligibility, with disagreements to be resolved with a third reviewer. Data from eligible articles will be charted using a standardised data extraction form. The data will be analysed following PRISMA-ScR guidelines.
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.