Empirical Support for the Moral Salience of the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction in the Debate Over Cognitive, Affective and Social Enhancement

Neuroethics

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 243-256

  Cabrera, Laura Y ^a   Fitz, Nicholas S ^a   Reiner, Peter B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Affective; Cognitive; Enhancement above the norm; Enhancement to the norm; Experimental neuroethics; Public attitudes; Social

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CANADA; COGNITIVE AFFECTIVE AND SOCIAL ENHANCEMENT; COGNITIVE REMEDIATION THERAPY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MORALITY; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84947046308     PISSN: 18745490     EISSN: 18745504     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12152-014-9223-2     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Daniels, Norman. 1985. Just Health Care- Studies in philosophy and health policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Daniels, Norman. 2008. Just health. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Daniels, N. 1992. Growth Hormone Therapy for short stature: Can we support the treatment/enhancement distinction. Growth: Genetics & Hormones 8: 46–48.
4. President’s Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond therapy. Washington: President’s Council on Bioethics.
5. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2014. Gray matters: Integrative approaches for neuroscience, ethics, and society. Vol. 1. Presidential Commision for the Study of Bioethical Issues. http://www.bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/Gray%20Matters%20Vol%201.pdf. Accessed 06 June 2014.
6. Bostrom, Nick, and Julian Savulescu. 2009. Human enhancement ethics: The state of the debate. In Human enhancement, ed. Julian Savulescu and Nick Bostrom, 1–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Harris, John. 2007. Enhancing evolution. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
8. Cabrera, Laura Y. 2011. Between different Human enhancement paradigms: the role of Nano and Neurotechnology. CSU Research Output. http://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=35277&local_base=GEN01-CSU01. Accessed 17 February 2014.
9. Coenen, Christopher, Mirjam Schuijff, Martijntje Smits, Pim Klaassen, Leonhard Hennen, Michael Rader, and Gregor Wolbring. 2009. Human enhancement. European Technology Assessment Group. https://www.itas.kit.edu/downloads/etag_coua09a.pdf. Accessed 17 February 2014.
10. Lin, Patrick, and Fritz Allhoff. 2008. Untangling the debate: The ethics of human enhancement. NanoEthics 2: 251–264. doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0046-7.
11. Buchanan, Allen, Dan W Brock, Norman Daniels, and Daniel Wikler. 2001. From chance to choice. Cambridge University Press.
12. Bostrom, Nick. 2008. Drugs can be used to treat more than disease. Nature 451: 520. doi:10.1038/451520b.
13. 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.
14. Butcher, James. 2003. Cognitive enhancement raises ethical concerns. The Lancet 362: 132–133. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13897-4.
15. 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.
16. Turner, Danielle C., and Barbara J. Sahakian. 2006. Neuroethics of cognitive enhancement. BioSocieties 1: 113–123. doi:10.1017/S1745855205040044.
17. Sahakian, Barbara J., and Sharon Morein-Zamir. 2011. Neuroethical issues in cognitive enhancement. Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) 25: 197–204. doi:10.1177/0269881109106926.
18. Racine, Eric, and Cynthia Forlini. 2008. Cognitive enhancement, lifestyle choice or misuse of prescription drugs? Neuroethics 3: 1–4. doi:10.1007/s12152-008-9023-7.
19. Heinz, Andreas, Roland Kipke, Hannah Heimann, and Urban Wiesing. 2012. Cognitive neuroenhancement: False assumptions in the ethical debate. Journal of Medical Ethics 38: 372–375. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100041.
20. Ravelingien, A., J. Braeckman, L. Crevits, D. De Ridder, and E. Mortier. 2009. “Cosmetic neurology” and the moral complicity argument. Neuroethics 2: 151–162. doi:10.1007/s12152-009-9042-z. Springer Netherlands.
21. Nadler, Roland C, and Peter B Reiner. 2010. A call for data to inform discussion on cognitive enhancement 5. Nature Publishing Group: 481–482. doi:10.1057/biosoc.2010.30.
22. 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.
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.
24. Schicktanz, Silke, Mark Schweda, and Brian Wynne. 2012. The ethics of ‘public understanding of ethics’—why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients’ voices. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15: 129–139.
25. Burstein, Paul. 2003. The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56: 29–40. doi:10.1177/106591290305600103.
26. Kaye, Sharlene, and Shane Darke. 2012. The diversion and misuse of pharmaceutical stimulants: What do we know and why should we care? Addiction 107: 467–477. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03720.x.
27. Burstin, Kenneth, Eugene B. Doughtie, and Avi Raphaeli. 1980. Contrastive vignette technique: An indirect methodology designed to address reactive social attitude measurement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 10: 147–165. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00699.x.
28. 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.
29. Cabrera, Laura Y, Nick S. Fitz, and Peter B. Reiner. (2014). Reasons for comfort and discomfort with pharmacological enhancement of cognitive, affective, and social domains. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-014-9222-3.
30. Knobe, Joshua, and Bertram F. Malle. 2002. Self and other in the explanation of behavior: 30 years later. Psychologica Belgica 42: 113–130.
31. Willis, Gordon. 2004. Cognitive interviewing. Research Triangle Institute. http://www.uiowa.edu/~c07b209/interview.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2014.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Paolacci, Gabriele, Jesse Chandler, and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis. 2009. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5: 411–419.
35. Mason, Winter, and Siddharth Suri. 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 44: 1–23.
36. Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G. 2010. Demographics of Mechanical Turk. Research Gate. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228140347_Demographics_of_Mechanical_Turk/links/00b7d51b0945c43fb5000000. Accessed 18 February 2014.
37. 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.
38. Curran-Everett, Douglas, and Dale Benos. 2004. Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism 287: E189–E191. doi:10.1152/ajpendo.00213.2004.
39. Cumming, Geoff. 2014. The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science 25: 7–29. doi:10.1177/0956797613504966.
40. Chi, Michelene TH. 1997. Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 6:271–315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1.
41. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
42. Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. 2003. Effect sizes in qualitative research: A prolegomenon. Quality and Quantity 37:393–409. doi:10.1023/A:1027379223537.
43. Östlund, Ulrika, Lisa Kidd, Yvonne Wengström, and Neneh Rowa-Dewar. 2011. Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: A methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 48: 369–383. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005.
44. Sandelowski, Margarete, Corrine I. Voils, and George Knafl. 2009. On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3: 208–222. doi:10.1177/1558689809334210.
45. Daniels, Norman. 2000. Normal functioning and the treatment-enhancement distinction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics: CQ: The International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees 9: 309–322.
46. 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. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
47. 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.
48. Chan, Sarah, and John Harris. 2008. In support of human enhancement. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1: 1–3.
49. Horvath, J., and T. Grundmann. 2013. Experimental philosophy and its critics. London: Routledge.
50. Williamson, T. 2011. Philosophical expertise and the burden of proof. Metaphilosophy 42: 215–229.
51. Savulescu, Julian. 2006. Justice, fairness, and enhancement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1093: 321–338. doi:10.1196/annals.1382.021.
52. Bostrom, Nick. 2011. Smart policy: Cognitive enhancement and the public interest. In Enhancing human capacities, ed. J. Savulescu, Ruud, and G. Kahane, 138–152. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
53. Sandberg, Anders, and Julian Savulescu. 2011. The social and economic impacts of cognitive enhancement. In Enhancing human capacities, ed. J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, and G. Kahane, 92–112. Oxford: Wiley.
54. Harris, J. 2009. Enhancements are a moral obligation. WellcomeScience: 16–17.
55. Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2008. The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25: 162–177. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00410.x.
56. Quigley, Muireann. 2009. Enhancing Me, Enhancing You: Academic Enhancement as a Moral Duty. Expo 2. doi:10.1558/expo.v2i2.157.
57. Farah, M.J., and P. Root Wolpe. 2004. Monitoring and manipulating brain function: New neuroscience technologies and their ethical implications. Hastings Center Report 34: 35–45.
58. 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. Taylor & Francis Group.
59. Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2012. Stakeholder perspectives and reactions to “academic” cognitive enhancement: Unsuspected meaning of ambivalence and analogies. Public Understanding of Science 21: 606–625. doi:10.1177/0963662510385062.
60. 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. Public Library of Science.
61. Hotze, Timothy D., Kavita Shah, Emily E. Anderson, and Matthew K. Wynia. 2011. “Doctor, would you prescribe a pill to help me … ?” A national survey of physicians on using medicine for human enhancement. The American Journal of Bioethics 11: 3–13. doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.534957.
62. Ott, R., and N. Biller-Andorno. 2014. Neuroenhancement among Swiss students–a comparison of users and non-users. Pharmacopsychiatry 47: 22–28. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1358682.
63. 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.
64. Dubljevic, Veljko, Sebastian Sattler, and Eric Racine. 2014. Cognitive enhancement and academic misconduct: A study exploring their frequency and relationship. Ethics & Behavior 24: 408–420. doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.869747.
65. Beddington, John, Cary L. Cooper, John Field, Usha Goswami, Felicia A. Huppert, Rachel Jenkins, Hannah S. Jones, Tom B.L. Kirkwood, Barbara J. Sahakian, and Sandy M. Thomas. 2008. The mental wealth of nations. Nature 455: 1057–1060. doi:10.1038/4551057a.
66. Nussbaum, Martha, and Amartya Sen. 1993. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
67. Sen, Amartya. 1979. Equality of What? the Tanner Lecture on Human Values. Standford University.
68. Nussbaum, M.C. 1992. Human functioning and social justice in defense of Aristotelian essentialism. Political Theory 20: 202–246. Sage Publications.
69. Little, M.O. 2000. Cosmetic surgery, suspect norms, and the ethics of complicity. In Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications, ed. E. Parens, 162–176. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
70. Conrad, Peter, and Valerie Leiter. 2004. Medicalization, markets and consumers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45: 158–176.
71. Watts, Geoff. 2012. Critics attack DSM-5 for overmedicalising normal human behaviour. BMJ 344: e1020. doi:10.1136/bmj.e1020.