Neuroethics 11 (3):309-322 (2018)

Authors
Hub Zwart
Erasmus University Rotterdam
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.
Keywords RRI  Responsible Research and Innovation  Public engagement
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s12152-018-9366-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges. [REVIEW]Nick Bostrom - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):311-341.
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.D. Kahneman & A. Tversky - 1979 - Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society:263--291.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Neuroenhancement: Much Ado About Nothing?Frédéric Gilbert & Bernard Baertschi - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2 (4):45-47.
The Myth of Cognitive Enhancement Drugs.Hazem Zohny - 2015 - Neuroethics 8 (3):257-269.
Neuroenhancing Public Health.David Shaw - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics (6):2012-101300.
The Current Debate:(C+ M) E and Ultimate Harm.Vojin Rakic - 2012 - Filozofija I Društvo 23 (4):87-96.
The Morality of Moral Neuroenhancement.Thomas Douglas - forthcoming - In Clausen Jens & Levy Neil (eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics. Springer.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-05-02

Total views
48 ( #214,996 of 2,432,262 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
25 ( #31,260 of 2,432,262 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes