|
 Provocations
Michael
LaBossiere
Number
Fifteen: A Better Brain
One
of the goals of modern neuroscience is to develop ways to improve
human cognitive abilities. Researchers are currently working on
what are known as "smart pills"- drugs intended to improve
memory, concentration and other mental abilities. Not surprisingly,
there is already significant ethical debate over such enhancements.
One
type of enhancement aims at restoring capabilities that have been
impaired or lost due to such things as injury, disease or aging.
For example, medications are being devised to offset the effects
of Alzheimer's disease. These enhancements seem to be morally acceptable.
Using medication to, for example, restore a patient's ailing memory
is analogous to using surgery to repair bone damage or using antibiotics
to restore a patient's physical health. Such "traditional"
treatments are morally acceptable; hence the use of enhancements
for such purposes is equally acceptable.
Not
surprisingly, the moral controversy centers on the use of enhancements
to boost the mental capabilities of healthy people. Given that healthy
people have used drugs, such as steroids, to enhance their physical
abilities it is safe to conclude that they will use products to
boost their mental abilities.
While
it is tempting to regard the use of such enhancers as immoral across
the board, there are situations in which their use by healthy individuals
would be acceptable. For example, a surgeon performing a long and
complex life-saving procedure or rescue workers in a major disaster
would certainly benefit from using a concentration booster to keep
them alert and focused in their life saving efforts. In such situations,
the benefits of using them would outweigh potential harms, provided
that the products did not have significant side effects.
In
other cases the use of such products would be immoral. The clearest
and most obvious example would be using them to gain an edge in
academics. For example, students would no doubt be tempted to use
such enhancers to improve their scores on standardized admissions
tests, like the LSAT and GRE. The immorality of such uses can be
shown using the following analogy.
In
competitive sports, such as running, the competition is governed
by rules and the objective is to determine who is the best rather
than who can win by any means. For example, if a person attempted
to win a foot race by using an "enhancement" like roller
blades, a skateboard or a car he would be rightfully regarded as
doing something wrong. Using an enhancing drug, such as steroids,
would be ethically on par with using roller blades and, as such,
would be morally unacceptable.
Assuming
the goal of academic competitions, such as standardized tests, is
to determine who is the best rather than who can achieve the highest
score by any means, then it would follow that using mental enhancers
to gain an edge would be analogous to using steroids to gain an
edge in physical competition. If this analogy holds true, the use
of such enhancers would be immoral.
Further,
if the analogy holds, we already have a moral and legal framework
in place for the time when mental enhancement is a reality-the rules
for athletic competition can almost certainly be, with slight modifications,
applied to academic competitions. It should come as no surprise
if someday exam proctors ask for both photo IDs and urine samples.
Of
course, mental competition is not limited to academics. It also
takes place in the world of business. It is easy to imagine people
using cognitive enhancing drugs to gain an edge in the workplace
against other employees they are competing with for raises, promotions
and jobs. The companies themselves might encourage employees to
use such products to gain a leg up on the competition.
An
even fiercer arena of competition is the battle between nations.
Once mental enhancing products become available it is certain that
they will be pressed into service to serve the national interest
of each country.
Unlike
in academics and sports, there seems to be little concern about
fair play in business and international competition. Thus, it can
be expected that enhancement products will be used with little in
the way of restraints or limits. Of course, given the nature of
such competition, this might be morally acceptable. After all, it
is not inherently immoral to use a better weapon than the enemy
in order to defeat him.
An
additional moral concern is the matter of side effects. Physical
enhancers, such as steroids, typically have negative side-effects
and some of these can be quite serious. Despite these side effects,
many people have used them and have been harmed. It seems quite
reasonable to believe that mental enhancers will have negative side
effects as well. If they are harmful, then using them would be morally
questionable, at the very least. This is especially true in cases
in which the user was pressured or forced to use them by their employer
or government.
A
final moral concern is the effect of such products on the person.
While the nature of personal identity is a matter of great debate,
it seems reasonable to believe that the mental attributes affected
by such enhancers would play a role in personal identity. Thus,
the use of such enhancers could conceivable alter the nature of
the person. Hence, the use of such enhancers should not be taken
lightly.
Provocations
will next be updated early December 2003
Join
Our Café mailing list
To
receive *very* short messages, letting you know when the Café
has been updated, just fill in your email address below - and press
submit.
[If
you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, simply fill in your
subscriber email address, select "Unsubscribe", and press Submit.]
Previous
Provocations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
|
