Cognitive enhancement drugs (CEDs), such as Ritalin, Adderall, and Provigil, are most commonly known for their use in treating patients with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). But these drugs, often called “smart drugs,” can profoundly enhance a perfectly healthy person’s ability to sustain concentration and thus improve the effectiveness of his mind for a period of time. When working on a difficult mental task—engaging in research, taking a test, performing an operation, or the like—sustained concentration can be the difference between success and failure. Although research on CEDs is still in its infancy, a handful of compounds on the market are showing remarkable results—and, of course, generating much controversy.
Various ethicists and policy advisers object to the use of “smart drugs” by healthy people. They allege, among other things, that such usage is dangerous because it can make criminals more effective at doing harm, or that it is “unfair” to those who don’t use the drugs, or that it is akin to the dishonest use of steroids by professional athletes.1 But do such objections make sense in light of the relevant facts? Are these legitimate grounds for morally condemning or even legally prohibiting the use of CEDs by healthy people? Are there circumstances in which the use of such drugs by healthy people can be moral?
Toward answering these questions, let us begin with a brief indication of the basic nature of these drugs and how they work.
Prominent CEDs include methylphenidate (Ritalin is a brand name), modafinil (Provigil is a brand name), and that great staple in life, caffeine. Each of these drugs stimulates the nervous system and regulates the cellular release and uptake of neurotransmitters, which are chemical compounds that transmit signals from one nerve cell to another. Consider first the most common of these, caffeine.
Research has shown that caffeine improves cognitive performance mainly by inhibiting a brain-activity inhibitor known as adenosine. Adenosine is a neurotransmitter that suppresses brain excitation and is involved in regulating the sleep cycle. Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors in the central nervous system, preventing adenosine from binding to nerve cells.2 This, in turn, reduces the inhibitory effect of adenosine on the brain and enables greater neural activity.3 Caffeine is used by many millions of people every day to increase alertness and mental efficacy. It is by far the most widely used CED.
Ritalin, originally intended to help ADHD patients concentrate, works by preventing the neurotransmitters dopamine and norepinephrine from being stored within nerve cells. . . .
You might also like
1. Rob Goodman, “Cognitive Enhancement, Cheating, and Accomplishment,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, vol. 20, no. 2, 2010, pp. 145–60.
2. Zhi-Li Huang et al., “Adenosine A2A, but Not A1, Receptors Mediate the Arousal Effect of Caffeine,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 8, no. 7, July 2005, pp. 858–59.
3. Andreas Heinz et al., “Cognitive Neuroenhancement: False Assumptions in the Ethical Debate,” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 38, no. 6, 2012, pp. 372–75.
[groups_can_not capability="access_html"] . . . [/groups_can_not][groups_can capability="access_html"]
4. Walter Glannon, “Psychopharmacological Enhancement,” Neuroethics, vol. 1, no. 1, 2008, pp. 45–54.
5. Goodman, “Cognitive Enhancement, Cheating, and Accomplishment,” p. 148; Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson, “The Perils of Cognitive Enhancement and the Urgent Imperative to Enhance the Moral Character of Humanity,” Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 25, no. 3, 2008, pp. 162–77.
6. Elinor Artsy et al., “Use of Modafinil in Patients with Epilepsy,” Epilepsy & Behavior, vol. 23, no. 4, 2012, pp. 405–08.
7. Glannon, “Psychopharmacological Enhancement,” pp. 45–54.
8. Dimitris Repantis et al., “Provigil and Methylphenidate for Neuroenhancement in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review,” Pharmacological Research, vol. 62, no. 3, 2010, pp. 187–206; Danielle C. Turner and Barbara J. Sahakian, “Neuroethics of Cognitive Enhancement,” BioSocieties, vol. 1, no. 1, 2006, pp. 113–23.
9. John A. Caldwell, “Go Pills in Combat,” Air & Space Power Journal, vol. 22, no. 3, Fall 2008; John A. Caldwell, “Modafinil’s Effects on Simulator Performance and Mood in Pilots During 37 h Without Sleep,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, vol. 75, no. 9, September 2004, pp. 777–84.
10. Jakov Gather, “The Evaluation of Psychopharmacological Enhancers: Beyond a Normative ‘Natural’—‘Artificial’ Dichotomy,” Medicine Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2011, pp. 19–27.
11. Joseph V. Baranski et al., “Effects of Modafinil on Cognitive and Meta-cognitive Performance,” Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, vol. 19, no. 5, 2004, pp. 323–32.
12. Elizabeth Fenton, “The Perils of Failing to Enhance: A Response to Persson and Savulescu,” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 36, no. 3, 2010, pp. 148–51.
13. Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson, “Getting Moral Enhancement Right: The Desirability of Moral Bioenhancement,” Bioethics, vol. 27, no. 3, 2013, pp. 124–31; Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson, “The Turn for Ultimate Harm: A Reply to Fenton,” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 37, no. 7, 2011, pp. 441–44; Savulescu and Persson, “The Perils of Cognitive Enhancement,” pp. 162–77.
14. John Harris, “Moral Enhancement and Freedom,” Bioethics, vol. 25, no. 2, 2011, pp. 102–11.
15. Goodman, “Cognitive Enhancement, Cheating, and Accomplishment,” p. 149.
16. Henry Greely et al., “Towards Responsible Use of Cognitive-enhancing Drugs by the Healthy,” Nature, vol. 456, no. 7223, 2008, pp. 702–5.
17. Glannon, “Psychopharmacological Enhancement,” p. 52.
18. Kurt Bayertz, “Human Nature: How Normative Might It Be?,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 28, no. 2, 2003, pp. 131–50.