Enhancing Cognition

The journal Nature has just published a helpful Commentary on cognitive enhancement. Henry Greely and his co-authors describe the widespread use of prescription drugs--often traded illegally on campus across the US--to enhance memory and other core cognitive functions.

Among the drugs being used? Ritilan, Adderal, Aricept, and a relative newcomer, modafinil (Provigil). Each of these drugs has a therapeutic use, but many also use them to enhance their performance rather than treat their disease.

Essentially the authors argue that such self-experimentation should be brought out of the shadows of illegality and into the light of "an evidence-based approach to the evalution of the risks and benefits of cognitive enhancement."

In other words, there is nothing intrisically immoral about using such drugs for enhancement, nothing that requires law enforcement, at least. Of course, no one (including soldiers) should be forced to use these drugs, the authors argue. But neither should the drugs be relegated to an illegal market. Those who wish to use them should have access to the best information about the effectiveness and their possible side effects, and they should be able to contribute to that knowledge base without fear of jail.

Enhancing cognition by eduction is something nearly everyone values. Enhancing mental ability by technology--in this case by prescription drugs--is another question. But what's the difference, and does the difference in method make a difference in morality?

Sure, a pharmaceutically-enhanced mind might become smarter, but it's not likely to become more wise or more ethical. So for a long time, there will probably be an enhanced level of wisdom and understanding that is beyond the reach of technology and can only be attained by classical education, meditation, or deeply reflective thought.

On another subject, the Vatican is about to release a new statement on embryo research and stem cell ethics under the title, Dignitas Personae or "The Dignity of Persons." The document itself is embargoed until 6 am eastern time, 12 Dec 08. But the initial buzz is that it is less open than other recent Vatican statements about the possibility of human germline gene therapy and that it is morally apprehensive about "Altered Nuclear Transfer," championed by Bill Hurlbut of Stanford University as a way to derive human pluripotent stem cells without using embryos. We'll see what the document says.