Triage procedures with acceptable diagnostic quality exist to identify the most severely injured. Due to its high rate of false positive results (over-triage) the recently developed PRIOR algorithm will cause overload of available resources for the severely injured within mass casualty incident missions. Non-surgical patients still are poorly identified by the available algorithms.

The present work critically examines two assumptions frequently stated by supporters of cognitive neuroenhancement. The first, explicitly methodological, assumption is the supposition of effective and side effect-free neuroenhancers. However, there is an evidence-based concern that the most promising drugs currently used for cognitive enhancement can be addictive. Furthermore, this work describes why the neuronal correlates of key cognitive concepts, such as learning and memory, are so deeply connected with mechanisms implicated in the development and maintenance of addictive behaviour so that modification of these systems may inevitably run the risk of addiction to the enhancing drugs. Such a potential risk of addiction could only be falsified by in-depth empirical research. The second, implicit, assumption is that research on neuroenhancement does not pose a serious moral problem. However, the potential for addiction, along with arguments related to research ethics and the potential social impact of neuroenhancement, could invalidate this assumption. It is suggested that ethical evaluation needs to consider the empirical data as well as the question of whether and how such empirical knowledge can be obtained.

No abstract

Triage procedures with acceptable diagnostic quality exist to identify the most severely injured. Due to its high rate of false positive results (overtriage) in this study, the recently developed PRIOR algorithm could result in exhaustion of available resources for the severely injured and therefore to undertreatment of correctly assigned triage category I cases within mass casualty incidents. Non-surgical patients are still poorly allocated by the available algorithms. Contribution available free of charge by "Free Access".

In his critical comment on our paper in this journal, Shaw argues that 'false assumptions' which we have criticised are in fact correct ('Neuroenhancers, addiction and research ethics'). He suggests that the risk of addiction to neuroenhancers may not be relevant, and that safety and research in regard to neuroenhancement do not pose unique ethical problems. Here, we demonstrate that Shaw ignores key empirical research results, trivialises addiction, commits logical errors, confuses addictions and passions, argues on a speculative basis, and fails to distinguish the specific ethical conditions of clinical research from those relevant for research in healthy volunteers. Therefore, Shaw's criticism cannot convince.