Public Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement

Abstract

Vigorous debate over the moral propriety of cognitive enhancement exists, but the views of the public have been largely absent from the discussion. To address this gap in our knowledge, four experiments were carried out with contrastive vignettes in order to obtain quantitative data on public attitudes towards cognitive enhancement. The data collected suggest that the public is sensitive to and capable of understanding the four cardinal concerns identified by neuroethicists, and tend to cautiously accept cognitive enhancement even as they recognize its potential perils. The public is biopolitically moderate, endorses both meritocratic principles and the intrinsic value of hard work, and appears to be sensitive to the salient moral issues raised in the debate. Taken together, these data suggest that public attitudes toward enhancement are sufficiently sophisticated to merit inclusion in policy deliberations, especially if we seek to align public sentiment and policy.

Empirical Support for the Moral Salience of the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction in the Debate Over Cognitive, Affective and Social Enhancement

“…Building on the emerging experimental neuroethics endeavor [22], we used the contrastive vignette technique [27] to explore public attitudes towards pharmacological CAS enhancement. By enabling the experimenter to systematically manipulate key variables in the vignettes, this methodology has the advantage of bringing quantitative rigor to issues of neuroethical salience.…”

“…One way of approaching the issue is to query the public about their enthusiasms and concerns with regard to enhancement of human brains [21][22][23]. This is not merely a matter of philosophical and bioethical concern, but also one with substantive policy implications [24,25] for the closer we align policy with public norms, the less likely we are to encounter transgressions such as diversion of prescription pharmaceuticals [26].…”

Neuro-Enhancement Practices across the Lifecourse: Exploring the Roles of Relationality and Individualism

“…To fully understand the normative implications of new opportunities for neuro-enhancement, we need first to answer the empirical question of how humans do in fact respond to the increased degree of choice and responsibility these technologies entail (Bostrom and Sandberg, 2009;Forlini and Hall, 2016). The research that has investigated how neuro-enhancement ideas are received by the lay public has revealed some unexpected findings: for instance, although people are interested in neuro-enhancement and conscious of normative pressures to engage in it (Cabrera et al, 2014;Fitz et al, 2014;Schelle et al, 2014), actual uptake of neuro-enhancement regimes may be relatively low (Pickersgill et al, 2014;O'Connor and Joffe, 2015). A valid and responsible analysis of neuro-enhancement's cultural implications should be sensitive to its real-life operations, and incorporate the nuances and qualifications that are evident therein.…”

“…A valid ethical analysis of neuro-enhancement must start from a conscientious inspection of how these practices manifest in everyday thought and action. In other words, the priority is on "empirical neuroethics" over "anticipatory neuroethics" (Illes, 2007;Northoff, 2009;Pickersgill, 2013;Fitz et al, 2014). While there is certainly value in preemptive reflection on as-yetunrealized repercussions of neuroscientific advances, numerous observers have noted that this form of promissory discourse can lean toward collaborating in the "hype" that neuroscience often engenders (Vidal, 2009;Conrad and De Vries, 2011;Pickersgill, 2013).…”

Introduction: Critiquing technologies of the mind: enhancement, alteration, and anthropotechnology

“…As Fritz et al (2013) point out, there has not been a great deal of public consultation or study of public attitudes toward cognitive enhancement, despite the high level of media attention and calls for public debate. Fritz et al (2013) carried out experiments with contrastive vignettes Bin order to obtain quantitative data on public attitudes towards cognitive enhancement.Ĥ owever the focus of these experiments remained largely within the standard framework identified by Brenninkmeijer and Zwart (2016) above: safety, equity, authenticity. Fritz et al also examined pressure to use enhancement technologies as a salient ethical issue.…”