It is suggested by Anders Sandberg that the use of cognitive enhancing drugs under medical supervision might achieve more overall learning and academic achievement and this is preferable to being driven into illicit use by bans, see practical ethics . In a previous posting I argued that the use of cognition enhancing drugs in examinations should be permissible subject to two conditions, see cognition enhancing drugs . In this posting I will firstly argue that there are two types of pharmacological enhancement. I will then consider such enhancement should be permissible, I will suggest that they should in some circumstances.
Let us assume some drugs effectively enhances cognition.
Any such drugs need to satisfy two further conditions for its use to be
permissible.
- Any cognition enhancing drugs must be safe to use without any major side effects. In certain circumstances some of these drug must be safe for long term use.
- In
certain circumstances the users of a cognition enhancing drugs must be
prepared to continue using these drugs.
Commenting on Sandberg’s posting Dennis Tuchler worries
about how long the effect of cognition enhancing drugs will last. He worries if
cognition enhancers only work for a short time that their use will mislead employers
and graduate schools about someone’s cognitive abilities. For instance let us
assume someone gains a job in the diplomatic service due to her superb powers
of concentration. Let us further assume that these powers are due to her taking
cognitive enhancers. Lastly let us assume that once she gains this position she
stops taking the enhancers and her powers of concentration fall away. In these
circumstances someone else who failed to obtain the post due to the drug takers
previous powers of concentration might feel he has been treated unjustly.
Moreover the diplomatic service might be disappointed with the appointment.
Whether Tuchler’s worries are justified depends on exactly what is involved
with cognitive enhancement. Cognitive enhancement might occur in two ways.
Firstly cognitive enhancement might be an ongoing process and
secondly cognitive enhancement might be the end result of a process. It
follows there are two types of cognitive enhancer. The first type of
enhancers would result in an ongoing change in the user even after she has
ceased to take the drug. Let us call such an enhancer type 1. An example of
type 1 enhancer might be some drug which increases our ability to remember and
what we remembered is retained even after we cease taking the enhancer. Type 1
enhancers might be likened to a scaffold round a building, the scaffolding
supports the building during construction but once the building is finished
there is no further need for the scaffolding and it can be removed. The second
type of enhancers would require their ongoing use to be effective, let us call
this type of enhancer type 2. An example of a type 2 enhancer might be some
drug which helps our brains to concentrate. In the case of type 2 enhancer if use
of the enhancer ceases the enhancement disappears, if the scaffolding is
removed the building falls down.
Let us first consider the use of type 1 cognitive enhancers
briefly. Let us assume that type 1 enhancers increase our power of memory.
Sandberg believes memories enhanced by drugs will presumably endure regardless
irrespective of whether the enhancer continues to be taken. Whether Sandberg’s
belief is correct is open to experiment and cannot be answered by doing
philosophy. However provided Sandberg’s belief is confirmed experimentally and
a type 1 enhancer has no untoward side effects then philosophically there
appears to be no reason why someone shouldn’t take such an enhancer. Indeed Nick Bostrom and Toby
Ord’s reversal test seem to support this conclusion (1). According to this test if
we accept that giving someone a drug to diminish her cognitive ability is wrong
and we argue giving someone a drug to enhance her cognitive abilities is also
wrong then we must be able to explain why enhancement is wrong or be accused of
having a status quo bias. It appears to follow that provided a type 1 cognitive enhancer is
safe that we have no reasons to prohibit the use of such an enhancer. Such a
conclusion is premature and reasons might be found to support the status quo. If such an enhancer is prohibitively expensive and
available only to a few due to cost then it might lead to social injustice. For
instance if the use of cognition enhancing drugs was useful in the diplomatic
service and these drugs were prohibitively expensive then people from
disadvantaged backgrounds might be discriminated against in their attempts to
join the service. The above conclusion might be amended as follows. If a
type 1 cognitive enhancer is safe and not prohibitively expensive then we have
no reasons to prohibit the use of such an enhancer.
Let us now examine the use
of type 2 cognitive enhancers. If this type of enhancer is to be effective it
must continue to be taken. Such an enhancer would affect one or more of our
physiological processes and this affect would result in increased cognitive
ability. Drugs that affect our physiological processes seem to require
continuous use. For instance someone taking a drug to reduce his blood pressure
must continue to do so. A drug which enhances someone’s ability to concentrate
would be an example of a drug that has a temporary physiological affect which
temporarily enhances her cognitive capabilities. It might be argued Bostrom and Ord’s reversal test gives us
no reason to ban type 2 cognitive enhancers. However once again reasons might
be found to support the status quo.
Perhaps the use
of type 2 cognitive enhancers might mislead employers or universities about
someone’s cognitive capabilities. For instance the examination grade obtained
by a student taking a type 2 cognitive enhancer might not accurately reflect
his cognitive abilities if he ceases taking the enhancer. However if he
continues taking the enhancer then the examination should reflect his cognitive
abilities in a similar way to how examinations reflect students abilities
without the use of cognitive enhancers of any sort. It appears possible that
the use of type 2 cognitive enhancers might be permissible subject to certain
conditions. The first of these conditions is that the user of type 2 enhancers
must continue taking the enhancer or else any supposed benefit will be
illusory. The second condition is that the use of type 2 enhancers will not
lead to social injustice.
I will deal with each of
these conditions in turn. If we are to permit the use of type 2 cognitive enhancers
we must be able to assure ourselves that users of these enhancers continue
taking them. How might this be achieved? Let us consider this question in
conjunction with safety. I will consider the question first in cases where the
issue of safety is clear cut. If such an enhancer has major safety issues then
its use should simply be prohibited. If such an enhancer is completely safe and
the cost is reasonable then I would question if we need any such assurance. Someone
with hypertension will take a safe drug to control his condition without a
second thought because it benefits him and carries minimal risk. He has a reason
to take the drug and no reason not to. It might be argued by analogy that much the
same applies to someone taking completely safe cognitive enhancers. It seems
safe to assume if someone has a reason to continue taking a cognitive enhancer
and none not to that he will continue to do so. Unfortunately not all cases are
so clear cut and most drugs have some side effects. In these circumstances Anders
Sandberg suggestion that the use of cognitive enhancing drugs should only occur
under medical supervision seems sensible. If the use of type 2 cognitive
enhancers takes place under medical supervision then once again we have no
reason to question their continued use. It appears to follow that provided type
2 cognitive enhancers are completely safe or only used under medical
supervision that we have no reason to question their continued use.
I now want to consider
whether the use of type 2 cognitive enhancers might lead to injustice? Someone
opposed to cognitive enhancement might argue that the prohibitive cost of such
enhancers might make them unavailable to some people leading to social
injustice. I will consider this objection in two specific contexts, first jobs
depending on good cognitive skill such as the diplomatic service and secondly
in higher education. First let us consider type 2 cognitive enhancers in the
context of jobs requiring high cognitive skills. It is in employers’ interests
to provide employees with the tools to work efficiently. It seems probable that
if type 2 enhancers increase efficiency in some contexts that in these contexts
it is in the interests of employers to provide them for free. Of course some
might not do so. If a significant number of employers do not provide type 2
cognitive enhancers for free when these enhancers have been proved to be safe
and increase efficiency then some legislation might be necessary. A similar
argument might be advanced with regard to higher education. Universities
provide students with the tools to help them learn, libraries, lectures halls
and lecturers. If type 2 cognitive enhancers are safe but too expensive for
most students then provided they are a useful learning tool perhaps
universities should supply them.
The above leads to some
tentative conclusions which might need modifying in the light of experience.
Firstly provided a type 1 cognitive enhancer is safe and not prohibitively
expensive then we have no reasons to prohibit the use of such an enhancer.
Secondly even if the cost of type 2 cognitive enhancers is high the use of such
enhancers should be permissible in higher education and jobs requiring high
cognitive skills. The permissibility of more widespread type 2 cognitive
enhancers is dependent on the availability and price of these enhancers.
- https://nickbostrom.com/ethics/statusquo.pdf