This paper was done as a final project in 2012 for my Scholar\'s Senior Seminar, Neuroethics.

1. Brandon Turner Neuroethics April 18, 2012
Cognitive Enhancement: From Drugs to Genetics
One of the most essential methods of survival known to the human race has been the
development of technology to alter the way we interact with the environment. In fact, technology
has hit a staggering rate of exponential growth as new advances lead to even better ones, with the
promises of perhaps being able to one day alter our own bodies and minds in order to circumvent
the use of external gadgets and medication. Although this idea may seem unfathomable, this
process of self improvement is already in practice, though in much subtler ways.
Yet with the constant advance of technology and the steady rise in the amount of
information about ourselves that scientific research is giving us, improving ourselves at the local
clinic may not be as grounded in science fiction as we had once believed. What is even more
intriguing is the problem it poses to the most fundamental part of what we use to identify as
humans and persons: the brain. With the rapid expansion of the field of neuroscience, more and
more of the brain, from the physiological to the molecular level, is being discovered every day,
making vast advances in pharmacology that seeks to alter the way our brain works in order to
cure or treat neurological disorders. But what happens when this desire to cure evolves into the
desire to alter seemingly healthy, normal minds, pushing them to levels that evolution could not
reach without centuries of random mutations?
Advances in modern science have given us drugs to boost performance in the classroom
and to help alleviate painful memories, many of which are available with little effort. Drugs such
as Ritalin and Adderall are already taken by students across the nation to increase the fruits of
long nights studying and help get through those difficult classes, even when they have no
prescription based need for such a drug (Carley, 2008; Anderson, 2012). What’s more, advances

2. 2
in genetic screening and microbiological techniques have made processes such as in vitro
fertilization (IVF) and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) possible for many families
planning to have children. These processes allow parents to view the genomes of their potential
children while they are still embryos and choose which they would like to have. Although these
procedures are mainly used by parents with incurable genetic disorders, such as Huntington’s
disease or dwarfism, it is not impossible to imagine a time when not only are negative traits
selected against but can be removed directly from the embryo (Silver, 1997). Also, consider the
opposing situation when genes are not simply removed and a healthy one put in its place but a
superior version of the gene, allowing parents to enhance their progeny in a way that their own
genomic makeup would otherwise be impossible to generate.
These issues seem mild for the way in which these technologies are in place today, but
what of the future? How do we prevent situations such as those depicted in the films Equilibrium
and Gattaca from coming about? I doubt many would argue for repressing emotions with drugs
to conform to society or want that are bred as much by computers as their parents (Limitless,
2011; Gattaca, 1997). In order to prevent such events from taking place, the ethics of such
matters must be taken into account now such that law makers, and society itself, can prevent
such outcomes. The alteration of our bodies and minds may prove useful to those who are able to
freely choose such treatments, however, forcing those unwilling to undergo such a procedure or
use such a drug violates the ideals of personhood. Yet despite the possible drawbacks at an
individual level, the societal benefits from such alterations can prove beneficial to all and rest on
precedents of cognitive and physical enhancements available today. Because of this, I see no
reason why the progression of research into such drugs and treatments should be discontinued.

3. 3
Most everyone has probably thought or wished that there were some way to make
themselves better, beyond what they would be capable of at a normal functioning level even with
long hours of practice or study. As it turns out, this isn’t out of the realm of possibilities as
modern science has procured numerous drugs that rise to the occasion. From steroids in sports
competitions to ‘study aids,’ which are often off the label use of medicines such as adderal,
people are artificially enhancing themselves every day. But should they be allowed to continue
this? Some may argue that much of what they do, as far as negative side effects of such drugs are
concerned, that these constitute victimless crimes. Yet are they really so innocent? Gazzaniga
argues that the use of drugs for mental enhancement is acceptable while use of drugs for
enhancement in sports competitions constitutes cheating as the two apply to different sets of
rules. He argues that the use of steroids or other performance enhancers constitutes cheating
because “…the social contract with one’s competition is being broken (Gazzaniga, 2005).” The
use of drugs for mental enhancement, however, is in a different spectrum, notably that of society
and culture. In American society, we strive for the best. Collegiate students under pressure to
perform may often turn to such study aid drugs to help them through a difficult exam or write an
engaging paper, and yet no one seems to hold this against them. Gazzaniga outlines a
hypothetical situation involving a student, Joe, who graduates highschool at the top of his class
to attend Dartmouth. “It is as if all of Joe’s peers at Glendale High had swallowed a ‘smart pill’
and are now ready for quantum mechanics. Does the world become bizarre for our once-rare
smart guy? Does he fret and feel inadequate in the face of all the competition? No. The answer,
again, is rooted in how easily we adapt to our ever changing contexts (Gazzaniga, 2005).” In his
mind, there will always be smarter people around us and allowing others to step up to that level
will not change the norm. After all, if it raises the bar for the entire population, no one has gone

4. 4
up a peg in society. Martha Farah is in agreement with Gazzinaga, stating, “In academics,
whether you’re a student or a researcher, there is an element of competition, but it’s secondary.
The main purpose is to try to learn things, to get experience, to write papers, to do experiments.
So in that case if you can do it better because you’ve got some drug on board, that would on the
face of things seem like a plus (Carley, 2008).” In some sense, this may actually benefit society
as a whole. Imagine a country populated with smarter scientists, better businessmen, and
enlightened lawmakers who saw more of the whole picture. In this sense, the use of these current
day drugs to boost performance of a person’s mental processes is accepted and could be applied
broadly.
A problem arises with these drugs, however, when taking them is out of our power of
choice. Considering the above argument, these students and workers were taking these drugs to
boost their own performance, but what happens if it is required? It is already considered immoral
and unlawful to force someone to do something against their will, including forcibly altering
their mental state with drugs such as alcohol, GHB, or roofalin. But what if the whole world
jumps on the bandwagon of prescription brain enhancers and you’re forced to decide to take the
pill or remain at the bottom of the barrel? Dr. Anjan Chatterjee, quoted in the New York Times,
examines such a situation. “You can imagine a scenario in the future, when you’re applying for a
job, and the employer says, ‘Sure, you’ve got the talent for this, but we require you to take
Adderall.’ Now, maybe you do start to care about the ethical implications (Carey, 2008).” It
seems that a matter of choice has been removed for the would-be business man. But is it really
gone? I submit that the choice here still lies with the person in question, as he still has the ability
to act freely on his desire, namely that to be a successful business man. Every career surely has
its requirements and requires some sacrifice, and if business man wants to go forward with his

5. 5
career, he may have to make this sacrifice of taking adderall. Similarly, the world will always
need service related workers: people to pump gas, run shops, cook, clean, etc. In this case, no
individual rights need to be impinged upon, as the choice to engage in medicated brain
enhancement still exists.
If all this is available now, where will we be in a few years? As neuroscience continues to
grow and develop new treatments and enhancements for our mental abilities, new drugs will
doubtlessly be available in the future, and maybe sooner than we’ve expected. It may not be so
farfetched to imagine a drug such as NZT featured in the recent movie Limitless, a drug that
boosts the protagonist’s mental capacities to a super human state, allowing him to perform many
tasks both faster and with better quality than before (Limitless, 2010). Yet with the possible
benefits of the drug so vast, should we really postpone their creation now? The film Limitless
outlines the benefits of a so-called ‘normal’ functioning man engaging in mental enhancement,
but what of those less of? It is possible that these drugs could serve a different purpose, namely
aiding those on the lower IQ spectrum who could function normally in society. Nootropes,
another name for cognitive enhancers, have already been developed for patients suffering from
Alzheimer’s disease, a traumatic neurodegenerative disorder that causes retro and anterograde
amnesia (Gattinaga, 2005). This drug, of course, has been use for the same off-the-label purposes
as Adderall, yet does this mean we should stop trying to help those worse off just because they
may put others at an unfair advantage by boosting performance beyond normal? As long as the
administration of such drugs is voluntary and can serve to bolster society as a whole, I see no
reason why research into cognitive enhancers should not continue.
Apart from medication to boost performance, a more permanent solution may be nigh at
hand, making such enhancements unnecessary. The continued advancement of molecular biology

6. 6
and neuroscience has lead to a massive increase in the genetic knowledge of how our nervous
system is formed. Scientists are mapping new areas of the brain and correlating them to genetic
factors in hopes of finding traits that correspond to personality traits, athleticism, and
intelligence. With processes such as PGD and IVF already available, it may become possible to
insert favorable traits into our children and mold them to what we want them to be. This idea
rests on several assumptions that are not necessarily true from a genetics standpoint. As it stands,
the code in a person’s genome does not directly influence every bit of a person’s being in the
future. Nature and nurture work in conjunction to form a person, an idea that has been modeled
as genetics serving as the ‘potential’ or circuitry in the brain and environmental influences
shaping the formation of such framework (Silver, 1997). Yet one cannot deny the potential
influences of genetics on a person’s mentality. Brain scans and biochemical assays have
identified ‘malformed’ regions and enzymatic deficiencies in criminals, indicating that genetics
must surely have a role in who we are (Baily, 2005; Raine 2004). Could we really pull out
defective genes before a child is even born? As future research progresses, could we even swap
in superior genes?
Many people cringe at the notion of changing the genetic makeup of a child without them
having the ability to chose it, but is it really so bad? Many parents would often make the claim
that they want what’s best for their child. If they could prevent their child from suffering from a
terrible genetic disease, should they have the right? That is precisely what is going on today.
Couples that have the possibility of having a child with genetic diseases can undergo PGD to
scan a number of embryos for genetic traits that correspond to defective alleles and chose not to
have those embryos implanted, thus alleviating the possibility of their child suffering from such a
disease (Silver, 1997). This is far from tampering with the genetic code of a child, but it serves

7. 7
an important precedent. If we’re ok with changing the chance occurrence of a genetically
‘deficient’ child, why not alter his/her genome all together, and is this even possible?
Recent findings have even shown that altering a person’s mind by genetic enhancement
may not require embryos at all. In fact, a company called Neurologix has developed a method for
sending genes directly into the brain to treat Parkinson’s disease (Singer, 2009). This approach
would have the advantage of helping the gene pool in a population wide scale. Although some
may worry that these deficient genes have some hidden purpose, genetics says otherwise. As
Silver explains, “This point of view has no basis in reality. It results from a misunderstanding of
what the gene pool is, and why we should, or should not, care about it (Silver 1997).” In this
sense, the idea of negative selection against disadvantageous genes seems like a great idea, as
well as one that seems permissible by moral standards and the drive for a better tomorrow.
The difficult question arises when we begin to discuss positive selection in genomes.
Positive selection would entail the swapping out or insertion of ‘better’ genes. While this is
essentially the same negative selection when the targeted gene would be deleterious, it is
different when it starts to beget the enhancement of an embryo beyond what would normally be
produced by the parents. For example, if the genes for intelligence and athleticism were
discovered, parents could have doctors and molecular biologists insert superior versions of those
genes, allowing their child to be a scholar athlete beyond what they would be by chance. This is
not entirely beyond the realm of possibilities. I myself perform such a procedure in my work in
neuroscience, creating bacteria that have taken up external DNA and express the gene product to
suit the experiment. Although putting such a gene in a multi-cellular organism is more difficult,
it too has been accomplished in mice and rats, along with other lab animals. But is it ethical for
humans to undergo such a treatment?

8. 8
Some argue that the use of such treatments would put those children at an unfair
advantage over others as the procedure would be costly and available mainly to the rich. Films
such as Gattaca have already depicted such scenarios involving ‘designer babies’ that are
enhanced to suit their parents needs. Silver outlines such a scenario in his book Remaking Eden,
describing a distant future where the ‘gen-rich,’ or genetically enhanced subclass of humans,
eventually becomes so advanced that they are becoming their own species and incapable of
mating with natural humans (Silver, 1997). Although such a society is of concern, the immediate
effects of such enhancements may be offset by the drug market which offers similar
enhancements, mainly in the form of cognitive boosters. Allen Buchanan argues that although
these drugs may also be out of reach for some, other technologies that were thought to be only
available to the wealthy have diffused widely across the population, such as cellular phones.
“Right now if you go to Wal-Mart there are over one hundred and thirty drugs that used to be on
patent and have now gone off patent and gone generic, and a month supply of each of these
drugs is only four dollars. Now that's a lot cheaper than the cognitive enhancement drug that you
get at Starbucks (Andersen, 2012).”
One could hope that such genetic advances would also spread throughout the populace
very rapidly, and perhaps it will given that with such advances in human intelligence, living
standards across the board may increase, thus giving those on the lower end of the monetary
spectrum access to such procedures. Yet we must also be aware that, as said before, ‘better’
genes does not necessarily make a better person. The fact that some genes are not completely
penetrant, i.e. they do not guarantee the desired phenotype, leaves room for such genetic
experiments to fail altogether. Many people probably know a person or two who has an amazing
capacity for learning, music, or athletics, but has chosen to squander those gifts due to, perhaps,

9. 9
a lack of determination or motivation. In this sense, our genes are no better than what we can do
with them, and failing to meet the full potential of those genes results in a normal person,
genetically ‘rich’ or not.
Those who also claim that those who are wealthier will have better access to such
technology, and thusly will have more success in life, seem not to have noticed that this is
already the case. Wealthier children can be afforded expensive boarding schools, advanced
athletic training camps, personal assistants, musical tutors, etc., while those on the lower end of
the spectrum cannot. It doesn’t seem like this had much to do with Oprah Winfrey’s success,
however. Arguably one of the most successful TV hosts in America is also one of its best rags-
to-riches success stories (Wikipedia, 2012). If she can get by on a normative education and a
drive to succeed, it serves that even those who don’t have the enhanced gene package can do the
same. Evolution is geared towards survival, and an enhanced population free of genetic diseases
and super-smart, super talented athletes may well change selective pressures for those without
the treatment. Although I can’t speak to the speed at which this may occur, the drive to survive
has often won out for many in the past. As Gazzinaga states, “My own belief is that none of this
is threatening to our sense of self. The opportunities to enhance one’s mental state abound.
Backstopping many of the ethical concerns about unleashing millions of really smart people on
the world is the fact that millions of really smart people are already here (Gazzinaga, 2005).”
Perhaps it is time to stop fretting over how different people may become in realizing that we’re
already different, and that enhancement of ourselves and our environment is part of what makes
us human.
Advancing technologies provide us with the ability to evolve outside of evolutionary
bounds and allows societal and cultural constructs to shape what we become. In time, it may

10. 10
allow us to shape our own minds and bodies to what we wish it to be, which may be penultimate
desire of human science. This hyperagency, as it is termed, leads to many questions about how
these enhancements may affect both individuals and society as a whole. Yet, with past
precedents to guide us, the future of cognitive enhancement with better science and better
pharmaceuticals is vast. The creation of drugs and gene therapies that directly target our mental
ability may be both safer and more efficient that the over the counter drugs and expensive
hospital bills that we pay for now. To solve the ethical quandaries of the future you, one needs
only to look at what is being done now to see that an improvement would be well received.

11. 11
References
Andersen, Ross. “Why Cognitive Enhancement Is in Your Future (and Your Past).” The Atlantic.
6 Feb 2012. Electronic.
Bailey, Ronald. “Should We Cure Bad Behavior?” Reason.com. 1 June 2005. Electronic.
Carley, Benedict. “Brain Enhancement Is Wrong, Right?” The New York Times. 9 Mar 2008.
Electronic.
Gattaca. Dir. Andrew Niccol. Perf. Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Jude Law. Columbia
Pictures, 1997. DVD.
Gazzaniga, Michael S. The Ethical Brain. New York: Dana Press, 2005. Print.
Limitless. Dir. Neil Burger. Perf. Bradley Cooper, Anna Friel Robert DeNiro, and Abbie
Cornish. Relativity Media, 2011. DVD.
Raine, Adrian. “’Biological key’ to unlocking crime.” BBC News. 21 Dec 2004. Electronic.
Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden. New York: Avon Books, 1997. Print.
Singer, Emily. “Sending Genes into the Brain: More-invasive therapies show promise for
treating Parkinson’s.” Technology Review: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 20
May 2009. Electronic.