Abstract
In the chapter on empirical constraints of psychopharmacological cognitive enhancers (Chap. 4), I analyzed available information and policy options for the two of the most commonly used cognitive enhancement (CE) drugs: Adderall and Ritalin.
This Chapter draws and expands on my previous work which has been published as: Dubljević (2014).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The key reason modafinil is not discussed in this book is that a crucial element for evaluating harmfulness—thorough assessment by means of the Multi-Criteria Drug Harm Scale is still missing (see Dubljevic 2018). Namely, societal costs of possible injury to health through neuroenhancers is adequately captured by the use of the Multi-Criteria Drug Harm Scale, and this information is available for ‘classical stimulants’, but not newer classes of drugs. Future work will have to address this gap in research.
References
Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bigelow, B.C. 2006. UXL encyclopedia of drugs and addictive substances. Detroit: UXL/Thompson Gale.
Brewer, C.D., and H. De Grote. 2013. Regulating methylphenidate: Enhancing cognition and social inequality. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7): 47–49.
Brunoni, A.R., et al. 2011. Clinical research with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): Challenges and future directions. Brain Stimulation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2011.03.002.
Dubljević, V. 2012a. Principles of justice as the basis for public policy on psycho-pharmacological cognitive enhancement. Law, Innovation and Technology 4 (1): 67–83.
Dubljević, V. 2012b. Toward a legitimate public policy on cognition-enhancement drugs. American Journal of Bioethics – Neuroscience 3 (3): 29–33.
Dubljević, V. 2014. Response to open peer commentaries on “prohibition or coffee-shops: Regulation of amphetamine and methylphenidate for enhancement use by healthy adults”. American Journal of Bioethics 14 (1): W1–W8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2014.862417.
Dubljević, V. 2016a. Enhancement with modafinil: Benefiting or harming the society? In Cognitive enhancement: Ethical and policy implications in international perspectives, ed. F. Jotterand and V. Dubljević. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dubljević, V. 2016b. Autonomy is political, pragmatic and post-metaphysical: A reply to open peer commentaries on ‘autonomy in neuroethics’. AJOB – Neuroscience 7 (4), W1–W3.
Dubljević, V. 2018. Toward an improved Multi-Criteria Drug Harm Assessment process and evidence-based drug policies. Frontiers in Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00898.
Faulmüller, N., et al. 2013. The indirect psychological costs of cognitive enhancement. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7): 45–47.
Flanigan, J. 2013. An argument for permitting amphetamines and instant release methylphenidate. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7): 49–51.
Forlini, C., et al. 2013. How research on stakeholder perspectives can inform policy on cognitive enhancement. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7): 41–43.
Greely, H. 2013. Some first steps toward responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7): 39–41.
Hall, W., et al. 2013. Constraints on regulatory options for putatively cognitive enhancing drugs. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7): 35–37.
Iuculcano, T., and R. Cohen Kadosh. 2013. The mental cost of cognitive enhancement. The Journal of Neuroscience 33 (10): 4482–4486.
Iversen, L. 2008. Speed, ecstasy, ritalin: The science of amphetamines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LaBuzetta, J.N. 2013. Moving beyond methylphenidate and amphetamine: The ethics of a better ‘smart drug’. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7): 43–45.
Levy, N. 2013. There may be costs to failing to enhance as well as enhancing. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7): 38–39.
Mill, J.S. 1859. On liberty. Available online at: http://www.bartleby.com/130/. Accessed 23 Apr 2011.
Miller, R.L. 2002. Encyclopedia of addictive drugs. London: Greenwood Press.
Nutt, D., L.A. King, W. Saulsbury, and C. Blakemore. 2007. Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053.
Oxford Dictionary. 2013. Conservative. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/conservative. Accessed 5 Oct 2013.
Sandberg, A. 2013. Enhancement policy and the value of information. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7): 34–35.
Savulescu, J. 2013. A liberal consequentialist approach to regulation of cognitive enhancers. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7): 53–55.
United Nations [UN]. 1971. Convention on psychotropic substances. www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1971_en.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2013.
van der Eijk, Y. 2013. A blurry line between metaphysical free will and autonomy in addiction. AJOB Neuroscience 4 (4): 58–60.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dubljević, V. (2019). Are There Problems with the Economic Disincentives Model of Regulation?. In: Neuroethics, Justice and Autonomy: Public Reason in the Cognitive Enhancement Debate. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13643-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13643-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13642-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-13643-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)