Current developments in the area of neuroenhancement pose multiple ethical and societal questions. Improvements in general cognitive capacities can have important positive effects. With the use of several interventions, ranging from pharmaceutics through microsurgery to non-invasive and invasive methods, new possibilities of enhancing human abilities can be achieved. Yet, they have to be critically evaluated from the point of view of both individual and societal consequences that are involved. The aim of this paper is to address societal benefits and challenges (...) that are related to these interventions. These new developments, especially in the specific area of their military application, pose important questions with regard to safety of their use, long-term results, coercion to use them, and issues of inequality. Often, these consequences are unforeseeable at the present moment and can greatly interfere with development of both individuals and societies. Therefore, as in both areas – civilian and military – the long-term consequences are still difficult to predict, prudency is prescribed. Consequently, any use of the methods of enhancement should be under exceptional scrutiny from the ethical as well as legal and social point of view. (shrink)

The extra-therapeutic use of psychotropic drugs to improve cognition and to enhance mood has been the subject of controversial discussion in bioethics, in medicine but also in public for many years. Concerns over a liberal dealing with pharmacological enhancers are raised not only from a biomedical–pharmacological perspective, but particularly from an ethical one. Within these ethical concerns, there is one objection about the normative differentiation between “natural” and “artificial” enhancers, which is theoretically indeed widely discredited in bioethics, which has, however, (...) entrenched itself in such a persistent way in everyday moral consciousness that it keeps a crucial influence on the assessment of pharmacological enhancers made by the public and medical professionals. This paper tries to first show why a normative differentiation between “natural” and “artificial” enhancers is highly problematic. In a second step, the resulting implications for our current dealing with pharmacological enhancers shall be examined. In a specific comparison of synthetic pharmaceuticals (modafinil, SSRIs) with phytopharmaceuticals (ginkgo biloba, St. John’s wort) and other already established enhancers (alcohol, caffeine), argumentative inconsistencies are pointed out which, at least partly, result from a rationally untenable preference for the “natural” over the “artificial”. Therefore, it is conclusively argued the case for an unprejudiced assessment of pharmacological enhancers beyond a “natural”–“artificial” dichotomy, which equally takes into account biomedical and ethical aspects. The goal is to reach a coherent dealing with pharmacological enhancement in the long run. (shrink)