Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Do Publics Share Experts’ Concerns about Brain–Computer Interfaces? A Trinational Survey on the Ethics of Neural Technology.Matthew Sample, Sebastian Sattler, David Rodriguez-Arias, Stefanie Blain-Moraes & Eric Racine - 2019 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 2019 (6):1242-1270.
    Since the 1960s, scientists, engineers, and healthcare professionals have developed brain–computer interface (BCI) technologies, connecting the user’s brain activity to communication or motor devices. This new technology has also captured the imagination of publics, industry, and ethicists. Academic ethics has highlighted the ethical challenges of BCIs, although these conclusions often rely on speculative or conceptual methods rather than empirical evidence or public engagement. From a social science or empirical ethics perspective, this tendency could be considered problematic and even technocratic because (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Enhancement and desert.Thomas Douglas - 2019 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 18 (1):3-22.
    It is sometimes claimed that those who succeed with the aid of enhancement technologies deserve the rewards associated with their success less, other things being equal, than those who succeed without the aid of such technologies. This claim captures some widely held intuitions, has been implicitly endorsed by participants in social–psychological research and helps to undergird some otherwise puzzling philosophical objections to the use of enhancement technologies. I consider whether it can be provided with a rational basis. I examine three (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • What makes neuroethics possible?Fernando Vidal - 2019 - History of the Human Sciences 32 (2):32-58.
    Since its emergence in the early 2000s, neuroethics has become a recognized, institutionalized and professionalized field. A central strategy for its successful development has been the claim that it must be an autonomous discipline, distinct in particular from bioethics. Such claim has been justified by the conviction, sustained since the 1990s by the capabilities attributed to neuroimaging technologies, that somehow ‘the mind is the brain’, that the brain sciences can illuminate the full range of human experience and behavior, and that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Editing the Genome of Human Beings: CRISPR-Cas9 and the Ethics of Genetic Enhancement.Marcelo de Araujo - 2017 - Journal of Evolution and Technology 27 (1):24-42.
    In 2015 a team of scientists used a new gene-editing technique called CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the genome of 86 non-viable human embryos. The experiment sparked a global debate on the ethics of gene editing. In this paper; I first review the key ethical issues that have been addressed in this debate. Although there is an emerging consensus now that research on the editing of human somatic cells for therapeutic purpose should be pursued further; the prospect of using gene-editing techniques for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • tDCS for Memory Enhancement: Analysis of the Speculative Aspects of Ethical Issues.Nathalie Voarino, Veljko Dubljević & Eric Racine - 2017 - Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Can self-validating neuroenhancement be autonomous?Jukka Varelius - 2020 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23 (1):51-59.
    Consider that an individual improves her capacities by neuroscientific means. It turns out that, besides altering her in the way(s) she intended, the enhancement also changes her personality in significant way(s) she did not foresee. Yet the person endorses her new self because the neuroenhancement she underwent changed her. Can the person’s approval of her new personality be autonomous? While questions of autonomy have already gathered a significant amount of attention in philosophical literature on human enhancement, the problem just described—henceforth (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Is cognitive enhacement harmful? Personal affectation and independent value points of view.Daniel Loewe - 2017 - Filosofia Unisinos 18 (3):117-129.
    The paper discusses criticisms against pharmacological cognitive enhancement from a liberal perspective. The criticisms point to the consequences of cognitive enhancement in third parties and in the agents, as well as in independent values. According to the article, these criticisms are not convincing. On the contrary, it argues that under certain assumptions there are good reasons in favor of free access to cognitive enhancement.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark