Advertisement

Moral attitudes and willingness to enhance and repair cognition with brain stimulation

Published:September 26, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.09.014

      Highlights

      • We know little about the public attitudes toward enhancing and repair cognition with brain stimulation.
      • Intuitive moral judgments and the specific targets of brain stimulation may influence willingness to use it.
      • We examined moral acceptability and willingness to use brain stimulation in 894 subjects.
      • We found that people are most willing to use brain stimulation to repair the core authentic identity of other people.
      • We found that moral acceptability was positively associated with hypothetical willingness to use brain stimulation.

      Abstract

      Background

      The availability of technological means to enhance and repair human cognitive function raises questions about the perceived morality of their use. However, we have limited knowledge about the public's intuitive attitudes toward uses of brain stimulation. Studies that enlighten us about the public's willingness to endorse specific uses of brain stimulation on themselves and others could provide a basis to understand the moral psychology guiding intuitions about neuromodulation and opportunities to inform public education and public policy.

      Objective

      Hypothesis: We expected that subjects would be less willing to enhance or repair cognitive functions perceived as more “core" to “authentic" self-identity, prioritize brain stimulation uses for themselves, and more willing to enhance “core" functions in others. Across specific hypothetical uses, we expected the moral acceptability of specific uses to be associated with subjects’ willingness to endorse them.

      Methods

      We administered two surveys to the public in which subjects were asked to report how willing they would be to enhance or repair specific cognitive abilities using a hypothetical brain stimulation device called “Ceremode".

      Results

      Among 894 subjects, we found that subjects were more willing to use technologies to repair other people than themselves. They were most inclined to repair core functions in others. Subjects’ ratings of the moral acceptability of specific uses was related to their reported willingness to use brain stimulation.

      Conclusion

      Moral acceptability is related to the public's willingness to use brain stimulation. These findings suggest that the public endorses a generous approach to applying brain stimulation for cognitive gains in others. Further, this study establishes a basis to guide moral psychological studies of cognitive modification and social processes that guide attitudes toward and uses of brain stimulation.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      References

        • Ngandu T.
        • et al.
        A 2 year multidomain intervention of diet, exercise, cognitive training, and vascular risk monitoring versus control to prevent cognitive decline in at-risk elderly people (finger): a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2015; 385: 2255-2263
        • Franke A.G.
        • Bagusat C.
        • Rust S.
        • Engel A.
        • Lieb K.
        Substances used and prevalence rates of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among healthy subjects.
        Eur Arch Psychiatr Clin Neurosci. 2014; 264: 83-90
        • Snowball A.
        • et al.
        Long-term enhancement of brain function and cognition using cognitive training and brain stimulation.
        Curr Biol. 2013; 23: 987-992
        • Wexler A.
        The practices of do-it-yourself brain stimulation: implications for ethical considerations and regulatory proposals.
        J Med Ethics. 2016; 42: 211-215
        • Wexler A.
        Who uses direct-to-consumer brain stimulation products, and why? a study of home users of tdcs devices.
        J Cognit Enhanc. 2018; 2: 114-134
        • Gibson I.
        • Rosen D.
        • Stucker B.
        Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing.
        Springer, 2014
        • Okun M.S.
        • et al.
        Cognition and mood in Parkinson's disease in subthalamic nucleus versus globus pallidus interna deep brain stimulation: the compare trial.
        Ann Neurol. 2009; 65: 586-595
        • Jwa A.
        Early adopters of the magical thinking cap: a study on do-it-yourself (diy) transcranial direct current stimulation (tdcs) user community.
        J Law Biosci. 2015; 2: 292-335
        • Wexler A.
        • Hamilton R.H.
        Crowdsourced tdcs research: feasible or fanciful?.
        AJOB Neuroscience. 2017; 8: 50-53
        • Wurzman R.
        • Hamilton R.H.
        • Pascual-Leone A.
        • Fox M.D.
        An open letter concerning do-it-yourself users of transcranial direct current stimulation.
        Ann Neurol. 2016; 80: 1-4
        • Hamilton R.
        • Messing S.
        • Chatterjee A.
        Rethinking the thinking cap ethics of neural enhancement using noninvasive brain stimulation.
        Neurology. 2011; 76: 187-193
        • Fitz N.S.
        • Reiner P.B.
        The challenge of crafting policy for do-it-yourself brain stimulation.
        J Med Ethics medethics. 2013; 2013
        • Fitz N.S.
        • Nadler R.
        • Manogaran P.
        • Chong E.W.
        • Reiner P.B.
        Public attitudes toward cognitive enhancement.
        Neuroethics. 2014; 7: 173-188
        • Harter S.
        Authenticity.
        Oxford University Press, 2002
        • Riis J.
        • Simmons J.P.
        • Goodwin G.P.
        Preferences for enhancement pharmaceuticals: the reluctance to enhance fundamental traits.
        J Consum Res. 2008; 35: 495-508
        • Cabrera L.Y.
        • Fitz N.S.
        • Reiner P.B.
        Reasons for comfort and discomfort with pharmacological enhancement of cognitive, affective, and social domains.
        Neuroethics. 2015; 8: 93-106
        • Cabrera L.Y.
        • Fitz N.S.
        • Reiner P.B.
        Empirical support for the moral salience of the therapy-enhancement distinction in the debate over cognitive, affective and social enhancement.
        Neuroethics. 2015; 8: 243-256
        • Batson C.D.
        • Thompson E.R.
        • Seuferling G.
        • Whitney H.
        • Strongman J.A.
        Moral hypocrisy: appearing moral to oneself without being so.
        J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999; 77: 525
        • Gerber A.S.
        • Huber G.A.
        • Doherty D.
        • Dowling C.M.
        The big five personality traits in the political arena.
        Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2011; 14: 265-287
        • Stephan P.
        Research efficiency: perverse incentives.
        Nature. 2012; 484: 29-31
        • Edwards M.A.
        • Roy S.
        Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition.
        Environ Eng Sci. 2017; 34: 51-61
        • Maxwell S.E.
        • Lau M.Y.
        • Howard G.S.
        Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? what does “failure to replicate†really mean?.
        Am Psychol. 2015; 70: 487
        • Buhrmester M.
        • Kwang T.
        • Gosling S.D.
        Amazon's mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?.
        Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011; 6: 3-5
        • Rammstedt B.
        • John O.P.
        Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German.
        J Res Pers. 2007; 41: 203-212
        • Bay-Cheng L.Y.
        • Fitz C.C.
        • Alizaga N.M.
        • Zucker A.N.
        Tracking homo oeconomicus: development of the neoliberal beliefs inventory.
        J Soc Polit Psychol. 2015; 3: 71-88
        • Baayen R.H.
        • Davidson D.J.
        • Bates D.M.
        Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items.
        J Mem Lang. 2008; 59: 390-412
        • Bates D.
        • Maechler M.
        • Bolker B.
        • Walker S.
        • et al.
        lme4: linear mixed-effects models using eigen and s4.
        R package version. 2014; 1: 1-23
        • R Core Team
        R: a language and environment for statistical computing.
        R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria2016
        • Lorch R.F.
        • Myers J.L.
        Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research.
        J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit. 1990; 16: 149
        • Baayen R.H.
        Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R.
        Cambridge University Press, 2008
        • Hu L.-t.
        • Bentler P.M.
        Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
        Struct Equ Model: A Multidiscip J. 1999; 6: 1-55
        • Lombrozo T.
        The role of moral commitments in moral judgment.
        Cognit Sci. 2009; 33: 273-286
        • Arpaly N.
        Which autonomy? Freedom and determinism. 173. 2004
        • Hofstadter D.R.
        • Dennett D.C.
        The mind's I: fantasies and reflections on self & soul.
        Basic Books, 2006
        • Wexler A.
        Recurrent themes in the history of the home use of electrical stimulation: transcranial direct current stimulation (tdcs) and the medical battery (1870–1920).
        Brain Stimul. 2017; 10: 187-195
        • Chatterjee A.
        Neuroaesthetics: a coming of age story.
        J Cognit Neurosci. 2011; 23: 53-62
        • Medaglia J.D.
        • Satterthwaite T.D.
        • Kelkar A.
        • Ciric R.
        • Moore T.M.
        • Ruparel K.
        • Bassett D.S.
        Brain state expression and transitions are related to complex executive cognition in normative neurodevelopment.
        Neuroimage. 2018; 166: 293-306
        • Funk C.
        • Kennedy B.
        • Podrebarach Sciupac E. U.s.
        Public wary of biomedical technologies to ‘enhance’ human abilities.
        Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2016
        • Pugh J.
        • Maslen H.
        • Savulescu J.
        The need for further fine-grained distinctions in discussions of authenticity and deep brain stimulation.
        AJOB Neuroscience. 2017; 8: W1-W3
        • Wexler A.
        The social context of “do-it-yourself†brain stimulation: neurohackers, biohackers, and lifehackers.
        Front Hum Neurosci. 2017; 11
        • Kahneman D.
        Thinking, fast and slow.
        Macmillan, 2011
        • Glimcher P.W.
        • Fehr E.
        Neuroeconomics: decision making and the brain.
        Academic Press, 2013
        • Greene J.
        • Haidt J.
        How (and where) does moral judgment work?.
        Trends Cognit Sci. 2002; 6: 517-523
        • Weems G.H.
        • Onwuegbuzie A.J.
        The impact of midpoint responses and reverse coding on survey data.
        Meas Eval Counsel Dev. 2001; 34: 166
        • Fregni F.
        • Pascual-Leone A.
        Technology insight: noninvasive brain stimulation in neurology—perspectives on the therapeutic potential of rtms and tdcs.
        Nat Rev Neurol. 2007; 3: 383
        • Rossi S.
        • Hallett M.
        • Rossini P.M.
        • Pascual-Leone A.
        Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.
        Clin Neurophysiol. 2009; 120: 2008-2039
        • Tommasi G.
        • et al.
        Pyramidal tract side effects induced by deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus.
        J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2008; 79: 813-819
        • Rand D.G.
        The promise of mechanical turk: how online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments.
        J Theor Biol. 2012; 299: 172-179
        • Yaden D.B.
        • Eichstaedt J.C.
        • Medaglia J.D.
        The future of technology in positive psychology: methodological advances in the science of well-being.
        Front. Psychol. 2018; 9: 962