In his critical comment on our paper in this journal, Shaw argues that ‘false assumptions’ which we have criticised are in fact correct (‘Neuroenhancers, addiction and research ethics’). He suggests that the risk of addiction to neuroenhancers may not be relevant, and that safety and research in regard to neuroenhancement do not pose unique ethical problems. Here, we demonstrate that Shaw ignores key empirical research results, trivialises addiction, commits logical errors, confuses addictions and passions, argues on a speculative basis, and fails to distinguish the specific ethical conditions of clinical research from those relevant for research in healthy volunteers. Therefore, Shaw's criticism cannot convince.
- Research Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Cognitive neuroenhancement: false assumptions in the ethical debate
- Neuroenhancers, addiction and research ethics
- Sugar addiction: is it real? A narrative review
- Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology
- Neuropsychiatry of the basal ganglia
- Extrastriatal dopaminergic changes in Parkinson’s disease patients with impulse control disorders
- Neuroenhancing public health
- Parkinson disease and impulse control disorders: a review of clinical features, pathophysiology and management
- The billion dollar business of being smart
- GL.01 Dopamine in health and disease