Pretty sad that the human race is not happy with the abilities our brains have to offer. If people are going to start messing around I suggest they read "Flowers For Algernon"

If cosmetic surgery simply to improve ones looks is legal and justifiable then how can you deny people the right to improve their cognotive abilities?

Is this some crusade by smart people to keep dumb people dumb under the guise of ethics?

Anon

Humans have never been happy with their lot. It's driven a thing called progress for a couple of million years now.

As to augmented cognition being required for employment, how different is it from the growing requirement in certain posts to be available 24/7 even when you're supposed to be on leave? It's intrusive and might be bad for your health... Artificial cognitive development isn't much different from forcing people to stay in school and take exams, and if it means the people who, by natural inclination/aptitude should never have been encouraged into HE, actually get some benefit out of it, so much the better.

>> "We know that there is likely to be a demand by healthy individuals for this 'treatment'. However, given that no drug or invasive medical procedure is risk-free, is it ethical to make them available to people who are not ill?"

Presumably what goes for this "treatment" should also go for "assisted conception"?

...If they haven't been taking advantage of their capability already.

There are a lot of people in my country who have failed to apply reason to their decisions. I doubt improved cognition will help with what they lack is education and curiosity to begin with.

It could be argued that our ability to change our environment to suit our needs has stifled our need to actually evolve to meet a new environment.

We are therefore left with two choices:

- let the statistical process of evolution continue in whatever directions it takes. Unfortunately, those breeding the fastest today are generally also those with the least brain power (religious fundamentalists of all types, chavs, trailer trash, etc.). It looks like "brain power" may actually be a detriment to species survival in our current world.

- let certain humans "improve" themselves in order to "speed up" or "direct" evolution. The trick is to make sure that what they're doing is actually an "improvement" and is "desirable". So we let these early adopters be guinea pigs and observe over a long period of time. If the changes lead to successful adaptations, it gets rolled out in a form of deliberate evolution of the species.

- let the machines take over as the species with the best survival rating. Perhaps fighting the machines will make us better humans. Or better batteries.

...is a work of fiction. A work of fiction is a story that is not true. You know, a story that someone made up.

Suggesting that we should ban improvements to cognitive function because of a fiction story like "Flowers for Algernon" is a bit like saying we should ban robotics because of Battlestar: Galactica. (Oh noes! Bobby's Lego Mindstorm set is going to turn into a Cylon deathbot! Quick, ban it!)

The fact that people will even make arguments like this shows quite nicely the driving need for enhanced cognitive function, seems to me.

1 - "'It should be remembered that people are willing to endure major surgery to enhance their visual appearance, so they may be willing to do so to improve their cognitive ability as well, if the techniques prove to be effective,' the BMA said in a statement."

...Only if being smarter is likely to get you a sex-partner or a sugar-daddy, neither of which appears to be the case in the real world.

2 - Four words: "First 'volunteer' - Tina Farrel" (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/08/scratchcard_anarchy/)

is that this opens an avenue for dumb richkids to buy smartness instead of being scammed.

What's the next? Should MENSA (Most Extravagant Narcissistic Society for Antisocialism) allow people who are augmented? :p

If we buy into this, then eventually it will be about versions, upgrades. What when prostethic limbs are more poverful than the original one? Are we going to allow, for instance, the military to augment their soldiers with mechanic limb-replacements to create a better soldier? Maybe with replaced eyeballs with built in targeting and night vision?

Don't like this picture of the future? That's why they are considering the ethics of this.

//Svein

Thats true that "Flowers for Algernon" is fiction. My feeling is (no not saying that its right, just a personal thing) if we ban people in sports for using steroids before a race. Then would it be unethical to pop a pill before writing a test, etc?

I think you're right about your criticism of Flowers for Algernon as an example but there is another science fiction story that may be more relevant to this:

Gattaca, IMO, does a pretty convincing job of explaining how "artificial enhancement" is likely to pan out if it ever becomes a reality in a capitalist society.

(For those who haven't seen it, it deals with how using eugenics to enhance the abilities of humans leads to the creation of an elite class for parents who can afford the treatment for their unborn children, and an underclass who can't. Let's just say it's a pretty depressing future for those who aren't super rich.)

Still, good news for you know who.

Hey Franklin,

Have you never heard of a parable? You know, a "story" that teaches a lesson?

That is truly what "Flowers for Algernon" is. That story goes way beyond mere fiction, and in this day and age ought to be required reading for medical and scientific ethics classes.

It's a truly prophetic warning to people who think nothing of making others their personal lab rats or experiment on themselves.

If you want to mess up your own brain, don't ask us taxpayers to keep your diapers changed and your drool bucket empty.

Sheesh, You are one dull witted, unimaginitive slug. Guess you let the machines take your soul already.

Listen here cool-aid brigade there isn't any enhancement possible none no drug, or targeted stimulation, will increase intelligence. It's all bullshit, none of it actually increases your intelligence at all, so stop arguing about it.

George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty Four is also a work of fiction. People dismissing it as such without considering its lesson is one reason why it is now a fact.

Can be made, 3 to 5 IQ points at the most.

However the good stuff will drag you down.

So, you have to pick and choose, smarter today, right now.

And drooling 10 years down the line.

Or a maintainable level that will allow you to at least think clearly.

I have (for the most part) went with the long range solutions; which, since I am not a doctor, I am not allowed to share with you.

I can say, however, that picking up a good book on logic will raise your tested level quite a bit beyond that of chemical means.

So does that mean that jacking in to a floppy to upload data Matrix-style is going to come as well ?

Where can I sign up ?!

Duh, let me get this straight...

It's been ok:

- for 100yrs to have dentists fill our gobs with mercury,aka amalgams.

-for 150yrs to needle us with cowpox,monkey viri,formaldehyde,aluminum&a garnish of mercury in the name of 'protecting'us

-for decades to poison the municipal water supply with fluoride

[first used by der furher to placate the populace]

-to consume beef, even tho mad cow was detected in the mid 1980's [!!]

-to use aluminium in pot&pans,foodwrap,beer,soda pop

[each can leaches 50mgs of Al into our bodies]

-stick mini-microwave ovens,aka,cellphones to our ears

Excuse me whilst i go Down the rabbit hole