Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Will There Ever Be a Drug with No or Negligible Side Effects? Evidence from Neuroscience

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Arguments in the neuroenhancement debate are sometimes based upon idealistic scenarios involving the assumption of using a drug that has no or negligible side effects. At least it is often implicitly assumed – as technology and scientific knowledge advances - that there soon will be a drug with no or negligible side effects. We will review evidence from neuroscience, complex network research and evolution theory and demonstrate that - at least in terms of psychopharmacological intervention – on the basis of our understanding of brain function it seems inconceivable that there ever will be a drug that has the desired effect without undesirable side effects. We will illustrate this by reference to enhancing edge detection in V2 in monkeys and demonstrate that even for this localised single neuron coded function there would be numerous side effects. Taking the more realistic case of pharmacological enhancement that is inevitably associated with side effects will change consequentialist arguments for neuroenhancement and have implications for the conception of autonomy, specifically in the case of performance enhancement. We conclude that a neuroethics debate that aims to inform policy decisions should take these findings into account. We hope that our article will precipitate more interdisciplinary research in neuroscience and philosophy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. (Personal conversation: Neuroenhancement conference University of Mainz, Germany, 2011).

  2. President’s Council in Bioethics.

References

  1. Synofzki, M., and T.E. Schlaepfer. 2008. Stimulating personality: Ethical criteria for deep brain stimulation in psychiatric patients and for enhancement purposes. Biotechnological Journal 3: 1511–1520.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Elliott, C. 1999. A philosophical disease. Bioethics, culture, and identity. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kramer, P. 1993. Listening to Pronzac. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Repantis, D., P. Schlattmann, O. Laisney, and I. Heuser. 2009. Antidepressants for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Poiesis & Praxis 6: 139–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kirsch, I., and B.J. Deacon. 2008. Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: A meta-analysis of data submitted to the food and drug administration. Public Library of Science Medicine 5: 26.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Savulescu, J., A. Sandberg, and G. Kahane. 2011. Well-being and enhancement. In Enhancing human capacities, ed. J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, and G. Kahane. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

  7. Dees, R.H. 2007. Better brains, better selves? The ethics of neuroenhancement. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17(4): 371–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Berghmans, R., R. ter Meulen, A. Malizia, and R. Vos. 2011. Scientific, ethical, and social issues in mood enhancement. In Enhancing human capacities, ed. J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, and G. Kahane. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

  9. Sahakian, B., and S. Morein-Zamir. 2007. Professor’s little helper. Nature 450(7173): 1157–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Douglas, T. 2011. Moral enhancement. In Enhancing human capacities, ed. J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, and G. Kahane. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

  11. Palfai, T., and H. Jankiewicz. 1997. Drugs and human behaviour. New York: Superstock.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bullmore, E., and O. Sporns. 2009. Complex brain networks: Graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10: 186–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. da Rocha, A.F., F.T. Rocha, and E. Massad. 2011. The brain as distributed intelligence processing system: An EEG study. PLoS ONE 6(3): e17355. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Von der Heydt, R., H. Zhou, and H.S. Friedman. 2000. Representation of stereoscopic edges in monkey visual cortex. Vision Research 40: 1955–1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Disney, A.A., K.V. Domakonda, and C. Aoki. 2006. Differential expression of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors across excitatory and inhibitory cells in visual cortical areas V1 and V2 of the macaque monkey. The Journal of Comparative Neurology 499.

  16. Spencer, D.G., E. Horvath, and J. Traber. 1986. Direct autodiographic determination of M1 and M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor distribution in the rat brain. Brain Research 380: 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tang, Y.P., E. Shimizu, G.R. Dube, C. Rampon, G.A. Kerchner, and M. Zhuo. 1999. Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice. Nature 401: 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cooke, S.F., and T.V.P. Bliss. 2003. The genetic enhancement of memory. Cell and Molecular Life Science 60: 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oxford, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Suite 8, Littlegate House, St Ebbes Street, Oxford, OX1 1PT, UK

    Sylvia Terbeck

  2. School of Psychology, University of Bangor, North Wale, UK

    Laurence Paul Chesterman

Authors
  1. Sylvia Terbeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laurence Paul Chesterman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvia Terbeck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Terbeck, S., Chesterman, L.P. Will There Ever Be a Drug with No or Negligible Side Effects? Evidence from Neuroscience. Neuroethics 7, 189–194 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-013-9195-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-013-9195-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation