Thank Me With TEA!

Cognitive Enhancement

Resources

Articles

On Neurorights

The first article, “On Neurorights,” defines neurorights as fundamental normative rules for the protection and preservation of the human brain and mind, necessitated by neurotechnology. It traces the historical and conceptual roots of these rights, detailing three main families: derivatives of freedom of thought (such as cognitive liberty—the autonomous control over one’s mind), derivatives of privacy (mental privacy and neuroprivacy—protection against unauthorized intrusion into mental information or neural data), and derivatives of mental integrity (protection from illicit and harmful manipulation of mental activity). The article highlights that while the concept of neurorights has gained significant public traction, academic consensus is still developing regarding whether these should be considered entirely new human rights or evolutionary interpretations of existing ones, though they are considered axiomatic or foundational to other rights and freedoms. Policy initiatives in international bodies (like the OECD and the Council of Europe) and specific nations (like Chile and Spain) have begun incorporating or assessing these rights to govern neurotechnology.

Great minds think different: Preserving cognitive diversity in an age of gene editing

The second article, “Great minds think different: Preserving cognitive diversity in an age of gene editing,” explores the moral dilemmas arising from the potential use of gene editing and embryo selection to influence polygenic psychological traits, such as those categorized by the Big Five personality inventory. The authors acknowledge that traits like general intelligence are highly desirable, but emphasize that many traits involve trade-offs (e.g., openness is linked to creativity but also psychological risk). A central theme is the value of cognitive diversity—having a mix of different cognitive styles and personalities (like introverts and extraverts) is beneficial for groups solving complex problems and driving social innovation. However, parental choices driven by individual welfare (Procreative Beneficence) might lead to a collectively suboptimal population mix, creating a collective action problem when contrasted with choices supporting collective welfare (Procreative Altruism).

In response to these dilemmas, the authors argue against leaving the distribution of traits purely to the “natural lottery,” as natural selection does not prioritize collective well-being or adjust quickly to modern environments. Instead, they advocate for the principle of regulatory parsimony, which recommends minimal oversight. Regulatory parsimony suggests that when legislation is necessary to prevent serious harms from coordination problems, laws should be simple and broadly applicable, rather than micromanaging parental choices, thereby protecting individual liberty and encouraging decentralized choice.

Important

  • Note: Based on the provided prompt requirements, this section should contain a list of concepts explicitly indicated by the professor with a phrase like “you need to know this,” “this is important,” or “this is on the test.” Since none of the provided sources contain lecture content with these specific explicit indicators, this section cannot be completed based on the current source material.

Core concepts

  • Cognitive Enhancement: Refers to a wide set of techniques aimed at augmenting and improving cognitive functions beyond the natural baseline through performance-enhancing drugs, implants, human-computer interfaces, and other tools. It involves improving the processes related to acquiring or generating knowledge and understanding the world.
  • Neurotechnology: The umbrella term for methods, systems, and instruments that establish a direct connection pathway to the human brain to record and/or influence neuronal activity.
  • Invasive Neurotechnology: Involves devices implanted in or on the brain to record and/or stimulate neural activity, such as intracortical microelectrode arrays, Electrocorticography (ECoG) grids, and Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) electrodes. Historically, these were primarily used in clinical contexts, such as monitoring epilepsy or treating Parkinson’s motor symptoms.
  • Non-invasive Neurotechnology: Includes techniques like Electroencephalography-based Brain–Computer Interfaces (EEG-BCIs), Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), and Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES).
  • Intracortical Microelectrode Arrays (e.g., Utah Electrode Array): Microelectrode platforms implanted into the brain capable of bi-directional communication, recording activity, or activating neurons with current. Notable uses include controlling external devices, restoring movement and sensation, and reconstructing speech. A current issue is acute and chronic inflammatory reactions limiting long-term usability.
  • Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS): Used to improve motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease, lower seizure frequency in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and has shown mixed results for OCD and benefits for Tourette syndrome and treatment-resistant depression. Issues include invasiveness, surgical risk, hardware complications, and stimulation-related side effects.
  • Hippocampal Memory Prosthesis: A device successfully implemented to enhance human memory by recording a patient’s hippocampal neural firing patterns during memory formation and replaying optimized stimulation back to the hippocampus to strengthen encoding. Results showed short-term memory improved by approximately 37% and long-term retention improved by 35% compared to baseline.
  • Closed-loop Stimulation: Responsive stimulation triggered by real-time brain signals. This architecture has been deployed in the lateral temporal cortex to improve subsequent word recall by “rescuing” periods of ineffective encoding, and deep brain stimulation of the capsule/striatum area significantly improved cognitive control performance.
  • Cognitive Control: The ability to suppress an impulsive response in favour of a more adaptive or appropriate one.
  • Neuralink: Envisioned as a high-density, flexible, fully implanted wireless Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) combining recording, stimulation, robotics, and on-board signal processing, claiming real-time spike detection for closed-loop interactions. It has been successfully implanted in a human subject.
  • Neurorights: The ethical, legal, social, or natural principles of freedom or entitlement related to a person’s cerebral and mental domain; fundamental normative rules for the protection and preservation of the human brain and mind.
  • Cognitive Liberty: The right and freedom to control one’s own consciousness and electrochemical thought processes. It is defined as a complex right involving negative liberty (making choices without external obstacles) and positive liberty (having the possibility to take control of one’s mental life). It is considered the necessary substrate for nearly every other freedom.
  • Mental Privacy (Neuroprivacy): People’s right against the unconsented intrusion by third parties into their mental information or brain data, and against the unauthorized collection of those data. It aims to protect brainwaves not only as data but also as data generators, including data not under voluntary control.
  • Mental Integrity: The right of individuals to be protected from illicit and harmful manipulations of their mental activity. This right is protected under the EU’s Charter of fundamental rights.
  • Cognitive Diversity: The desirable mix of people with different experiences and psychological traits/cognitive styles (such as introverts and extraverts) that can complement one another and aid in solving complex problems and innovation.
  • Polygenic Psychological Traits: Psychological traits resulting from many genes with small effects interacting with one another. Examples include the Big Five personality traits (heritability of 40–60%) and general intelligence (heritability closer to 80% by adulthood).

Theories and Frameworks

  • Open-loop stimulation: Stimulation that is continuous or pre-set, ignoring the current brain state.
  • Closed-loop stimulation: Responsive stimulation triggered by real-time brain signals.
  • Big Five Personality Inventory: A widely used way to categorize personality variation, including openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, all of which have a substantial genetic component.
  • Procreative Beneficence: The principle that parents should select the child, of the children they could have, who is expected to live the best life possible in terms of well-being.
  • Procreative Altruism: Prospective parents have a moral reason to have a child whose existence is expected to contribute more to the well-being of others than any alternative child they could have.
  • Regulatory Parsimony: A principle recommending only as much oversight as necessary to ensure justice, fairness, security, and safety while pursuing the public good. When legislation is necessary, it should aim for simple rules that apply to all, avoiding micromanaging parental choices.
  • Occam’s razor principle (Law of parsimony): Postulates that “entities should not be multiplied without necessity,” suggesting that neurorights should be considered evolutionary interpretations of existing rights rather than new rights if possible.
  • Psychological continuity theories of personal identity: Defines personal identity in terms of overlapping chains of psychological connections (like memories, beliefs, or intentions) that persist over time.

Notable Individuals

  • Marcello Ienca: First introduced the term “neuroright” with Andorno in 2017, defining them as ethical principles related to the mental domain.
  • Rafael Yuste: Co-authored an influential paper in Nature identifying four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI, leading to policy advocacy for neurorights.
  • W. Safire: Defined neuroethics as the examination of what is right and wrong concerning the treatment, perfection, or manipulation of the human brain.
  • Sherrod Taylor: First coined the term neurolaw in the early 1990s to denote collaboration between neuropsychologists and lawyers in criminal justice.
  • W. Sententia: Defined cognitive liberty as “the right and freedom to control one’s own consciousness and electrochemical thought process,” positing it as a fundamental right.
  • C. Bublitz: Argued that the use of “mind-interventions” should urge the law to recognize cognitive liberty, also calling it “mental self-determination”.
  • J.S. Mill: Argued that the individual is sovereign “over his own body and mind”.
  • L. Brandeis and S. Warren: Authored a seminal article in 1890 conceptualizing the modern right to privacy as “a right to be let alone”.
  • J. A. Anomaly, C. Gyngell, and J. Savulescu: Co-authored the article arguing for preserving cognitive diversity in the age of gene editing, defending the principle of regulatory parsimony.
  • Amy Gutmann: Coined the principle of regulatory parsimony as a response to collective action problems arising from genetic engineering.