| Title |
Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-009-9142-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nick Bostrom, Anders Sandberg |
| Abstract |
Cognitive enhancement takes many and diverse forms. Various methods of cognitive enhancement have implications for the near future. At the same time, these technologies raise a range of ethical issues. For example, they interact with notions of authenticity, the good life, and the role of medicine in our lives. Present and anticipated methods for cognitive enhancement also create challenges for public policy and regulation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 14% |
| India | 2 | 9% |
| Brazil | 1 | 5% |
| Chile | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Paraguay | 1 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 82% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 776 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 1% |
| Canada | 4 | <1% |
| Germany | 4 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Bulgaria | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 1% |
| Unknown | 727 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 150 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 121 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 118 | 15% |
| Researcher | 87 | 11% |
| Professor | 30 | 4% |
| Other | 136 | 18% |
| Unknown | 134 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 124 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 72 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 70 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 62 | 8% |
| Philosophy | 59 | 8% |
| Other | 240 | 31% |
| Unknown | 149 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 138. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2024.
All research outputs
#307,042
of 25,774,185 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#9
of 975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#709
of 123,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,774,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 975 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 123,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them