You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pharmacological cognitive enhancement—how neuroscientific research could advance ethical debate
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00107 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hannah Maslen, Nadira Faulmüller, Julian Savulescu |
| Abstract |
THERE ARE NUMEROUS WAYS PEOPLE CAN IMPROVE THEIR COGNITIVE CAPACITIES: good nutrition and regular exercise can produce long-term improvements across many cognitive domains, whilst commonplace stimulants such as coffee temporarily boost levels of alertness and concentration. Effects like these have been well-documented in the medical literature and they raise few (if any) ethical issues. More recently, however, clinical research has shown that the off-label use of some pharmaceuticals can, under certain conditions, have modest cognition-improving effects. Substances such as methylphenidate and modafinil can improve capacities such as working memory and concentration in some healthy individuals. Unlike their more mundane predecessors, these methods of "cognitive enhancement" are thought to raise a multitude of ethical issues. This paper presents the six principal ethical issues raised in relation to pharmacological cognitive enhancers (PCEs)-issues such as whether: (1) the medical safety-profile of PCEs justifies restricting or permitting their elective or required use; (2) the enhanced mind can be an "authentic" mind; (3) individuals might be coerced into using PCEs; (4), there is a meaningful distinction to be made between the treatment vs. enhancement effect of the same PCE; (5) unequal access to PCEs would have implications for distributive justice; and (6) PCE use constitutes cheating in competitive contexts. In reviewing the six principal issues, the paper discusses how neuroscientific research might help advance the ethical debate. In particular, the paper presents new arguments about the contribution neuroscience could make to debates about justice, fairness, and cheating, ultimately concluding that neuroscientific research into "personalized enhancement" will be essential if policy is to be truly informed and ethical. We propose an "ethical agenda" for neuroscientific research into PCEs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 43% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 175 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 44 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 15% |
| Researcher | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 15% |
| Unknown | 36 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 32 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 21 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 45 | 24% |
| Unknown | 40 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 September 2023.
All research outputs
#4,602,703
of 24,461,214 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#398
of 1,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,900
of 233,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#24
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,461,214 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 233,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.