Bioethicist delivers grand rounds talk on thorny topic of brain enhancement Concerns on intellectual augmentation are easy to raise — and easy to refute

By AMY ADAMS

Nationally renowned bioethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, doesn’t see any problem with trying to improve our brains. Caplan described some of the complex arguments for and against brain augmentation at the biomedical ethics grand rounds on Thursday.

"A lot of people get nervous about advancing the brain, but so far I don’t find the arguments persuasive," said Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Several technologies either exist today or are in development that could dramatically change a person’s mental abilities, said Caplan. These include drugs that regulate chemicals produced by the brain, devices to stimulate regions of the brain or to secrete chemicals, nanotechnology devices to improve mental function, or brain-enhancing surgeries.

Caplan said one argument against mental augmentation is that it is unfair for some people to have access to the technology while others are limited to their natural brains. He said that argument is against distribution rather than against the technologies themselves, pointing out that not all people have the financial ability to attend Stanford, but that shouldn’t make Stanford illegal.

Another argument is that people will become homogenous, desiring similar traits for themselves and their children. "That is an argument for good counseling," Caplan said. Much the way genetic counselors explain genetic tests, counselors should explain the pros and cons of mental enhancements, making sure people get enhancements that are in their best interest.

Finally, Caplan said the argument that brain augmentation is unnatural comes after augmentation such as glasses, organ transplants and artificial joints are the norm. "I think we’ve already crossed the line of making ourselves artificial," he said.

Still, Caplan does see tough questions ahead. "My hunch is that we’ll use these technologies on sick people first," he noted, pointing to devices that are already being used to control Parkinson’s disease and drugs to treat depression. "Then we will face tough questions about how they are used in healthy people."

First-of-its-kind neuroethics event covers new turf (5/22/02)

Risks vs. benefits of self-referred CT scanning weighed (8/6/03)