IEET > SciencePolicy > Neuroscience > Brain–computer-interface > Implants > Former > Nick Bostrom
Nick Bostrom Testifies on Cognitive Enhancement for Obama BRAIN Initiative
Aug 22, 2014  

The Obama administration’s Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues held a session on the ethical issues of cognitive enhancement, as part of the ethical, social, legal issues wing of the federal BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative. IEET co-founder and author of the new bestseller SuperIntelligence, Nick Bostrom was one of four asked to testify. His comments focused on the importance of ensuring egalitarian access to and benefits from cognitive enhancement.

“There are already large inequalities in cognitive capacities—partly biological, partly because different people have different amounts of education, and so forth,” said Bostrom. “One question that one can ask about a hypothetical new cognitive enhancement intervention is whether it would increase or decrease that. That might partly depend on the system we have to access [the enhancement].”

The other speakers were:

Peter Reiner, V.M.D., Ph.D., from the University of British Columbia’s National Core for Neuroethics, Kinsmen Laboratory of Neurological Research, and Brain Research Centre; Rear Admiral Peter J. Delany, Ph.D., LCSW-C, Director of the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); Adrian Raine, Ph.D., the Richard Perry University Professor of Criminology, Psychiatry, and Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Starting off the conversation with a presentation titled, “Cognitive Enhancement Past, Present and Future,” Reiner discussed the definition of cognitive enhancement. In doing so, he explained both the historic understanding and looked forward to how this definition is evolving.

“Cognitive enhancement is more complicated than it seems at first blush,” explained Reiner. “We’re already well on our way to enhancing ourselves with all sorts of drugs, devices and more.”

“I’d submit as we move forward we need to give a fair hearing to the public’s enthusiasms and fears, their utilitarian dreams and their visions for societal harmony for these are the norms to which our policies should hew,” Reiner concluded.

Delany, who oversees a SAMHSA program to collect, analyze, and disseminate critical public health data on substance abuse, mental illness, and related disorders, spoke briefly about how common cognitive enhancement is today, and how we might be able to reliably track both the prevalence of cognitive enhancement and results—both potential benefits and harmful outcomes.

Focusing on prescription drugs like Adderall and Ritalin, Delany explained that data show that people—especially college age students—who use cognitive enhancements also have increased use of other substances such as alcohol, marijuana or cocaine.

Raine later moved the discussion to the potential implications of nutrition as a cognitive enhancer and the possible use of nutritional supplements to alter behavior.

Citing extensive correlational studies about consumption of Omega-3 and a reduction in anti-social behaviors, Raine raised several ethical questions about the use of natural compounds, like fish oil, as a cognitive enhancer.
“To what extent is Omega-3 really different to drugs, medication?” asked Raine. “Our bodies don’t produce Omega-3. Yes, it’s natural, but in some ways it’s nothing short of a drug.”

“We wouldn’t give drugs to sedate prisoners. We wouldn’t give drugs to children to reduce their anti-social and aggressive behaviors. So why would we give Omega-3 to reduce such behaviors that aren’t wanted in society?” asked Raine.

Up next in this busy day, the Bioethics Commission will consider questions around direct-to-consumer neurotechnology.

See more at:


Jeez, talk about overlooking the obvious. Before we put a lot of effort into using this science-fictional stuff to enhance human cognition, we need to reach for the low-hanging fruit by taking the demographics of IQ seriously. If we want to enhance all of “humanity” cognitively, we know which groups in the world we need larger proportions of, and which groups we need smaller proportions of, to raise the world’s average IQ.

BTW, IEET acknowledged the facts of the matter about IQ and human biodiversity several years ago:

Why is the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews so high?

I think this is a grand idea. AI is here to stay. This is a matter of time before brain transference becomes a reality. The ageing population will miss all the fun. We will get to a point of living for many many years other than just 100<.  I do think the possibilities are endless for science now to evolve into a future of maybe so called robotics. I for one however would love to have my brain cryptoed. lol I do think the technology is there. I also think that the ageing process can be halted. I think that allowing for these kinds of studies should be one of personal choice. I for one would rather try something when I am older than nothing at all. We should have the choice to donate our bodies to science at a certain age for progress.  I also think that we need a software assist for the presidency in 2016. I would love to have been the one to write the program.  However, a gentleman who owns much is ahead of me on that one. However he plans on this in 2029 I think this could happen sooner. Not to give away any software processees. However, I would be interested in writing such a program.

YOUR COMMENT Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: A Cure for Our Deflated Sense of The Future

Previous entry: Advanced Materials – What’s the big deal?