Mihailov Emilian, Savulescu Julian
1Research Centre in Applied Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei no. 204, 060024 Bucharest, Romania.
2Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Suite 8, Littlegate House, St Ebbes Street, Oxford, OX1 1PT UK.
Neuroethics. 2018;11(2):115-127. doi: 10.1007/s12152-018-9354-y. Epub 2018 Feb 22.
Should the development of pharmacological cognitive enhancers raise worries about doping in cognitively demanding activities? In this paper, we argue against using current evidence relating to enhancement to justify a ban on cognitive enhancers using the example of chess. It is a mistake to assume that enhanced cognitive functioning on psychometric testing is transferable to chess performance because cognitive expertise is highly complex and in large part not merely a function of the sum specific sub-processes. A deeper reason to doubt that pharmacological cognitive enhancers would be as significant in mind sports is the misleading parallel with physical enhancement. We will make the case that cognitive performance is in nature than physical performance. We draw lessons from this case example of chess for the regulation of cognitive enhancement more generally in education and the professions. Premature regulation runs the risk of creating a detrimental culture of suspicion that ascribes unwarranted blame.
药理学认知增强剂的发展是否应该引发人们对在需要认知能力的活动中使用兴奋剂的担忧？在本文中，我们以国际象棋为例，反对利用当前与增强相关的证据来为禁止认知增强剂提供正当理由。认为心理测量测试中增强的认知功能可转化为国际象棋表现是错误的，因为认知专长非常复杂，在很大程度上不仅仅是特定子过程总和的函数。怀疑药理学认知增强剂在智力运动中会同样重要的一个更深层次的原因是与身体增强的误导性类比。我们将论证认知表现本质上比身体表现更具情境性。我们从国际象棋这个案例中吸取教训，以更广泛地规范教育和职业领域中的认知增强。过早的监管有产生有害怀疑文化的风险，这种文化会无端指责。
