Beck Asad, Schönau Andreas, MacDuffie Kate, Dasgupta Ishan, Flynn Garrett, Song Dong, Goering Sara, Klein Eran
Department of Biology, University of Washington, Life Sciences Building, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of Washington, Health Sciences Building, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Neuroethics. 2024 Jul;17(2). doi: 10.1007/s12152-024-09557-2. Epub 2024 May 8.
Neurotechnological cognitive enhancement has become an area of intense scientific, policy, and ethical interest. However, while work has increasingly focused on ethical views of the general public, less studied are those with personal connections to cognitive impairment. Using a mixed-methods design, we surveyed attitudes regarding implantable neurotechnological cognitive enhancement in individuals who self-identified as having increased likelihood of developing dementia (n=25; 'Our Study'), compared to a nationally representative sample of Americans (n=4726; 'Pew Study'). Participants in Our Study were additionally shown four videos showcasing hypothetical neurotechnological devices designed to enhance different cognitive abilities and were interviewed for more in-depth responses. Both groups expressed comparable degrees of worry and acknowledgement of potential ethical ramifications (all ). Compared to the Pew Study, participants in Our Study expressed slightly higher desire (), as well as higher acknowledgment for potential impacts on productivity (). Ultimately, participants in Our Study were more likely to deem the device morally acceptable (56%; compared to Pew Study, 25.2%; ). Interviews conducted in Our Study allowed participants to supply additional nuance and reasoning to survey responses, such as giving examples for increased productivity, perceived downsides of memory enhancement, or concerns regarding potentially resulting inequality. This study builds upon and adds to the growing focus on potential ethical issues surrounding neurotechnological cognitive enhancement by centering stakeholder perspectives, highlighting the need for inclusive research and consideration of diverse perspectives and lived experiences to ensure inclusive dialogue that best informs ethical and policy discussions in this rapidly advancing field.
神经技术认知增强已成为科学、政策和伦理领域备受关注的热点。然而,尽管研究越来越多地聚焦于公众的伦理观点,但与认知障碍有个人关联的人群却较少受到关注。我们采用混合方法设计,对自认为患痴呆症可能性增加的个体(n = 25;“我们的研究”)进行了关于植入式神经技术认知增强的态度调查,并与具有全国代表性的美国样本(n = 4726;“皮尤研究”)进行了比较。“我们的研究”中的参与者还观看了四段展示旨在增强不同认知能力的假设性神经技术设备的视频,并接受了深入访谈以获取更详细的回答。两组表达了相当程度的担忧以及对潜在伦理后果的认知(均为[具体数据缺失])。与皮尤研究相比,“我们的研究”中的参与者表达了略高的意愿([具体数据缺失]),以及对潜在生产力影响的更高认知([具体数据缺失])。最终,“我们的研究”中的参与者更有可能认为该设备在道德上是可接受的(56%;相比皮尤研究的25.2%;[具体数据缺失])。“我们的研究”中进行的访谈让参与者能够为调查回答提供更多细微差别和理由,例如给出提高生产力的例子、感知到的记忆增强的缺点或对潜在导致不平等的担忧。本研究通过以利益相关者视角为中心,进一步关注围绕神经技术认知增强的潜在伦理问题,强调了包容性研究的必要性以及对不同观点和生活经历的考量,以确保在这个快速发展的领域中进行包容性对话,从而为伦理和政策讨论提供最佳信息。