Should potentially more powerful neurotechnological, neurobiological, or genetic enhancements be made available in future as well? If so, what kinds of enhancements should these be?

Public health enhancement is commonplace. Vaccinations to prime the normal immune system, and water fluoridation programmes to impede normal wear and tear of teeth are just two everyday examples. More broadly, education is a powerful state-sponsored, mandatory system of cognitive enhancement enabled by exploiting the neural plasticity of the brain. Examples like these suggest that enhancement is relevant to and consistent with not only standard clinical practice (the focus of much of the current ethical debate) but public health, and even welfare, policy. These kinds of interventions are provided by the state because of the scale of benefits that they offer. Is it the case, then, that beyond a certain threshold of public utility it is irrelevant that a commissioned intervention is an enhancement, despite enhancement's apparent divergence from the typically remedial or therapeutic aims of healthcare? The talk will consider this question in relation to the use of neurotechnologies for enhancing cognition.

Dr. Alex McKeown is a postdoctoral researcher in the University of East London's Institute for Health and Human Development. He holds a PhD in Biomedical Ethics from the University of Bristol on the subject of human enhancement, and previously spent several years working in education and policy research in genetics. He is currently researching ethical issues in healthcare economics relating to non-pharmaceutical strategies for improving community mental health and wellbeing.