Join us for conversations that inspire, recognize, and encourage innovation and best practices in the education profession.
Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, and more.
As our story begins, Maria, a teacher, sits at a school assembly, where a graduate who now works at Hype Pharmaceuticals describes a new drug called Alerta. Developed for people with narcolepsy, it allows someone to forego sleep for extended periods of time. Maria doesn’t have narcolepsy—she is perfectly healthy, in fact—but she does have two jobs, and could use the drug to work late into the night. She goes to her physician for a prescription. Should the doctor give it to her?
Time passes, Maria is back to one job, but she still is not sleeping at night, because she is worrying about her daughter, Camilla. Eight-year-old Camilla has no friends at school; the kids call her a “weirdo” although she doesn’t know what she is doing that’s weird. The school counselor suggests that Camilla might be helped by a medication called Amikind. Amikind was originally developed to treat autism and Asperger’s, conditions that Camilla does not have. But the drug also improves the ability of otherwise unimpaired individuals to interact with others, somehow making them better at picking up social cues. Should Maria consider giving her child a drug to solve her social problems?
As parent and child ponder their options, we move from the playground to Strivers University, where a new “study-buddy” has become quite popular: a drug called Rememberall, made by Hype Pharmaceuticals. Developed for Alzheimer’s patients, one can take Rememberall, study one’s schoolwork, and remember much more, much faster. Are the students who take Rememberall, and other drugs to enhance their performance, cheating? Are they endangering themselves?
As time passes, Hype Pharmaceuticals develops one more medication—one that helps you forget instead of remember. Traumagone dulls the memory of a traumatic experience; one will still remember what happened, but the emotional trauma surrounding the memory will be taken away. Among those who seek to take this drug is a soldier who wants to dull the memory of all the killing he did for his country. Should he be able to take the drug?
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER
Richard Kilberg
WRITER/ PRODUCER
Joan Greco
SENIOR EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
Ruth Friendly
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Barbara Margolis
BROADCAST PRODUCER/DIRECTOR
Mark Ganguzza
EDITOR
Rob Forlenza
ASSOCIATE PRODUCERS
Jason Steneck
Ann Yoo
SCENIC DESIGN
H. Peet Foster
LIGHTING DESIGN
Dan McKenrick
SENIOR AUDIO ENGINEER
Bob Aldridge
ETHICS CONTENT ADVISOR
Lisa H. Newton, Ph.D.
AUDIENCE COORDINATOR
Rachel Ward
SPECIAL THANKS
The Hastings Center
Thomas H. Murray
Erik Parens
Josephine Johnson
Eric Cohen
Ahmad Corbitt
Michael J. Goldblatt
Amy Laura Hall
Lynn Jansen
David A. Lowe
Ramez Naam
Joyce M. Raskin
Tania Simoncelli
Ginger C. Simor
Laurence R. Tancredi
Jeff Vandam
John Hockenberry (Moderator) John Abramson Art Caplan Lawrence Diller Martha Farah Joshua Foer Michael Gazzaniga |
William B. Hurlbut Peter Augustine Lawler Gary Lynch Michael Sandel Sally Satel Antonin Scalia Tim Tully |
||
The video highlight shows our panelists in action. The Discussion Guide frames their debates in contemporary terms, while the Ethics Reader grounds the discussion in the philosophy of the past.
Should students use memory-enhancing drugs to improve academic performance?
A father and college-age son, played by Justice Antonin Scalia and Joshua Foer, respectively, debate the son’s choice to use a memory-enhancing drug, Rememberall, to improve his performance on his final examinations. Scalia argues against taking the drug, arguing that there is a moral obligation to accept yourself as you are, even if you are not the smartest or the strongest. Foer counters by reminding his father that as a child he was always pushed to gain a competitive edge in academics. What is wrong with taking the memory-enhancing drug if it is deemed to be safe and everyone else is taking it?
Read Text Highlights
Framing This Discussion (from the Discussion Guide)
The goal of enhancement is nothing other than the betterment of human life—to make life more enjoyable for the one living it, more productive, more useful for self, family, and society. There are “natural” forms of enhancement that have always been approved. Indeed, simple practice can enhance natural abilities and, in the process, transform the human body to accommodate them. For example, practicing the piano, training at sports, or studying hard can lead to greater intellectual or physical dexterity and more success in the respective fields than not doing these things. But in certain competitive environments, simply studying hard, as recommended by Justice Scalia, may not be enough for Joshua Foer’s success if other students are taking legal and apparently safe stimulants to gain an edge. But, if everyone is enhanced, there is no more competitive advantage, the price of competing has been raised, and the competition made more dangerous for all participants.
For a deeper examination of the analysis abridged here, see the Discussion Guide.
Philosophical Grounding of This Discussion (from the Ethics Reader)
John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, excerpted below, urges those seeking neuro-enhancement to consider the “quality” of the happiness they may find and radiate to others.
According to the Greatest Happiness Principle . . . the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison. This, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which an existence . . . might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation. . . .
To read selections from philosophical texts relevant to this program, see Ethics Reader.
The Adderall Me
Joshua Foer
A writer provides a personal account of the effects of the stimulant Adderall and examines the benefits and consequences of using the drug as a cognitive enhancer, citing the experiences of some literary and intellectual greats who used amphetamines.
Shaping the Smart Brain with Drugs
Michael Gazzaniga
How do cognitive-enhancement drugs work, and what are the moral and medical concerns over their use? Should cognitive enhancers be regulated by the government, or should the decision to use them be left to individuals?