Brave New Brains

“The Battle for Your Brain” by Ronald Bailey, in Reason (Feb. 2003), Reason Foundation, 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 400, Los Angeles, Calif. 90034–6064.

If drugs were available not only to repair defective brains but to “enhance” normal ones, would humans lose sight of what it means to be human? Bailey, science correspondent for Reason, sees no cause for alarm, so long as decisions are left to the individuals whose brains would be upgraded.

Francis Fukuyama, author of Our Post­human Future (2002), has called for close regulation of biotechnology. He would direct research toward therapy while putting severe restrictions on cognitive enhancement: “For us to flourish as human beings, we have to live according to our nature, satisfying the deepest longings that we as natural beings have.”

But personality is not an unchanging quality, Bailey argues: “Fukuyama has a shriveled, stunted vision of human nature, leading him and others to stand athwart neuroscientific advances that will make it possible for more people to take fuller advantage of their reasoning and learning capabilities.”

The common objections to the prospect of using pills to improve mood, memory, and intelligence are unconvincing, Bailey maintains. Instead of making people less “authentic,” drugs can make them more authentic, as happened with the Prozac user who said it was “as if I had been in a drugged state all those years [before], and now I’m clearheaded.” Nor will neurological enhancements undermine personal responsibility or good character, says Bailey. Aren’t people with attention deficit disorder who take Ritalin to change their behavior acting responsibly? Even if taking brain-enhancing drugs were made easy, there would still be plenty of challenges in life to aid in the formation of character.

Why, Bailey asks, should it be considered better to induce a behavior change by altering a child’s environment than by giving the child a brain-altering drug for the same purpose? If Ritalin and the Kaplan SAT review each “can boost SAT scores by, say, 120 points,” observes Michael Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist at Dartmouth College, “I think it’s immaterial which way it’s done.”

“Fukuyama and other critics,” concludes Bailey, “have not made a strong case for why individuals, in consultation with their doctors, should not be allowed to take advantage of new neuroscientific breakthroughs to enhance the functioning of their brains. And it is those individuals that the critics will have to convince if they seriously expect to restrict this research.”