Cognitive Enhancement and Social Mobility: Skepticism from India.

Q1 Neuroscience
AJOB Neuroscience Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-03-21 DOI:10.1080/21507740.2022.2048723
Jayashree Dasgupta, Georgia Lockwood Estrin, Jesse Summers, Ilina Singh
{"title":"Cognitive Enhancement and Social Mobility: Skepticism from India.","authors":"Jayashree Dasgupta, Georgia Lockwood Estrin, Jesse Summers, Ilina Singh","doi":"10.1080/21507740.2022.2048723","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive enhancement (CE) covers a broad spectrum of methods, including behavioral techniques, nootropic drugs, and neuromodulation interventions. However, research on their use in children has almost exclusively been carried out in high-income countries with limited understanding of how experts working with children view their use in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). This study examines perceptions on cognitive enhancement, their techniques, neuroethical issues about their use from an LMICs perspective.Seven Indian experts were purposively sampled for their expertise in bioethics, child development and child education. In-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide to examine <b>(</b>1) understanding of CE, <b>(</b>2) which approaches were viewed as cognitive enhancers, <b>(</b>3) attitudes toward different CE techniques and <b>(</b>4) neuroethical issues related to CE use within the Indian context. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed before thematic analysis.Findings indicate Indian experts view cognitive enhancement as a holistic positive impact on overall functioning and well-being, rather than improvement in specific cognitive abilities. Exogenous agents, and neuromodulation were viewed with skepticism, whereas behavioral approaches were viewed more favorably. Neuroethical concerns included equitable access to CE, limited scientific evidence and over-reliance on technology to address societal problems. This highlights the need for more contextually relevant neuroethics research in LMICs.</p>","PeriodicalId":39022,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":"341-351"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2022.2048723","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Neuroscience","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cognitive enhancement (CE) covers a broad spectrum of methods, including behavioral techniques, nootropic drugs, and neuromodulation interventions. However, research on their use in children has almost exclusively been carried out in high-income countries with limited understanding of how experts working with children view their use in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). This study examines perceptions on cognitive enhancement, their techniques, neuroethical issues about their use from an LMICs perspective.Seven Indian experts were purposively sampled for their expertise in bioethics, child development and child education. In-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide to examine (1) understanding of CE, (2) which approaches were viewed as cognitive enhancers, (3) attitudes toward different CE techniques and (4) neuroethical issues related to CE use within the Indian context. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed before thematic analysis.Findings indicate Indian experts view cognitive enhancement as a holistic positive impact on overall functioning and well-being, rather than improvement in specific cognitive abilities. Exogenous agents, and neuromodulation were viewed with skepticism, whereas behavioral approaches were viewed more favorably. Neuroethical concerns included equitable access to CE, limited scientific evidence and over-reliance on technology to address societal problems. This highlights the need for more contextually relevant neuroethics research in LMICs.

认知增强与社会流动性:来自印度的怀疑论。
认知增强(CE)涵盖了广泛的方法,包括行为技术、促智药物和神经调控干预。然而,关于它们在儿童中的使用的研究几乎只在高收入国家进行,对研究儿童的专家如何看待低收入和中等收入国家(LMIC)使用它们的理解有限。这项研究从LMIC的角度考察了对认知增强的看法、它们的技术以及关于它们使用的神经伦理问题。据称,对七名印度专家进行了抽样调查,以了解他们在生物伦理学、儿童发展和儿童教育方面的专业知识。使用半结构化主题指南进行深度访谈,以检查(1)对CE的理解,(2)哪些方法被视为认知增强剂,(3)对不同CE技术的态度,以及(4)印度背景下与CE使用相关的神经伦理问题。在进行专题分析之前,所有访谈都进行了录音和转录。研究结果表明,印度专家认为认知能力的提高是对整体功能和幸福感的整体积极影响,而不是对特定认知能力的改善。外源性因素和神经调控被视为怀疑,而行为方法被视为更有利。神经伦理问题包括公平获得CE、科学证据有限以及过度依赖技术来解决社会问题。这突出了在LMIC中进行更具情境相关性的神经伦理学研究的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AJOB Neuroscience
AJOB Neuroscience Neuroscience-Neuroscience (all)
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信