Search

Scientists, clinicians, and the public aim to optimize cognition using numerous techniques. While drugs and education have become mainstays in the public and professional practice, brain stimulation is rapidly emerging. The public reports some concerns about brain stimulation used to optimize cognition. In our prior work using hypothetical vignettes involving brain stimulation, the moral acceptability of specific uses was only somewhat related to the public’s willingness to administer brain stimulation to influence a given cognitive function. Notably, whether the moral framing influences willingness to optimize cognition with various mechanisms is unknown. Here, we randomly assigned subjects to one of four mechanism vignette conditions: education, drugs, invasive brain stimulation, and noninvasive brain stimulation. Within each mechanism, subjects were assigned to think morally either before or after reporting their willingness to optimize specific cognitive functions in others. Across 1328 subjects, we found that thinking morally reduced the public’s willingness to optimize cognition overall. Moreover, willingness decreased the most in invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation. Encouraging moral reasoning uniquely reduces openness to using brain stimulation among other ways to optimize cognition. Studying how specific moral concerns drive public hesitancy about brain stimulation could suggest avenues for education and ethical discourse.

Background The availability of technological means to enhance and repair human cognitive function raises questions about the perceived morality of their use. However, we have limited knowledge about the public's intuitive attitudes toward uses of brain stimulation. Studies that enlighten us about the public's willingness to endorse specific uses of brain stimulation on themselves and others could provide a basis to understand the moral psychology guiding intuitions about neuromodulation and opportunities to inform public education and public policy. Objective Hypothesis: We expected that subjects would be less willing to enhance or repair cognitive functions perceived as more “core" to “authentic" self-identity, prioritize brain stimulation uses for themselves, and more willing to enhance “core" functions in others. Across specific hypothetical uses, we expected the moral acceptability of specific uses to be associated with subjects’ willingness to endorse them. Methods We administered two surveys to the public in which subjects were asked to report how willing they would be to enhance or repair specific cognitive abilities using a hypothetical brain stimulation device called “Ceremode". Results Among 894 subjects, we found that subjects were more willing to use technologies to repair other people than themselves. They were most inclined to repair core functions in others. Subjects’ ratings of the moral acceptability of specific uses was related to their reported willingness to use brain stimulation. Conclusion Moral acceptability is related to the public's willingness to use brain stimulation. These findings suggest that the public endorses a generous approach to applying brain stimulation for cognitive gains in others. Further, this study establishes a basis to guide moral psychological studies of cognitive modification and social processes that guide attitudes toward and uses of brain stimulation.