Should Only The Wealthy Be Allowed To Boost Their Intelligence? Big Debate Erupts

Bioethics research student Caleb Atere has raised concerns that the growing development of cognitive-enhancement drugs and brain technologies could create a new form of inequality if access is determined largely by people’s ability to pay.

According to Bush Radio Academy, Atere argued that the issue raises an important ethical question: if technologies designed to improve memory, concentration or other aspects of cognitive performance prove effective, should access to them depend primarily on financial resources?

He noted that the debate has produced competing perspectives. One argument compares cognitive enhancers to products and services such as gym memberships, private tutoring and premium education, which are already available to people who can afford them. Supporters of this position argue that individuals have long paid for opportunities that could give them an advantage and that cognitive enhancement could simply represent another form of such investment.

There is also an argument that excessive regulation or government subsidies could discourage innovation. According to this view, companies may have less incentive to invest in developing safer and more effective cognitive-enhancement technologies if they are unable to sell them profitably to willing consumers.

However, Atere highlighted differences between cognitive enhancement and conventional services such as tutoring or physical fitness programmes. He noted that many emerging enhancement technologies are designed to directly influence brain chemistry or function, potentially giving users an advantage that could become more significant when combined with existing economic and educational privileges.

He argued that if enhanced memory, concentration or other cognitive abilities begin to have a substantial impact on examinations, employment opportunities or promotions, unequal access could potentially go beyond reflecting existing social inequality and instead contribute to widening it.

Atere also compared the debate with access to essential medicines, which are often subject to regulation and, in some circumstances, public funding because healthcare outcomes are not considered matters that should depend entirely on an individual’s ability to pay.

Rather than advocating either unrestricted access through the market or making cognitive enhancement a universally subsidised service, Atere highlighted regulation as a possible middle ground.

He said such an approach could involve establishing safety and effectiveness requirements, ensuring that manufacturers and sellers provide accurate information about what their products can achieve, and creating clear rules for the use of enhancement technologies in settings such as schools, examinations and workplaces.

He also stressed the importance of monitoring the long-term health effects of cognitive enhancers, particularly because some products may be used outside their originally approved purposes and there may be limited evidence about the consequences of prolonged use.

According to Atere, sensible regulation would not completely remove financial considerations from access to cognitive enhancement, but could help reduce the risks posed by unsafe or misleading products while allowing potentially beneficial technologies to continue developing.

He noted that the question of who should have access to cognitive enhancement is likely to become more significant as the technology advances and becomes increasingly mainstream. He compared the debate with earlier discussions surrounding access to the internet, higher education and quality healthcare, arguing that decisions made in those areas have had long-term effects on opportunities within society.

Atere said the issue ultimately extends beyond technology and policy, touching on broader questions about fairness and competition in education, employment and other areas of life.

The discussion forms part of his ongoing series examining the ethics and policy implications of cognitive enhancement. His next piece is expected to explore access to enhancement technologies in the Global South compared with wealthier countries and whether disparities could develop on a global scale.