Qureshi 1

Momina Qureshi
English 2089
Professor Vaughn
8 December 2014
Neuroenhancements: The Rise of Smart Drugs
The giant pupil gazes straight at you, intense with its green lands and blue oceans
covering the iris, telling you that its possible to truly behold the world. Your attention is caught
by the command on the OptiMind website; Clear Mental Fog. You eventually find yourself
swayed into watching the brief video. Its for the cases where failure impacts much more than
just your reputation. Its for the tests that stand between you and your dreams . . . Alleradd is for
what everyone else said you couldnt do . . . Alleradd, unleash your mind. And before you know
it, youve ordered a bottle. What exactly is this supplement you now believe you need? A
neuroenhancement.
Who wouldnt love an extra cognitive boost in todays world, where intelligence and the
job market are becoming increasingly competitive? Despite such alluring promises, though, the
ethical and social debate surrounding the use of neuroenhancements isnt quite as charming.
The emergence of neuroenhancements, pharmaceutical drugs meant to improve cognitive
function in healthy humans, gave rise to the need for advice on the ethical implications. A
disparity between need and want grows analogously with the distinction between use and abuse.
Examples of current and typical enhancements include aesthetic surgery, doping in sports, and
the use of presumed anti-aging medication (Brukamp and Gross 40). But neuroenhancements
are a newer and more intimate version of such enhancements, one worth discussing extensively.
This discussion happened across media, both in popular and scholarly media alike. As science

Qureshi 2

progresses and the human brain is better understood, such circumstances force attention upon
neuroscience. As stated by Kristen Brukamp and Dominik Gross in their scholarly article
Neuroenhancement A Controversial Topic in Contemporary Medical Ethics, addressing
neuroenhancement is important because it will become an important topic of medical ethics in
future years and decades, due to the increasing insights of neuroscience into the functions of the
brain and the growing possibilities of meaningful interventions (39).
Another view of neuroenhancers comes from the BBC article Would You Take Smart
Drugs to Perform Better at Work? where Fleming deliberates the very question stated in the
articles title.
The film Limitless approaches the topic of neuroenhancers as well. Limitless, starring
Bradley Cooper, revolves around the life of Eddie Morra, an author suffering from writers block
with an approaching deadline weighing on his shoulders. Due to his unstable financial situation,
his girlfriend breaks up with him and Eddie is left distraught, hitting rock bottom. Along comes
Vernon Gant, a friend working at a pharmaceutical company, who gives Eddie an unapproved
drug called NZT-48 a smart drug, essentially a neuroenhancer. Things quickly improve, as
Eddie easily finishes his novel, plays the stock market and moves on to big business ventures.
Yet, all is not well as Vernon is found dead, someone is trying to kill Eddie as well, and his
dependence on the drug grows along with unpleasant side effects.
All three literary sources the scholarly article Neuroenhancement A Controversial
Topic in Contemporary Medical Ethics, the BBC news article Would You Take Smart Drugs to
Perform Better At Work? and the film Limitless elaborate on this complicated topics, but differ
in their audience, purpose and appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos.

Qureshi 3

The intended audience for each work differs greatly. In Neuroenhancement A

Controversial Topic in Contemporary Medical Ethics, authors Brukamp and Gross are
attempting to teach and persuade the medical community. This is touched upon several times
throughout the article through terms such as medical realm, medical ethics and the medical
system as they persuade the community that it would be wrong to strain the infrastructure and
the resources of the medical system with the desires of too many clients who ask for
enhancements (46). These quotes, and many others throughout the article, specify the intended
audience.
As well as such key phrases, the authors also included an extensive list of references
which cite relevant journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, Nature and The
Journal of Medical Ethics. Access to printed editions of this journal are largely available to
medical professionals, who get automatic monthly subscriptions. In the BBC article Would You
Take Smart Drugs to Perform Better at Work? the audience is no longer a specific academic
community. Instead, the article appeals to a broader group, mostly the average, working class
American. The author informally addresses the reader as you, such as in the opening statement,
would you let your child get on a bus driven by someone on mind-altering drugs? (Fleming).
By purposefully interacting with the audience in a casual and relatable way through what-ifs,
Fleming hooks the potential reader. This is very different from Brukamp and Grosss approach of
hooking the reader through scientific credibility. Lastly, Limitless has a nearly all encompassing
audience, as evidenced by its PG-13 rating. Because it requires no technical expertise, nor does it
attempt to relate to the readers everyday life, but works with its audience on a purely human
level of emotion, it stretches itself further, but also thinner, than any of the other literature.

Qureshi 4

As opposed to the BBC article and Limitless, Brukamp and Gross establish much more
ethos in their article. They do so through the extensive use of references, creating authority
suitable for addressing the medical community. Detailed and consistent in-text citations deem
Neuroenhancement A Controversial Topic in Contemporary Medical Ethics of a scholarly
standard, backed by other research and opinions of fellow academics. Additionally, Brukamp and
Gross begin their argument by meticulously defining what constitutes as an enhancement and
then applying the ideology specifically to neurological enhancements. By defining enhancement
as strategies in medicine, in general, opposed to the classic framework of medical
interventions . . . in so far as no medical reasons, i.e. indications, for them exist and giving so
much background detail, the authors clearly appeal to medical professionals and insure
credibility with their scientific audience who value the technicalities necessary to analyze the
subject of neuroenhancements (Brukamp and Gross 39). Aside from internal credibility of the
article itself, the authors also had external credibility with their standing in the scientific
community. Indeed, Grosss reputation certainly conveys authority. Dr. Gross is Professor and
Director of the Institute of History, Theory and Ethics in Medicine at the RWTH Aachen
University in Germany as well as a member of the Ethics Group of the IDEA Leaguea
strategic alliance among the five leading European universities of technology. His background
includes extensive study in dentistry, medicine, history, philosophy and archeology at Saarland
University. As the author of more than 200 articles and books, his work proceeds him. Such
appeal to ethos inclines the reader to believe the Grosss words more considering his authority
and knowledgeably about the subject matter. Credibility can be the first thing noticed, thus
creating an impression that influences the readers perception of the rest of the article.

Qureshi 5

In high contrast with such high academic accomplishments, Nic Fleming and Neil Burger
have much different expanses of credibility to add to their works. Would You Take Smart Drugs
to Perform Better At Work? works to some extend in the credibility of its publisherthe BBC
company. Nic Fleming, a freelance journalist, is backed up by various publications, but nothing
distinguishing for a journalist. Limitless may have some weight from its directors previous well
known works, The Interview with the Assassin and The Illusionist. However, in film media the
audience is not always so aware of the director of the film. Fleming, however, excels in logos
while Burger excels in pathos, instead of the more ethos domination of academic writing.
The authors of Neuroenhancement A Controversial Topic in Contemporary Medical
Ethics appeal to the values of the medical professionals as they allude to the promises made in
the sacred Hippocratic Oath every such professional took upon entering the fieldservice for the
good of humanity. They stress the need to protect patients from harm, especially if it is selfinflicted through ignorance of medical side effects and long term consequences. Brukamp and
Gross dissuade the general audience from neuroenhancements as a threat to human nature but
acknowledge humans as always having tried to use tools and to embellish themselves by
socially accepted external means this seems to be a feature of human nature itself (47).
Overall, the authors beg for a cautious approach, for not all types [of neuroenhancements] are
considered compatible with the development and protection of human nature and identity.
Brukamp and Gross emphasize questions in the realm of the theory of medicine, as opposed to
Flemings article and Burgers film where the emphasis is placed upon the social and personal
implications of such pharmaceuticals. The latter two works emphasize an individuals response
to neuroenhancers, whereas the former emphasizes the value of community impact of
neuroenhancers and their effects, accommodating the values of the targeted profession.

Qureshi 6

The visual form of the film Limitless aids the authors intentions in evoking emotional
dilemma in the characters and thus the audience. By having the multidimensional usage of
words, sounds and visuals, the medium of film creates an even larger umbrella for viewers to
relate to, forcing Eddies situation to become more realistic as we experience heart-racing music
and black figures chasing Eddie. In comparison, the other two articles rely much more heavily
upon the written word. Neuroenhancers and Flemings BBC article, however, do have overall
form by dividing the articles into respective sections with headers. Brukamp and Grosss article
also uses figures central to explaining the technical and explicit nature of their points, and for
understanding the context in medicine which enhancements fall.
Nic Fleming forces his readers to rethink neuro-drugs though they may be unappealing
at first glance. He establishes early on that these drugs help people with brain and
neuropsychiatric conditions, improve concentration, planning and memory, or reduce impulsive
and risk-taking behaviors . . . perhaps if people had access to safe cognitive enhancing drugs,
humanity could progress faster (Fleming). The argument is made that these study aids are
equivalent to the way someone might drink coffee before work, and will in due time become a
normal part of the world and how we approach it. Ultimately, Would You Take Smart Drugs to
Perform Better at Work? establishes logos effectively, as Fleming gives the reader various
studies conducted, detailing both the ineffectiveness and effectiveness of these neuro-drugs. The
author implores us to think of the benefits of such drugs he wonders if we would change our
minds if we knew those drugs made the driver less likely to crash, and the surgeon better able to
keep a steady hand? (Fleming). He curbs the seemingly dissident studies by mentioning that
both very low and very high levels can impair the effects, with optimal performance
somewhere between these extremes. After establishing concrete evidence on the effects of

Qureshi 7

neuroenhancers, Fleming moves on to the address the ethical issues. Use of these drugs could
potentially threaten personal satisfaction in achievement, reduce the need for character-building
effort and weaken our sense of identity. And yet he counter argues consistently throughout the
piece.
Instead of taking a definitive stance, Fleming does what the other two sources do not. He
simply presents the data, and not selectively for every point he brings there is a counterargument,
leaving the final decision in only the readers hands. This article personifies the use of logical
thinking, but not to make a persuasive argument on the pro and con position concerning
neuroenhancement. His clever article convinces the reader that no matter which side of the
ethical discussion youre on, for or against, there is pressing reason to develop appropriate laws
and policies concerning neuroenhancers.
As opposed to the clear nature of the other sources, the film Limitless plays a much more
nebulous role in attitude. Eddie Morra is a man the viewer can relate to an artist with
aspirations toward greatnessbut when push comes to shove, he wasnt remarkable, he couldnt
be remarkable. He was just another guy who had this big dream.
The movie has strong pathos, as the viewer is forced to sympathize with Eddie, whos
fleeing for his safety but unable to give up the drug which turned his life around. The director
clearly set up a connection between the protagonist and the viewers as we witness Eddie at his
worst and best moments, as we see him become his own worst and best self. And through all of
that we are left wondering, would we make the same decisions? Was it worth it to take the drug?
The viewers are equally as horrified and dumbfounded as Eddie when he begins to
experience blackouts and other side effects of the NZT, which only seem to be getting stronger.

Qureshi 8

Although the movie is clearly science fiction, for now, the emotions are both applicable and
reflective of neuroenhancers and drug addiction. NZT drug users experienced severe mental
rebound effects, physical handicaps and most commondeath. The drug becomes a catch 22,
discontinuing it causes crippling effects and continuing usage results in death. Overall, the level
of emotional complexity in this film is one that could not be mirrored or discussed in the other
sources.
Every form of media ultimately agrees on both the benefits and consequences of
neuroenhancements, and yet their arguments for each fall in line very specifically with their
genre. As the scholarly article persuades its discourse community with the power of ethos, and
by tackling the heart of its values, the BBC article challenges its readers to pursue the topic even
further, reminding them that the world is ever changing and thus that change needs to be
reflected in our policies, one way or another. Lastly, the film spins into a climax and delves
through appeal of pathos into the idea of the American Dream, as any viewer could relate to,
lending a hand to an emotional connection with the storys protagonist.
Thus, with such strong differences in audience, values and rhetorical tactics, each genre is
equally necessary for presenting a fully encompassing view on neuroenhancements and their
social implications for society on every level.

Qureshi 9

Works Cited
Brukamp, Kirsten, and Dominik Gross. Neuroenhancement - A Controversial Topic in
Contemporary Medical Ethics. Contemporary Issues in Bioethics. Ed. Peter A. Clark.
N.p.: InTech, 2012. 39-50. InTech Open Source. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.
Fleming, Nic. "Would You Take Smart Drugs to Perform Better at Work?" BBC Future. BBC,
12 Dec. 2013. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.
Limitless. Dir. Neil Burger. Perf. Bradley Cooper, Abblue Cornish and Robert De Niro.
Relativity Media, 2011. DVD.
"OptiMind Home | Healthy Focus, Memory Enhancement and Mental Energy." OptiMind. 1
Jan. 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. <https://www.getoptimind.com/>.