↓ Skip to main content

Moral and social reasons to acknowledge the use of cognitive enhancers in competitive-selective contexts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Moral and social reasons to acknowledge the use of cognitive enhancers in competitive-selective contexts
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0102-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mirko D. Garasic, Andrea Lavazza

Abstract

Although some of the most radical hypothesis related to the practical implementations of human enhancement have yet to become even close to reality, the use of cognitive enhancers is a very tangible phenomenon occurring with increasing popularity in university campuses as well as in other contexts. It is now well documented that the use of cognitive enhancers is not only increasingly common in Western countries, but also gradually accepted as a normal procedure by the media as well. In fact, its implementation is not unusual in various professional contexts and it has its peak in colleges (where the trend has been characterized as "academic doping"). Even when certain restrictions in the legislation of a country are indeed in place (i.e. through prescriptions requirements), they are without doubts easy to overcome. The legitimacy and appropriateness of such restrictions will not be the focus of our investigation. Our concern is instead related to the moral and social reasons to publicly acknowledge the use of cognitive enhancers in competitive-selective contexts. These reasons are linked to a more neutral analysis of contemporary Western society: it is a fact that an increasing number of competitive-selective contexts have a substantial number of contenders using cognitive enhancers. Through the use of five explicative examples, in this paper we want to analyse the problems related to its use. In particular, it will be our aim to show the tension between one of the main argument used by bio-liberals (the use of cognitive enhancers is an eligible procedure that society does not impose on anyone) and the actual implementation of the drugs in competitive, or semi-competitive contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Psychology 10 11%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Philosophy 6 7%
Other 24 26%
Unknown 27 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2019.
All research outputs
#7,013,599
of 23,607,611 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#586
of 1,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,717
of 302,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,607,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 302,296 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.