Controversy & Ethics — DBA — OUGD602

An interesting case study on Nootropics as cognitive enhanscers is discussed over at the Princeton Journal of Bioethics. Begging many of the questions that undoubtably need addressing around Nootropics before such controversy can be eradicated to create a mainstream product (which just happens to be this particular task), such as:

• If there existed an innocuous drug that could improve your cognitive abilities and performance, would you take it?
• What is the purpose of medicine?
• Are the benefits worth the risk?
• Would cognitive enhancers indirectly cause peer pressure for use?
• How will the user’s perception of self change?

After reading the study, it is clear that the controversy around such products would mean that to brand such drugs as fun and informal is quite the task. The reason they look pharmaceutical is because that is what they are. However, if we're speaking purely in hypotheticals, if there was to be no controversy around said products, the brand could actually be hugely successful permitting the correct audience is reached. And this begs the question; 'Is the reason that this particular market has not been taken advantage of yet because it is ethically wrong?'