Diminishing the arm's race in enhancement (Reiner)

Carl Elliot has a piece over at Atlantic.com arguing that beta blockers should not be viewed as enhancement, but rather as leveling the playing field between individuals who suffer anxiety while performing a particular task (for example public speaking or pistol shooting) and those who do not. His basic tenet is sound - that we should evaluate people based on the content of their actions rather than a distraction such as anxiety, which really has nothing to do with performance per se. Carl concludes with the convincing argument that we would all likely prefer a neurosurgeon whose hands did not shake while they were slipping sharp metal objects into our brains, and if beta blockers were required to insure that was the case, so be it.

The clever part of Carl's line of reasoning is that it eliminates the arm's race aspect of the enhancement debate: if enhancers become widely available, and everyone takes them, the bar for average performance rises for all. The inherent features of beta-blockers - that they work only for those that need them - makes this argument moot. It is too early to tell whether a similar situation will arise with cognitive enhancers, but there have been rumours to the effect that these agents may be more effective for those with less cognitive endowment than those whose cognitive capacities are already at or near peak. Not only would this reduce (but not eliminate) the problem of off-label use by younger individuals, but it would also diminish the likelihood of these drugs triggering an arms race of cognitive enhancer use for many of the same reasons that Carl invokes for beta blockers. It may be wishful thinking to hope that pharmacological effects align with societal values, but the case of beta-blockers demonstrates that sometimes wishes do come true.

[The photo is an image of propanalol crystals courtesy of Richard Howey's Crystal Gallery]

Comments

[Neil]

I'm not a big fan of the treatment/enhancement distinction, on which the argument rests. The idea, I take it, is that only some people suffer from anxiety, and therefore it would be false that beta-blockers would improve the performance of non-sufferers. I note first that the empirical claim is true of an enormous range of cognitive enhancers, and probably physical enhancers too. An Italian rider in the Tour de France, for instance, who was accused of blood doping, turned out to have a naturally high haematocrit level. It may be true that he would nevertheless benefit (a little) from blood doping, but that is true for beta-blockers too.

[Peter Gerdes]

This arms race 'argument' is merely a cover for gut level uncomfortably with genetic enhancement. This is clearly evident from the lack of similar objections to education, even to improved methods of classroom instructions. The only difference between being able to pay for your kids to go to fancy colleges and paying for genetic enhancements is that the later is new and unfamiliar hence scary.

Frankly I think articles like the one linked do a great harm by implicitly accepting the objections to enhancement as reasonable even when they lack justification.

[Peter Gerdes]

However, I should add that the entire discussion in the context of sports is simply silly. The idea that there is some kind of objectively discernible notion of 'better' doesn't even make sense. The rules of sports should be chosen to yield the most thrill to the spectators and the most benefits to society not to reward certain types of athletes. Given that nerves are something the audience readily identifies with *if* we are going to ban any types of enhancing substances in athletics there is as much of an argument against beta blockers.

However, I think we should choose the rules in sporting events to generate benefits for the rest of society. Just as we allow engineering improvements to play a role in car racing so that the money spent on racing can yield benefits for society at large so too ought we to allow atheletes to take performance enhancing drugs so that the knowledge so gained can benefit society at large.