"There is no level playing field. People talk about it, but the facts on the ground don't bear that out," says Chatterjee. "We've already accepted gross inequities in our culture. I think the same would apply to [smart pills]."
Second, if the potential benefits of brain boosting drugs are that persuasive, what's to stop us from forcing individuals to take them?
It's not that far-fetched an idea. Precedent already exists in the military; during WWII, soldiers and pilots were often given amphetamines to stay alert, despite sleep deprivation. The practice still occurs in some places.
And there's no reason the trend would remain confined to the military. One study demonstrated a common smart drug given to Alzheimer's patients made commercial airline pilots better flyers and more responsive in emergencies. So if smart drugs help pilots fly better, why not require them to take the medication? And what's to stop similar requirements for ER doctors, politicians, even journalists?
Even if they're never explicitly coerced, professionals could feel implicitly pressured to take neuroenhancements just to keep up with their peers. "If everyone around you is taking these drugs, and you don't take them, you feel like you're just going to fall behind," says Chatterjee.
But perhaps the biggest ethical concern is one of character. Does taking smart pills degrade our identities, or hamper us from living "authentic" lives? "I find this problem to be the most difficult to deal with," Chatterjee says. "This might be a situation where it's impossible to take a position."
Some critics argue that struggle and failure aren't just part of the human experience, they're how we learn. Making yourself smarter via chemistry is somehow cheating, or worse - physiologically harmful. If we rely too heavily on smart drugs, could we fundamentally disrupt the way our brain forges new memories? Could we become a society of roving Algernons, dependent on medication to maintain our intelligence?
Probably not, says Dees. "I don't think it's possible to become 'too smart to fail,'" he says. "I am sure there will always be ways to fail, and learn through our failures."
More worrisome, he says, is the idea of chemically manipulating your personality to become more focused, driven and determined - essentially, someone who isn't you.
But "changing our personalities is not itself immoral," Dees argues. "Otherwise, psychotherapy, religious conversions and boot camps would be immoral," too.
Thinking of the Future
Currently, no laws prevent overachievers from using legally prescribed drugs to enhance their intellect. In fact, little government attention has focused on this issue at all.
But as America's population ages and cognitive disorders become more widespread, the issue is destined for greater public debate. "I think we have a spectrum of people: those who definitely want these kinds of medications, [and those] to the other extreme, who want everything to be natural," says Chatterjee.
For example, everyone could probably agree to ban smart drugs from competitive or assessment situations, like Jeopardy or the SATs. But "I don't know how you would ever enforce that," says Chatterjee. "What the long-term consequences of cosmetic neurology are, that's anybody's guess."
And on the ethical side, we've still got plenty to figure out. "While I think most of these drugs are not, in principle, immoral, I do think we have reason to be very cautious with them, and only partially for safety reasons," says Dees.
"We should think carefully about anything that can change the core of our identity. We need to be sure that we know what we are doing, and why."
Lara Crigger is a freelance science, tech and gaming journalist and frequent contributor to The Escapist. Her email is lcrigger[at]gmail[dot]com.
