Just do(pe) it? Why the academic project is at risk from proposals to pharmacologically enhance researchers.
In this post, Heidi Matisonn (University of Cape Town) and Jacek Brzozowski (University of KwaZulu-Natal) discuss their recently published article in the Journal of Applied Philosophy in which they explore the justifiability and potential risks of cognitive enhancement in academia.
The human desire to enhance our cognitive abilities, to push the boundaries of intelligence through education, tools, and technology has a long history. Fifteen years ago, confronted by the possibility that a ‘morally corrupt’ minority could misuse cognitive gains to catastrophic effect, Persson and Savulescu proposed that research into cognitive enhancement should be halted unless accompanied by advancements in moral enhancement.
In response to this, and following on from Harris’ worries about the mass suffering that could result from delaying cognitive enhancement until moral enhancement could catch up, in 2023, Gordon and Ragonese offered what they termed a ‘practical approach’ to cognitive enhancement research in which they advocated for targeted cognitive enhancement —specifically for researchers working on moral enhancement.
Our recent article in the Journal of Applied Philosophy suggests that while both sets of authors are correct in their concerns about the significant risks related to cognitive enhancement outrunning moral enhancement, their focus on the ‘extremes’ neglects some more practical consequences that a general acceptance of cognitive enhancement may bring — not least of which relate to the academic project itself.
The Harmful Costs of Productivity
We argue that in addition to the growing demands of an academic job, such as escalating workloads, shrinking resources, and increasing competition, publication counts and successful grant applications have become proxies for success. All of these place immense pressure on individuals to perform and this pressure to enhance productivity has created what can only be described as an “academic arms race.” Success is measured not by the quality or impact of research but by the sheer volume of outputs. This emphasis on quantity shifts the focus away from the intrinsic value of knowledge creation, turning scholarship into a numbers game.
Against this background, the allure of pharmacological cognitive enhancers (PCEs) is understandable. When institutional expectations are impossibly high, cognitive enhancement appears to offer a way to keep up. But this approach creates a harmful treadmill effect: the more productive individuals become, the higher the expectations placed on them, perpetuating a cycle that undermines both wellbeing and work-life balance.
Such incentive structures are deeply problematic. They not only distort the goals of academia but also create profound inequities. Those with fewer resources or greater caregiving responsibilities—disproportionately women and scholars from marginalized groups—are placed at an even greater disadvantage. The result is a two-tiered system where only those privileged enough to meet the demands of productivity can thrive, while others are excluded or burned out.
Reimagining Academia Through Wellbeing
We claim that the production of knowledge should be understood as an intrinsic good—something valuable in itself — rather than as a means to an end — a means of measuring value. This requires re-evaluating the metrics of success. Instead of rewarding only the number of papers published or grants secured, institutions should consider the broader contributions of academics: their impact on students, communities, and the intellectual richness of their fields. They suggest that promoting wellbeing among academics is not just a moral imperative; it is essential for the future of scholarship. A shift toward prioritizing wellbeing over productivity could benefit individuals, institutions, and society at large.
