Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24882886›Full record

ArticleSocial theory and practice2014

Enhancement and Civic Virtue.

Will Jefferson, Thomas Douglas, Guy Kahane, Julian Savulescu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social theory and practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Will JeffersonFaculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford william.jefferson@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.
Thomas DouglasOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, thomas.douglas@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.
Guy KahaneOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, guy.kahane@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.
Julian SavulescuOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford julian.savulescu@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 086041Wellcome Trust 087208Wellcome Trust 087211Wellcome Trust 100705
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Opponents of biomedical enhancement frequently adopt what Allen Buchanan has called the Personal Goods Assumption. On this assumption, the benefits of biomedical enhancement will accrue primarily to those individuals who undergo enhancements, not to wider society. Buchanan has argued that biomedical enhancements might in fact have substantial social benefits by increasing productivity. We outline another way in which enhancements might benefit wider society: by augmenting civic virtue and thus improving the functioning of our political communities. We thus directly confront critics of biomedical enhancement who argue that it will lead to a loss of social cohesion and a breakdown in political life.

Indexed as

Allen BuchananBiomedical EnhancementCivic VirtueCognitive EnhancementMoral EnhancementPersonal Goods AssumptionSocial Cohesion

Identifiers

PMID24882886
PMCPMC4037784

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.