So far, the very meaning of health and therefore, treatment and rehabilitation is benchmarked to the normal or species-typical body. We expect certain abilities in members of a species; we expect humans to walk but not to fly, but a bird we expect to fly. However, increasingly therapeutic interventions have the potential to give recipients beyond species-typical body related abilities (therapeutic enhancements, TE). We believe that the perfect storm of TE, the shift in ability expectations toward beyond species-typical body abilities, and the increasing desire of health consumers to shape the health system will increasingly influence various aspects of health care practice, policy, and scholarship. We employed qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate among others how human enhancement, neuro/cognitive enhancement, brain machine interfaces, and social robot discourses cover (a) healthcare, healthcare policy, and healthcare ethics, (b) disability and (c) health consumers and how visible various assessment fields are within Neuro/Cogno/ Human enhancement and within the BMI and social robotics discourse. We found that health care, as such, is little discussed, as are health care policy and ethics; that the term consumers (but not health consumers) is used; that technology, impact and needs assessment is absent; and that the imagery of disabled people is primarily a medical one. We submit that now, at this early stage, is the time to gain a good understanding of what drives the push for the enhancement agenda and enhancement-enabling devices, and the dynamics around acceptance and diffusion of therapeutic enhancements.
References
[1]
Brand, A.; Brand, H.; den Baumen, T.S. The impact of genetics and genomics on public health. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2008, 16, 5–13, doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201942.
[2]
Rickerby, D.G. Societal and policy aspects of the introduction of nanotechnology in healthcare. Int. J. Healthc. Technol. Manag. 2006, 7, 463–473.
[3]
Feeny, D.; Guyatt, G.; Tugwell, P. Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Public Policy; Institute for Research on Public Policy: Montréal, QC, Canada, 1986.
[4]
Singer, P. A report from Australia: Which babies are too expensive to treat? Bioethics 1987, 1, 275–283, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.1987.tb00013.x.
[5]
Watts, J.L.; Blanchard, R.; Guyatt, G.; Miller, D.; Singer, P.; Haynes, R.B.; van Loon, R. Technology in medicine—Ethics, politics and reality. Ann. R. Coll. Physicians Surg. Can. 1992, 25, 51–54.
[6]
Singer, P.A.; Martin, D.K.; Giacomini, M.; Purdy, L. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: Qualitative case study. BMJ 2000, 321, 1316–1318, doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1316.
[7]
Bates, D.W.; Bitton, A. The future Of health information technology in the patient-centered medical home. Health Aff. 2010, 29, 614–621, doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0007.
[8]
Sorensen, L. Health information technology and the transformation of health care in the 21st century. In DNP Education, Practice, and Policy: Redesigning Advanced Practice Roles for the 21st Century; Springer Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 2012; p. 187.
[9]
Wolbring, G. HTA Initiative #23 The Triangle of Enhancement Medicine, Disabled People, and the Concept of Health: A New Challenge for HTA, Health Research, and Health Policy; Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR): Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2005.
[10]
Zettler, P.J. Is it cheating to use cheetahs: The implications of technologically innovative prostheses for sports values and rules. Boston Univ. Int. Law J. 2009, 27, 367–409.
[11]
Wolbring, G. Oscar Pistorius and the future nature of Olympic, Paralympic and other sports. SCRIPTed J. Law Technol. Soc. 2008, 5, 139–160.
[12]
International Paralympic Committee. IPC Position Statement on IAAF’s Commissioned Research on Oscar Pistorius. Available online: http://www.paralympic.org/Media_Centre/News/General_News/2008_01_14_a.html/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[13]
Swartz, L.; Watermeyer, B. Cyborg anxiety: Oscar Pistorius and the boundaries of what it means to be human. Disabil. Soc. 2008, 23, 187–190, doi:10.1080/09687590701841232.
[14]
Austin, R.; Ball, P.; Belcher, A.; Bensimon, D.; Chu, S.; Dekker, C.; Dyson, F.; Endy, D.; Fraser, S.; Glass, J.; et al. The Ilulissat Statement Synthesizing the Future a Vision for the Convergence of Synthetic Biology and Nanotechnology. Kavli Futures Symposium ‘The Merging of Bio and Nano: Towards Cyborg Cells’. Available online: http://www.research.cornell.edu/KIC/images/pdfs/ilulissat_statement.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[15]
Wolbring, G. Artificial Hippocampus, the Borg Hive Mind, and Other Neurological Endeavors. Available online: http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours.2006.11.15.htm/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[16]
Blakeslee, S. Monkey’s Thoughts Propel Robot, a Step That May Help Humans. The New York Times 2008. F3.
[17]
Corp, A. Ambient Corp. Available online: http://www.theaudeo.com/tech.html/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[18]
Aylett, R.S.; Castellano, G.; Raducanu, B.; Paiva, A.; Hanheide, M. Long-term Socially Perceptive and Interactive Robot Companions: Challenges and Future Perspectives. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, ICMI ’11, Alicante, Spain, 14–18 November 2011; pp. 323–326.
[19]
Corley, G. Intelligent OrthoSensor Devices Provide Real-Time Reporting on the Condition of your Orthopaedic Implant. Available online: http://medgadget.com/2011/07/intelligent-orthosensor-devices-provide-real-time-reporting-on-the-condition-of-your-orthopaedic-implant.html/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[20]
Partridge, B.J.; Bell, S.K.; Lucke, J.C.; Yeates, S.; Hall, W.D. Smart drugs as common as coffee media hype about neuroenhancement. PLoS One 2011, 6, e28416.
[21]
Schanker, B.D. Neuroenhancement in a medicated generation: Overlooked uses of cognitive stimulants. AJOB Neurosci. 2011, 2, 28–30, doi:10.1080/21507740.2011.620069.
Wolbring, G. Hearing beyond the normal enabled by therapeutic devices: The role of the recipient and the hearing profession. Neuroethics 2011, 4, 1–10, doi:10.1007/s12152-010-9058-4.
[24]
Freitas, R. 1.2.2 Volitional normative model of disease. In Nanomedicine; Freitas, R., Ed.; Landes Bioscience: Austin, TX, USA, 2003; Volume 1.
[25]
Wolbring, G. Nanotechnology and the transhumanization of health, medicine, and rehabilitation. In Controversies in Science & Technology; Lee Kleinmann, D., Delborne, J., Cloud-Hansen, K., Handelsman, J., Eds.; Mary Ann Liebert: New Rochelle, NY, USA, 2010; Volume 3, pp. 290–303.
[26]
Wolbring, G. Three challenges to the Ottawa spirit of health promotion, trends in global health, and disabled people. Can. J. Public Health 2006, 97, 405–408.
[27]
Wolbring, G. Ethical theories and discourses through an ability expectations and ableism lens: The case of enhancement and global regulation. Asian Bioeth. Rev. 2012, 4, 293–309.
[28]
Coenen, C.; Schuijff, M.; Smits, M.; Klaassen, P.; Hennen, L.; Rader, M.; Wolbring, G. Human Enhancement Study; European Commission: Brussel, Belgium, 2009.
[29]
Jacob, R.; McGregor, M. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 1997, 13, 68–80, doi:10.1017/S0266462300010242.
[30]
Liberati, A.; Sheldon, T.A.; Banta, H.D. EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup report on Methodology. Methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 1997, 13, 186–219, doi:10.1017/S0266462300010369.
[31]
Drummond, M.; Weatherly, H. Implementing the findings of health technology assessments. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2000, 16, 1–12, doi:10.1017/S0266462300016111.
[32]
Lehoux, P.; Blume, S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 2000, 25, 1083–1120, doi:10.1215/03616878-25-6-1083.
[33]
Rosenkoetter, N.; Vondeling, H.; Blancquaert, I.; Mekel, O.C.L.; Kristensen, F.B.; Brand, A. The contribution of health technology assessment, health needs assessment, and health impact assessment to the assessment and translation of technologies in the field of public health genomics. Public Health Genomics 2011, 14, 43–52, doi:10.1159/000318317.
[34]
Bayoumi, A.M.; Krahn, M. The future of health technology assessment. Med. Decis. Mak. 2012, 32, 7–8, doi:10.1177/0272989X11434740.
[35]
Penney, J.K. Qualitative evidence, knowledge translation, and policy-making, with reference to health technology assessment. Dalhous. J. Interdiscip. Manag. 2012, 8.
[36]
Haigh, F.; Harris, P.; Haigh, N. Health impact assessment research and practice: A place for paradigm positioning? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 33, 66–72, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.10.006.
[37]
Mahoney, M.; Simpson, S.; Harris, E.; Aldrich, R.; Stewart-Williams, J. Equity-Focused Health Impact Assessment Framework; Australasian Collaboration for Health Equity Imact Assessment (ACHEIA): Newcastle, Australia, 2004.
[38]
Mahoney, M.; Morgan, R.K. Health impact assessment in Australia and New Zealand: An exploration of methodological concerns. Promot. Educ. 2012, 8, 8–11, doi:10.1177/102538230100800104.
[39]
Hebert, K.A.; Wendel, A.M.; Kennedy, S.K.; Dannenberg, A.L. Health impact assessment: A comparison of 45 local, national, and international guidelines. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 34, 74–82, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.01.003.
[40]
Manitoba, G.O. Community Health Needs Assessment Guidelines; Manitoba Health: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2005.
[41]
Klute, G.K.; Kantor, C.; Darrouzet, C.; Wild, H.; Wilkinson, S.; Iveljic, S.; Creasey, G. Lower-limb amputee needs assessment using multistakeholder focus-group approach. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2009, 46, 293–304, doi:10.1682/JRRD.2008.02.0031.
[42]
Finsterbusch, K. State of the art in social impact assessment. Environ. Behav. 1985, 17, 193–221, doi:10.1177/0013916585172002.
[43]
Becker, H.A. Social impact assessment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001, 128, 311–321, doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00074-6.
[44]
Vanclay, F. The triple bottom line and impact assessment: How do TBL, EIA, SIA, SEA and EMS relate to each other? J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2004, 6, 265–288, doi:10.1142/S1464333204001729.
[45]
Hennen, L. TA in Biomedicine and Healthcare—From clinical evaluation to policy consulting. TA-Datenbank Nachr. 2001, 1, 13–22.
[46]
Delvenne, P. Parliamentary Technology Assessment Performing Reflexivity: An Overview of TAB and STOA. In Proceedings of the ITAS Kolloquium, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany, 14 May 2012.
[47]
Weber, K.M.; Harper, J.C.; K？nn？l？, T.; Barceló, V.C. Coping with a fast-changing world: Towards new systems of future-oriented technology analysis. Sci. Public Policy 2012, 39, 153–165, doi:10.1093/scipol/scs012.
[48]
Europta, EUROPTA Project. European Participatory Technology Assessment. Participatory Methods in Technology Assessment and Technology Decision-Making; The Danish Board of Technology: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002.
[49]
Brown, N.; Einsiedel, E.; Lundin, S. Practicing Public Engagement in Controversial Science and Technology; EASST: Trento, Italy, 2010.
[50]
Powell, M.; Kleinman, D.L. Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Underst. Sci. 2008, 17, 329–348, doi:10.1177/0963662506068000.
[51]
Cene, C.W.; Peek, M.E.; Jacobs, E.; Horowitz, C.R. Community-based teaching about health disparities: Combining education, scholarship, and community service. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2010, 25, S130–S135, doi:10.1007/s11606-009-1214-3.
[52]
Morgan, L.M. Community participation in health: Perpetual allure, persistent challenge. Health Policy Plan. 2001, 16, 221–230, doi:10.1093/heapol/16.3.221.
[53]
Blackstock, K.L.; Kelly, G.J.; Horsey, B.L. Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 726–742, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014.
[54]
Thorpe, C.; Gregory, J. Producing the post-Fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Sci. Cult. 2010, 19, 273–301, doi:10.1080/09505430903194504.
[55]
Merritt, T. What can technology reviews contribute to participatory medicine? J. Particip. Med. 2009, 1, e8.
[56]
Levin-Zamir, D.; Peterburg, Y. Health literacy in health systems: Perspectives on patient self-management in Israel. Health Promot. Int. 2001, 16, 87–94, doi:10.1093/heapro/16.1.87.
[57]
Silber, D. Medicine 2.0: The stakes of participatory medicine. Presse Med. 2009, 38, 1456–1462, doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2009.06.011.
[58]
Disch, J. Participatory health care: Perspective from a nurse leader. J. Particip. Med. 2009, 1, e4.
[59]
Lundberg, G.D. Why healthcare professionals should practice participatory medicine: Perspective of a long-time medical editor. J. Particip. Med. 2009, 1, e3.
[60]
Abelson, J.; Giacomini, M.; Lehoux, P.; Gauvin, F.-P. Bringing “the public” into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy 2007, 82, 37–50, doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.07.009.
[61]
Wolbring, G. Therapeutic enhancements and the view of rehabilitation educators. Dilemata Int. J. Appl. Ethics 2012, 169–183.
[62]
Taylor, S.; Shoultz, B.; Walker, P. Disability Studies: Information and Resources. Available online: http://thechp.syr.edu/Disability_studies_2003_current.html/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[63]
Society for Disability Studies. Guidelines for Disability Studies Programs. Available online: http://disstudies.org/guidelines-for-disability-studies-programs/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[64]
Conrad, M.A.; Fernald, L.D. Nurses in Participatory Medicine—Hidden Curriculum of Acquiescence. Pa J. Physician’s Assoc. 1974, 4, 6–53.
[65]
Kabat-Zinn, J. Participatory medicine. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2000, 14, 239–240, doi:10.1046/j.1468-3083.2000.00062.x.
[66]
Snyderman, R.; Yoediono, Z. Perspective: Prospective health care and the role of academic medicine: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Acad. Med. 2008, 83, 707–714, doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31817ec800.
[67]
Shen, B. Bio-Socio-Technical Underpinnings of Participatory Medicine. J. Particip. Med. 2009, 1, e7.
[68]
Swan, M. Health 2050: The realization of personalized medicine through crowdsourcing, the quantified self, and the participatory biocitizen. J. Pers. Med. 2012, 2, 93–118, doi:10.3390/jpm2030093.
[69]
Ochocka, J.; Janzen, R.; Nelson, G. Sharing power and knowledge: Professional and mental health consumer/survivor researchers working together in a participatory action research project. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. 2002, 25, 379–387, doi:10.1037/h0094999.
[70]
Nelson, G.; Ochocka, J.; Janzen, R.; Trainor, J. A longitudinal study of mental health consumer/survivor initiatives: Part 1—Literature review and overview of the study. J. Community Psychol. 2006, 34, 247–260, doi:10.1002/jcop.20097.
[71]
Nelson, G.; Janzen, R.; Trainor, J.; Ochocka, J. Putting values into practice: Public policy and the future of mental health consumer-run organizations. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 2008, 42, 192–201, doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9191-y.
[72]
Dunston, R.; Lee, A.; Boud, D.; Brodie, P.; Chiarella, M. Co-production and health system reform—From re-imagining to re-making. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2009, 68, 39–52, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00608.x.
[73]
Yergens, D.R.J.; Doig, C.J. KSv2: Application for Enhancing Scoping and Systematic Reviews. In Proceedings of American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) 2012 Annual Symposium, Chicago, IL, USA, 3–7 November 2012.
[74]
Koenig, T. Routinizing Frame Analysis through the Use of CAQDAS. In Proceedings of the RC33 Sixth International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 16–20 August 2004.
[75]
MacMillan, K. More than just Coding? Evaluating CAQDAS in a Discourse Analysis of News Texts. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2005, 6. Art. 25.
[76]
Gini, A.; Rossi, J.; Giordano, J. Considering enhancement (and/or treatment): On the need to regard contingency and develop dialectic evaluation—A commentary on Singh and Kelleher. AJOB Neurosci. 2010, 1, 25–27, doi:10.1080/21507740903504392.
[77]
Ravelingien, A.; Braeckman, J.; Crevits, L.; de Ridder, D.; Mortier, E. ‘Cosmetic Neurology’ and the Moral Complicity Argument. Neuroethics 2009, 2, 151–162, doi:10.1007/s12152-009-9042-z.
[78]
Singh, I.; Kelleher, K.J. Neuroenhancement in young people: Proposal for research, policy, and clinical management. AJOB Neurosci. 2010, 1, 3–16, doi:10.1080/21507740903508591.
[79]
Benanti, P. Neuroenhancement in young people: Cultural need or medical technology? AJOB Neurosci. 2010, 1, 27–29, doi:10.1080/21507740903523210.
[80]
Bublitz, J.C.; Merkel, R. Autonomy and authenticity of enhanced personality traits. Bioethics 2009, 23, 360–374, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01725.x.
Lev, O. Should children have equal access to neuroenhancements? AJOB Neurosci. 2010, 1, 21–23, doi:10.1080/21507740903504442.
[83]
Sahakian, B.J.; Morein-Zamir, S. Neuroethical issues in cognitive enhancement. J. Psychopharmacol. 2011, 25, 197–204, doi:10.1177/0269881109106926.
[84]
Repantis, D.; Laisney, O.; Heuser, I. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacol. Res. 2010, 61, 473–481, doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2010.02.009.
[85]
Larriviere, D.; Williams, M.A.; Rizzo, M.; Bonnie, R.J. Responding to requests from adult patients for neuroenhancements. Neurology 2009, 73, 1406, doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181beecfe.
[86]
Synofzik, M. Ethically justified, clinically applicable criteria for physician decision-making in psychopharmacological enhancement. Neuroethics 2009, 2, 89–102, doi:10.1007/s12152-008-9029-1.
[87]
Hall, W. Feeling “better than well”: Can our experiences with psychoactive drugs help us to meet the challenges of novel neuroenhancement methods? In EMBO Reports; EMBO: Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; Volume 5, pp. 1105–1109.
Schleim, S. Second thoughts on the prevalence of enhancement. BioSocieties 2010, 5, 484–485, doi:10.1057/biosoc.2010.32.
[90]
Bostrom, N.; Ord, T. The Reversal Test: Eliminating Status Quo Bias in Applied Ethics*. Ethics 2006, 116, 656–679, doi:10.1086/505233.
[91]
Lucke, J.C. Empirical research on attitudes toward cognitive enhancement is essential to inform policy and practice guidelines. AJOB Prim. Res. 2012, 3, 58–60, doi:10.1080/21507716.2011.645268.
[92]
Outram, S.M.; Racine, E. Developing public health approaches to cognitive enhancement: An analysis of current reports. Public Health Ethics 2011, 4, 93–105, doi:10.1093/phe/phr006.
[93]
Appel, J.M. When the boss turns pusher: A proposal for employee protections in the age of cosmetic neurology. J. Med. Ethics 2008, 34, 616–618, doi:10.1136/jme.2007.022723.
[94]
Hogle, L.F. Enhancement technologies and the body. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005, 34, 695–716, doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144020.
[95]
Howell, R.D. Technology and change in special education: An interactional perspective. Theory Pract. 1990, 29, 276–282, doi:10.1080/00405849009543466.
[96]
McNamee, M.; Edwards, S. Transhumanism, medical technology and slippery slopes. J. Med. Ethics 2006, 32, 513–518, doi:10.1136/jme.2005.013789.
[97]
Bostrom, N.; Roache, R. Smart Policy: Cognitive Enhancement and the Public Interest. Contemp. Read. Law Soc. Justice 2010, 1, 68.
[98]
Drabiak Syed, K. Reining in the pharmacological enhancement train: We should remain vigilant about regulatory standards for prescribing controlled substances. J. Law Med. Ethics 2011, 39, 272–279, doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00596.x.
[99]
Hagger, L.; Johnson, G.H. “Super kids”: Regulating the use of cognitive and psychological enhancement in children. Law Innov. Technol. 2011, 3, 137–166, doi:10.5235/175799611796399867.
[100]
Bell, S.K.; Lucke, J.C.; Hall, W.D. Lessons for enhancement from the history of cocaine and amphetamine use. AJOB Neurosci. 2012, 3, 24–29, doi:10.1080/21507740.2012.663056.
[101]
Whitehouse, P.J.; Juengst, E.; Mehlman, M.; Murray, T.H. Enhancing cognition in the intellectually intact. Hastings Cent. Rep. 1997, 27, 14–22.
[102]
Fenton, E. The perils of failing to enhance: A response to Persson and Savulescu. J. Med. Ethics 2010, 36, 148–151, doi:10.1136/jme.2009.033597.
[103]
De Jongh, R.; Bolt, I.; Schermer, M.; Olivier, B. Botox for the brain: Enhancement of cognition, mood and pro-social behavior and blunting of unwanted memories. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2008, 32, 760–776, doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.12.001.
[104]
Kin, C.A. Coming soon to the “genetic supermarket” near you. Stanford Law Rev. 1996, 1573–1604, doi:10.2307/1229333.
[105]
De Melo-Martín, I. Defending human enhancement technologies: Unveiling normativity. J. Med. Ethics 2010, 36, 483–487, doi:10.1136/jme.2010.036095.
[106]
Bradshaw, H.G.; ter Meulen, R. A transhumanist fault line around disability: Morphological freedom and the obligation to enhance. J. Med. Philos. 2010, 35, 670–684, doi:10.1093/jmp/jhq048.
[107]
Wolbring, G. “Therapeutic”, enhancement enabling, assistive devices and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A missing lens in the enhancement regulation discourse. J. Int. Biotechnol. Law 2009, 6, 193–206.
[108]
Cobb, M.D. Creating informed public opinion: Citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements. J. Nanopart. Res. 2011, 13, 1533–1548, doi:10.1007/s11051-011-0227-0.
[109]
Cullen, D. Back to the future: Eugenics-a bibliographic essay. Public Hist. 2007, 29, 163–175, doi:10.1525/tph.2007.29.3.163.
[110]
Forlini, C.; Racine, E. Considering the Causes and Implications of Ambivalence in Using Medicine for Enhancement. In The American Journal of Bioethics; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011; Volume 11, pp. 15–17.
[111]
Juengst, E.T.; Binstock, R.H.; Mehlman, M.; Post, S.G.; Whitehouse, P. Biogerontology, anti-aging medicine and the challenges of human enhancement. Hastings Cent. Rep. 2003, 33, 21–30, doi:10.2307/3528377.
[112]
Weldon, S.; Laycock, D. Public opinion and biotechnological innovation. Policy Soc. 2009, 28, 315–325, doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.09.005.
[113]
Clough, B.A.; Casey, L.M. Technological adjuncts to enhance current psychotherapy practices: A review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2011, 31, 279–292, doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.12.008.
[114]
Mason, S.G.; Bashashati, A.; Fatourechi, M.; Navarro, K.F.; Birch, G.E. A comprehensive survey of brain interface technology designs. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2007, 35, 137–169, doi:10.1007/s10439-006-9170-0.
[115]
Jackson, M.M.M.; Mason, S.G.; Birch, G.E. Analyzing trends in brain interface technology: A method to compare studies. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2006, 34, 859–878, doi:10.1007/s10439-005-9055-7.
[116]
Elder, J.B.; Hoh, D.J.; Oh, B.C.; Heller, A.C.; Liu, C.Y.; Apuzzo, M.L.J. The future of cerebral surgery: A kaleidoscope of opportunities. Neurosurgery 2008, 62, SHC1555–SHC1579, doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000333820.33143.0d.
[117]
Clausen, J. Conceptual and ethical issues with brain-hardware interfaces. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2011, 24, 495–501.
[118]
Neven, L. But obviously not for me: Robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociol. Health Illn. 2010, 32, 335–347, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01218.x.
[119]
McCullagh, P.J.; Ware, M.; Mulvenna, M.; Lightbody, G.; Nugent, C.D.; McAllister, H.G.; Thomson, E.; Martin, S.; Mathews, S.; Todd, D.; et al. Can brain computer interfaces become practical assistive devices in the community? Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2010, 160, 314–318.
[120]
Isa, T.; Fetz, E.E.; Müller, K.R. Editorial: Recent advances in brain-machine interfaces. Neural Netw. 2009, 22, 1201–1202, doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2009.10.003.
[121]
Menon, C.; de Negueruela, C.; Milláne, J.R.; Tonet, O.; Carpi, F.; Broschart, M.; Ferrez, P.; Buttfield, A.; Tecchio, F.; Sepulveda, F.; et al. Prospects of brain-machine interfaces for space system control. Acta Astronaut. 2009, 64, 448–456, doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.09.008.
Martin, A.R.; Sankar, T.; Lipsman, N.; Lozano, A.M. Brain-machine interfaces for motor control: A guide for neuroscience clinicians. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 2012, 39, 11–22.
[124]
Hatsopoulos, N.G.; Donoghue, J.P. The science of neural interface systems. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2009, 32, 249–266, doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135241.
[125]
Allison, B. The I of BCIs: Next Generation Interfaces for Brain Computer Interface Systems That Adapt to Individual Users. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of Human-Computer Interaction, San Diego, CA, USA, 19–24 July 2009; pp. 558–568.
[126]
Patil, S.A. Brain Gate as an Assistive and Solution Providing Technology for Disabled People. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering, Singapore, 3–6 December 2008; pp. 1232–1235.
Demetriades, A.K.; Demetriades, C.K.; Watts, C.; Ashkan, K. Brain-machine interface: The challenge of neuroethics. Surgeon 2010, 8, 267–269, doi:10.1016/j.surge.2010.05.006.
[129]
Birbaumer, N.; Cohen, L.G. Brain-computer interfaces: Communication and restoration of movement in paralysis. J. Physiol. 2007, 579, 621–636, doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2006.125633.
[130]
Yumakulov, S.; Yergens, D.; Wolbring, G. Imagery of People with Disabilities within Social Robotics Research. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Social Robotics, ICSR 2012, Chengdu, China, 29–31 October 2012; pp. 168–177.
[131]
Sugiyama, O.; Shinozawa, K.; Akimoto, T.; Hagita, N. Case Study of a Multi-robot Healthcare System: Effects of Docking and Metaphor on Persuasion. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Social Robotics, ICSR 2010, Singapore, 23–24 November 2010; pp. 90–99.
[132]
Broadbent, E.; Lee, Y.I.; Stafford, R.Q.; Kuo, I.H.; MacDonald, B.A. Mental schemas of robots as more human-like are associated with higher blood pressure and negative emotions in a human-robot interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2011, 3, 291–297, doi:10.1007/s12369-011-0096-9.
[133]
Gelderblom, G.J.; Bemelmans, R.; Spierts, N.; Jonker, P.; de Witte, L. Development of PARO Interventions for Dementia Patients in Dutch Psycho-geriatric Care. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Social Robotics, ICSR 2010, Singapore, 23–24 November 2010; pp. 253–258.
[134]
Kuo, I.H.; Jayawardena, C.; Broadbent, E.; MacDonald, B.A. Multidisciplinary design approach for implementation of interactive services: Communication initiation and user identification for healthcare service robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2011, 3, 443–456, doi:10.1007/s12369-011-0115-x.
[135]
Tamagawa, R.; Watson, C.I.; Kuo, I.H.; MacDonald, B.A.; Broadbent, E. The effects of synthesized voice accents on user perceptions of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2011, 3, 253–262, doi:10.1007/s12369-011-0100-4.
[136]
Wasen, K. Replacement of highly educated surgical assistants by robot technology in working life: Paradigm shift in the service sector. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2010, 2, 431–438, doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0062-y.
[137]
Broadbent, E.; Stafford, R.; MacDonald, B. Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2009, 1, 319–330, doi:10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6.
[138]
Moon, A.J.; Danielson, P.; van der Loos, H.F.M. Survey-based discussions on morally contentious applications of interactive robotics. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2012, 4, 77–96.
[139]
Salvini, P.; Laschi, C.; Dario, P. Design for acceptability: Improving robots’ coexistence in human society. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2010, 2, 451–460, doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0079-2.
[140]
Lin, P.; Abney, K.; Bekey, G. Robot Ethics: Mapping the Issues for a Mechanized World. In Artif. Intell.; 2011; Volume 175, pp. 942–949.
[141]
Sparrow, R.; Sparrow, L. In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach. 2006, 16, 141–161, doi:10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6.
[142]
Levy, D. The ethical treatment of artificially conscious robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2009, 1, 209–216, doi:10.1007/s12369-009-0022-6.
[143]
Weng, Y.H. Beyond robot ethics: On a legislative consortium for social robotics. Adv. Robot. 2010, 24, 1919–1926, doi:10.1163/016918610X527220.
[144]
Wiegel, V.; van den Berg, J. Combining moral theory, modal logic and mas to create well-behaving artificial agents. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2009, 1, 233–242, doi:10.1007/s12369-009-0023-5.
[145]
Coeckelbergh, M. Personal robots, appearance, and human good: A methodological reflection on roboethics. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2009, 1, 217–221, doi:10.1007/s12369-009-0026-2.
[146]
Sabanovic, S. It takes a village to construct a robot: A socially situated perspective on the ethics of robot design. Interact. Stud. 2010, 11, 257–262, doi:10.1075/is.11.2.13sab.
[147]
Shaw-Garlock, G. Looking forward to sociable robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2009, 1, 249–260, doi:10.1007/s12369-009-0021-7.
[148]
Health Quality Council of Alberta. Alberta Quality Matrix for Health of the Health Quality Council of Alberta. 2005. Available online: http://www.hqca.ca./pdf/Matrix%20.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[149]
Canadian Institute of Health Information. Health Indicators 2010. Available online: https://secure.cihi.ca/estore/productFamily.htm?pf=PFC1435/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[150]
Williams, A.E. Good, Better, Best: The Human Quest for Enhancement Summary Report of an Invitational Workshop Convened by the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available online: http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/human_enhancement/pdfs/HESummaryReport.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[151]
Daniels, N.; Saloner, B.; Gelpi, A.H. Access, cost, and financing: Achieving an ethical health reform. Health Aff. 2009, 28, w909–w916, doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.5.w909.
[152]
Jecker, N.S. A broader view of justice. Am. J. Bioeth. 2008, 8, 2–10, doi:10.1080/15265160802478412.
[153]
Kamm, F.M. The choice between people: ‘common sense’ morality, and doctors. Bioethics 1987, 1, 255–271, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.1987.tb00011.x.
[154]
Marchand, S.; Wikler, D.; Landesman, B. Class, health, and justice. Milbank Q. 1998, 76, 449–467.
[155]
Sherwin, S.; Baylis, F. The feminist health care ethics consultant as architect and advocate. Public Aff.Q. 2003, 17, 141–158.
[156]
Caplan, A.L.; Callahan, D.; Haas, J. Ethical and policy issues in rehabilitation medicine. Hastings Cent.Rep. 1987, 17, S1–S19, doi:10.2307/3563190.
[157]
Singer, P. Setting limits: Medical goals in an aging society, by Daniel Callahan. Bioethics 1988, 2, 151–169, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.1988.tb00044.x.
[158]
Bayer, R.; Callahan, D.; Caplan, A.L.; Jennings, B. Toward justice in health care. Am. J. Public Health 1988, 78, 583–588.
[159]
Olsen, J.A. Theories of justice and their implications for priority setting in health care. J. Health Econ. 1997, 16, 625–639, doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(97)00010-6.
[160]
Cookson, R.; Dolan, P. Principles of justice in health care rationing. J. Med. Ethics 2000, 26, 323–329, doi:10.1136/jme.26.5.323.
[161]
Gakidou, E.E.; Murray, C.J.; Frenk, J. Defining and measuring health inequality: An approach based on the distribution of health expectancy. Bull. World Health Organ. 2000, 78, 42–54.
[162]
Savulescu, J. Desire-based and value-based normative reasons. Bioethics 1999, 13, 405–413.
[163]
Rutten, F.F.H.; Bonsel, G.J. High cost technology in health care: A benefit or a burden? Soc. Sci. Med. 1992, 35, 567–577, doi:10.1016/0277-9536(92)90350-Y.
[164]
Dargie, C. Policy Futures for UK Health 2000 Report Part 2 Analysing Issues for Health in 2015 Rising Public Expectations; TSO (The Stationery Office): London, UK, 2000.
[165]
Murphy, N.J. Citizen deliberation in setting health-care priorities. Health Expect. 2005, 8, 172–181, doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00326.x.
[166]
Kashefi, E.; Mort, M. Grounded citizens’ juries: A tool for health activism? Health Expect. 2004, 7, 290–302, doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00295.x.
[167]
Guttman, N.; Shalev, C.; Kaplan, G.; Abulafia, A.; Bin-Nun, G.; Goffer, R.; Ben-Moshe, R.; Tal, O.; Shani, M.; Lev, B. What should be given a priority-costly medications for relatively few people or inexpensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation initiative in Israel. Health Expect. 2008, 11, 177–188, doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00485.x.
[168]
Menon, D. Which Kind of Health Technologies Should We Assess and Why? A Citizens’ Jury Delivered its Verdict. Available online: http://www.hinnovic.org/which-kind-of-health-technologies-should-we-assess-and-why/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[169]
Wolbring, G. The Unenhanced Underclass. In Better Humans? The Politics of Human Enhancement; Wilsdon, J.M.P., Ed.; Demos Institute: London, UK, 2006.
[170]
Mendelsohn, D.; Lipsman, N.; Bernstein, M. Neurosurgeons’ perspectives on psychosurgery and neuroenhancement: A qualitative study at one center: Clinical article. J. Neurosurg. 2010, 113, 1212–1218, doi:10.3171/2010.5.JNS091896.
[171]
Choudhury, S.; Nagel, S.K.; Slaby, J. Critical neuroscience: Linking neuroscience and society through critical practice. BioSocieties 2009, 4, 61–77, doi:10.1017/S1745855209006437.
[172]
Palmour, N.; Racine, E. Direct-to-consumer marketing of dietary supplements for dementia: An example of unhealthy commerce of neuroscience. AJOB Neurosci. 2011, 2, 30–33, doi:10.1080/21507740.2011.620592.
[173]
Hall, W. Feeling “better than well”. EMBO Rep. 2004, 5, 1105–1109, doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400303.
[174]
Larriviere, D.; Williams, M.A. Neuroenhancement: Wisdom of the masses or？ false phronesis？? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2010, 88, 459–461, doi:10.1038/clpt.2010.140.
[175]
Turner, D.C.; Sahakian, B.J. Ethical questions in functional neuroimaging and cognitive enhancement. Poiesis Prax. 2006, 4, 81–94, doi:10.1007/s10202-005-0020-1.
[176]
Banjo, O.C.; Nadler, R.; Reiner, P.B. Physician attitudes towards pharmacological cognitive enhancement: Safety concerns are paramount. PLoS One 2010, 5, e14322, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014322.
[177]
Coveney, C.; Gabe, J.; Williams, S. The sociology of cognitive enhancement: Medicalisation and beyond. Health Sociol. Rev. 2011, 20, 381–393, doi:10.5172/hesr.2011.20.4.381.
[178]
Outram, S.M. The use of methylphenidate among students: The future of enhancement? J. Med. Ethics 2010, 36, 198–202, doi:10.1136/jme.2009.034421.
[179]
Kirschner, K.L.; Dreger, A.; Wolbring, G. Brave new world? Enhancement and rehabilitation medicine. PM&R 2010, 2, 294–297.
[180]
Leong, C.C.; Jarvis, D.; Howlett, M.; Migone, A. Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia. Technol. Soc. 2011, 33, 128–136, doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.007.
[181]
De Roubaix, J. Beneficence, non-maleficence, distributive justice and respect for patient autonomy: Reconcilable ends in aesthetic surgery? J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2011, 64, 11–16, doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2010.03.034.
[182]
Mason, S.G.; Jackson, M.M.M.; Birch, G.E. A general framework for characterizing studies of brain interface technology. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2005, 33, 1653–1670, doi:10.1007/s10439-005-7706-3.
[183]
Packman, A.; Meredith, G. Technology and the evolution of clinical methods for stuttering. J. Fluen. Disord. 2011, 36, 75–85, doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2011.02.005.
[184]
Breazeal, C. Role of expressive behaviour for robots that learn from people. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 3527–3538, doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0157.
[185]
Young, J.E.; Hawkins, R.; Sharlin, E.; Igarashi, T. Toward acceptable domestic robots: Applying insights from social psychology. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2009, 1, 95–108, doi:10.1007/s12369-008-0006-y.
[186]
De Ruyter, B.; Saini, P.; Markopoulos, P.; van Breemen, A. Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interact. Comput. 2005, 17, 522–541, doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2005.03.003.
[187]
Seale, C.; Cavers, D.; Dixon-Woods, M. Commodification of body parts: By medicine or by media? Body Soc. 2006, 12, 25–42.
[188]
Ungerson, C. Social politics and the commodification of care. Soc. Polit. 1997, 4, 362–381, doi:10.1093/sp/4.3.362.
[189]
Stern, M. Shiny, happy people: Body Worlds’ and the commodification of health. Radic. Philos. 2003, 2–6.
[190]
Negrin, L. Cosmetic surgery and the eclipse of identity. Body Soc. 2002, 8, 21–42, doi:10.1177/1357034X02008004002.
[191]
Davis, K. Reshaping the Female Body; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, London, UK, 1995.
[192]
Swami, V.; Chamorro-Premuzic, T.; Bridges, S.; Furnham, A. Acceptance of cosmetic surgery: Personality and individual difference predictors. Body Image 2009, 6, 7–13, doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2008.09.004.
[193]
Hacking, I. Canguilhem amid the cyborgs. Econ. Soc. 1998, 27, 202–216, doi:10.1080/03085149800000014.
[194]
Leng, K.W. On menopause and cyborgs: Or, towards a feminist cyborg politics of menopause. Body Soc. 1996, 2, 33–52.
[195]
Haraway, D. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
[196]
Canguilhem, G. La Connaissance de la vie: Machine et Organisme; Hachette: Paris, France, 1952.
[197]
Wiener, N. Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd ed. ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1965.
[198]
Bostrom, N. In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics 2005, 19, 202–214, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00437.x.
[199]
Coughlin, J.F.; Pope, J.E.; Leedle, B.R. Old age, new technology, and future innovations in disease management and home health care. Home Health Care Manag. Pract. 2006, 18, 196–207, doi:10.1177/1084822305281955.
[200]
Frydman, G.J. Patient-driven research: Rich opportunities and real risks. J. Particip. Med. 2009, 1, e12.
[201]
Swan, M. Emerging patient-driven health care models: an examination of health social networks, consumer personalized medicine and quantified self-tracking. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 492, doi:10.3390/ijerph6020492.
[202]
Dvorsky, G. The Quantified Self: 6 Tools to Help You Get Started. Available online: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20101106/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[203]
Wolf, G. The quantified self. Available online: http://www.ted.com/talks/gary_wolf_the_quantified_self.html/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[204]
Blaze Carlson, K. The Quantified Self by the Numbers. The National Post. Available online: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/10/02/the-quantified-self-by-the-numbers/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
Guttmacher, A.E.; McGuire, A.L.; Ponder, B.; Stefánsson, K. Personalized genomic information: Preparing for the future of genetic medicine. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11, 161–165.
[207]
Kato, K.; Kano, K.; Shirai, T. Science communication: Significance for genome-based personalized medicine？a view from the Asia-Pacific. Curr. Pharmacogenomics 2010, 8, 93.
[208]
Keller, M.A.; Gordon, E.S.; Stack, C.B.; Gharani, N.; Sill, C.J.; Schmidlen, T.J.; Joseph, M.; Pallies, J.; Gerry, N.P.; Christman, M.F. Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative？: A prospective study of the utility of personalized medicine. Pers. Med. 2010, 7, 301–317, doi:10.2217/pme.10.13.
[209]
Conrad, P. The discovery of hyperkinesis: Notes on the medicalization of deviant behavior. Soc. Probl. 1975, 23, 12–21, doi:10.2307/799624.
[210]
Illich, I. The medicalization of life. J. Med. Ethics 1975, 1, 73–77, doi:10.1136/jme.1.2.73.
[211]
Searight, R.H.; McLaren, L.A. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: The medicalization of misbehavior. J. Clin. Psychol. Med. Settings 1998, 5, 467–495, doi:10.1023/A:1026263012665.
[212]
Malacrida, C. Medicalization, ambivalence and social control: Mothers’ descriptions of educators and ADD/ADHD. Health (Lond.) 2004, 8, 61–80, doi:10.1177/1363459304038795.
[213]
Conrad, P. The Medicalization of Society: On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
[214]
Suissa, A.J. Addiction to cosmetic surgery: Representations and medicalization of the body. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2008, 6, 619–630, doi:10.1007/s11469-008-9164-2.
[215]
Coveney, C.M.; Nerlich, B.; Martin, P. Modafinil in the media: Metaphors, medicalisation and the body. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 68, 487–495, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.11.016.
[216]
Moynihan, R.; Heath, I.; Henry, D. Selling sickness: The pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. BMJ 2002, 324, 886–891, doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7342.886.
[217]
Polonijo, A.N.; Carpiano, R.M. Representations of cosmetic surgery and emotional health in women’s magazines in Canada. Womens Health Issues 2008, 18, 463–470, doi:10.1016/j.whi.2008.07.004.
[218]
Brooks, A. “Under the knife and proud of it:” * An analysis of the normalization of cosmetic surgery. Crit. Sociol. 2004, 30, 207–239, doi:10.1163/156916304323072080.
[219]
Scott, C.M.; Horne, T.; Thurston, W.E. The Differential Impact of Health Care Privatization on Women in Alberta. In Exposing Privatization: Women and Health Care Reform in Canada; Garamond Press: Aurora, ON, Canada, 2002; pp. 253–285.
[220]
Rosenthal, M.; Daniels, N. Beyond competition: The normative implications of consumer-driven health plans. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 2006, 31, 671–685, doi:10.1215/03616878-2005-013.
[221]
Mossialos, E. Citizens’ views on health care systems in the 15 member states of the European Union. Health Econ. 1997, 6, 109–116, doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199703)6:2<109::AID-HEC251>3.0.CO;2-L.
[222]
Buntin, M.B.; Damberg, C.; Haviland, A.; Kapur, K.; Lurie, N.; McDevitt, R.; Marquis, M.S. Consumer-directed health care: Early evidence about effects on cost and quality. Health Aff. 2006, 25, w516–w530, doi:10.1377/hlthaff.25.w516.
[223]
Carman, K.L.; Maurer, M.; Yegian, J.M.; Dardess, P.; McGee, J.; Evers, M.; Marlo, K.O. Evidence that consumers are skeptical about evidence-based health care. Health Aff. 2010, 29, 1400–1406, doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0296.
[224]
Bechtel, C.; Ness, D.L. If you build it, will they come? Designing truly patient-centered health care. Health Aff. 2010, 29, 914–920, doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0305.
[225]
Murray, C.J.; Kawabata, K.; Valentine, N. People’s experience versus people's expectations. Health Aff. (Millwood) 2001, 20, 21–24, doi:10.1377/hlthaff.20.3.21.
[226]
Nord, E. The significance of contextual factors in valuing health states. Health Policy 1989, 13, 189–198, doi:10.1016/0168-8510(89)90092-4.
[227]
Mossialos, E.; Thomson, S.M. Voluntary health insurance in the European Union: A critical assessment. Int. J. Health Serv. 2002, 32, 19–88, doi:10.2190/K6BP-3H1R-L41M-HVGE.
[228]
Berger, F.; Gevers, S.; Siep, L.; Weltring, K.M. Ethical, legal and social aspects of brain-implants using nano-scale materials and techniques. NanoEthics 2008, 2, 241–249, doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0044-9.
[229]
Franke, A.G.; Bonertz, C.; Christmann, M.; Engeser, S.; Lieb, K. Attitudes toward cognitive enhancement in users and nonusers of stimulants for cognitive enhancement: A pilot study. AJOB Prim. Res. 2012, 3, 48–57.
[230]
Grunwald, A. Converging technologies: Visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures 2007, 39, 380–392, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.08.001.
[231]
Repantis, D.; Schlattmann, P.; Laisney, O.; Heuser, I. Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacol. Res. 2010, 62, 187–206, doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2010.04.002.
[232]
Sahakian, B.; Morein-Zamir, S. Professor’s little helper. Nature 2007, 450, 1157–1159, doi:10.1038/4501157a.
[233]
Cakic, V. Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: Ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology. J. Med. Ethics 2009, 35, 611–615, doi:10.1136/jme.2009.030882.
[234]
Birbaumer, N.; Murguialday, A.R.; Cohen, L. Brain-computer interface in paralysis. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 2008, 21, 634–638, doi:10.1097/WCO.0b013e328315ee2d.
[235]
Wolpaw, J.R.; Birbaumer, N.; McFarland, D.J.; Pfurtscheller, G.; Vaughan, T.M. Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2002, 113, 767–791, doi:10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00057-3.
Jerbi, K.; Vidal, J.R.; Mattout, J.; Maby, E.; Lecaignard, F.; Ossandon, T.; Hamamé, C.M.; Dalal, S.S.; Bouet, R.; Lachaux, J.P.; et al. Inferring hand movement kinematics from MEG, EEG and intracranial EEG: From brain-machine interfaces to motor rehabilitation. IRBM 2011, 32, 8–18, doi:10.1016/j.irbm.2010.12.004.
[238]
Serruya, M.D.; Kahana, M.J. Techniques and devices to restore cognition. Behav. Brain Res. 2008, 192, 149–165, doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.04.007.
[239]
The National Horizon Scanning Centre UK, Horizon Scanning Centre, National Institute of Health Research NIHR Horizon Scanning Centre (NIHR HSC), UK. Available online: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whatwedo/aboutmedicaltechnologies/innovationlandscape/productdevelopment/NationalHorizonScanningCentre.jsp/ (accessed on 30 January 2013).
[240]
Kolasa, K.; Kalo, Z.; Zah, V.; Dolezal, T. Role of health technology assessment in the process of implementation of the EU Transparency Directive: Relevant experience from Central Eastern European countries. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2012, 12, 283–287, doi:10.1586/erp.12.12.
[241]
Walley, T. Translating comparative effectiveness research into clinical practice: The UK experience. Drugs 2012, 72, 163–170, doi:10.2165/11630860-000000000-00000.
[242]
Imrie, R. Ableist geographies, disablist spaces: Towards a reconstruction of Golledge’s ‘Geography and the disabled’. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 1996, 21, 397–403, doi:10.2307/622489.
[243]
Ayim, M. Crimes against the Deaf: The Politics of Ableism. Can. J. Educ. 1997, 22, 330–335, doi:10.2307/1585835.
[244]
Livingston, K. When architecture disables: Teaching undergraduates to perceive ableism in the built environment. Teach. Sociol. 2000, 28, 182–191, doi:10.2307/1318988.
[245]
Carlson, L. Cognitive ableism and disability studies: Feminist reflections on the history of mental retardation. Hypatia 2001, 16, 124–146, doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2001.tb00756.x.
[246]
Hehir, T. Eliminating ableism in education. Harv. Educ. Rev. 2002, 72, 1–32.
[247]
Overboe, J. Vitalism: Subjectivity Exceeding Racism, Sexism, and (Psychiatric) Ableism. Wagadu 2007, 4, 23–34.
[248]
Wolbring, G. The politics of ableism. Development 2008, 51, 252–258, doi:10.1057/dev.2008.17.
[249]
Campbell, F.K. Refusing Able (ness): A Preliminary Conversation about Ableism. M/C J. 2008, 11, 3.
[250]
Wolbring, G. Expanding ableism: Taking down the ghettoization of impact of disability studies scholars. Societies 2012, 2, 75–83, doi:10.3390/soc2030075.
[251]
Wolbring, G.; Ball, N. Nanoscale science and technology and people with disabilities in Asia: An ability expectation analysis. NanoEthics 2012, 6, 127–135, doi:10.1007/s11569-012-0148-0.
[252]
Wolbring, G. Confined to your legs. In Living with the Genie; Lightman, A., Sarewitz, D., Desser, C., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 139–157.
[253]
Wolbring, G. Science and technology and the triple D (disease, disability, defect). In Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science; Bainbridge, W.S., Ed.; Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 232–243.
[254]
Van der Horst, D.; Vermeylen, S. Spatial scale and social impacts of biofuel production. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 2435–2443, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.029.
