Cosmetic neurology, more generally cosmetic pharmacology, has to do with taking drugs to improve cognitive function, movements, moods, and general mental functioning in healthy normal individuals.

I have selected a few key passages from the following 2008 article in an academic journal. I would appreciate your views.

"When the boss turns pusher: a proposal for
employee protections in the age of cosmetic
neurology" by JM Appel (J Med Ethics 2008;34:616–618)

Chatterjee argued that Western medicine
stands on the brink of an inevitable neuropharmacological
revolution in which healthy people
will be ‘‘treated’’ with brain-enhancing drugs in
order to improve performance in such fields as
attention, learning and memory.

Chatterjee has documented
dozens of different ways in which therapeutic
agents may also be harnessed to augment the
mental abilities of individuals without illnesses—
ranging from commercial airplane pilots whose
performance in simulated emergencies improved
when trained on a reversible acetylcholinesterase
inhibitor, donepezil, to the use of selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitors in order to foster ‘‘affiliative
behaviour’’ in healthy, non-depressed adults.

Transhumanist
philosophers, such as Nick Bostrom and Max
More, have long sought in medical technology an
opportunity to overcome ‘‘traditional human
limitations’’ for the benefit of society.
Libertarian bioethicists argue for access to these
advances on autonomy grounds, demanding that
individuals be permitted to use any available
technology for self-improvement.9 Anita Silvers,
the prominent San Francisco State Universitybased
bioethicist and disability-rights advocate,
writes that such modifications are a basic human
right and the very ‘‘essence of freedom’’. Military
physicians, citing the dangers of sleep-restricted
environments, claim an entitlement—and even a
moral duty—to ‘‘help healthy inviduals optimise
their cognitive potential’’.

In contrast, conservative
critics of neurocognitive enhancement, such as
Francis Fukuyama, see unchecked tinkering with
the healthy brain as an unnatural threat to the
‘‘human essence’’; Fukuyama fears that such
cosmetic interventions could ultimately lead to
an entrenched inegalitarianism that would undermine
democratic institutions. In addition,
University of Rochester philosopher Richard Dees
objects to Chatterjee’s claim that a neurocognitive
revolution is an inevitable result of military
pressures and market forces. Dees views this
outlook as the surrender of ethics to power—an
abnegation of moral duty—and he calls for the use
of ‘‘democratic checks’’ in order to ‘‘collectively
control our own destinies’’ in the face of the
neurocosmetic onslaught.

Sounds a lot like Bioshock to me, at least at first glance.

Huh?

Not a gamer yourself, eh? Nobody's perfect.

Bioshock is 2007's Game of the Year. Here, look it up.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/bioshock?q=Bioshock

Got ya. Yeah, something like that but less fun.

Well I am not so sure this will ever become a front-burner issue in ethics because most people don't have the interest level or discipline to do brain optimization.

We have known for years that there are herbs and supplements that enhance cognitive function, as well as mind exercises (puzzles, counting exercises, etc.) recommended by neuroscientists to sharpen the mind. But I am willing to bet that you can only count on one hand the number of people you personally know who pursue these enhancements on a daily basis.

Most people are striving to just get through their day and can't even get to the point of adequate sleep, much less neural optimization. You might think that everyone wants to be like Raymond Kurzweil, but few actually ever even try.