First, I would not say that the developing of self-regulative cognitive behaviors do not arise naturally, but must be developed. Some may have an easier go at such development, but in the end, we are talking about impulse control, inhibition, concentration and attention. Skill and training are needed to fully develop EF. I interpret mindfulness meditation as one way which adults are trying to further develop these skills. William James in his Talks to Teachers, has a chapter on habit in which he discusses not EF per se — but the importance in cultivating attention, will and discpline and how one “has to pay a little tax” every day.

Second, I am not saying that Ritalin is always bad. As an Aristotelian, and as student of the law who deeply respects the concept of equity, I subscribe to the principle that there are always circumstances in which it is wrong/unjust to apply the rule. Ritalin should be a ‘last resort’ after a sufficient amount of training and other natural cognitive exercises fail. But just as in psychology where cognitive behavioral therapy cannot cure all people, there are some who will probably need Ritalin. But students who are using it before exam time are not likely to be members of this class. I can say this with some confidence as I teach at a public university and have a good understanding of how students are spending their time — many of them are unfocused and wavering – distracted and easily tempted.

Third, I am not making the argument that Ritalin impairs EF development. Rather, I am making the argument that it is unnecessary b/c the brain has natural chemicals which enable the individual to focus. They just need to be awakened, used, like certain activity dependent genes, if you will (the work on memory by Eric Kandel is apt). I do not know of any research on whether Ritalin impairs EF. My point is that just as alcohol and drugs are used to stimulate the brain’s reward system, thereby often times creating dependence on these products, my fear is that Ritalin will be used in the same way — especially amongst college students — they will develop a habit of dependence on this thing instead of cultivating the habits to produce natural attention and flow. And of course, there is the point made in the article that there could be some harms caused by this drug and another harm that I mentioned is on self-perception. As one sees oneself habitually taking Ritalin to focus one could develop the belief that one needs it, start to feel ambivalent, etc. Also many students acquire these drugs illegally, without a prescription. That is not good for the self concept either.

Finally, for me, neuroethics is about the research on the brain that is relevant to human flourishing. This is because by “ethics” I take a virtue centric/eudaimonistic approach which focuses on flourishing. One question is ‘what is flourishing’? The other is, how does one develop the traits to attain it. Work on neuroplasticity and debates concerning it are of relevance to this, it seems to me.

This seems a reasonable view on the surface.

However I note that we seem to be talking about two distinct groups of users. Diamond is looking at very young children. The non-medical use of MPH is largely among older children, adolescents and even adults.

Are you saying that Ritilan is bad at any age, and if so why?

Basically it seems like your entire argument rests on your unproven contention that the development of self regulatory cognitive abilities, (EF), is impaired by drugs like Ritilan.

Is there any hard evidence that Ritilan impairs EF development?

Also I think there is a contradiction buried in your logic around the issue of the widely-accepting belief that EF skills are learnable. One of the main reasons people use Ritilan is the belief that it promotes learning, so why should we speculate that Ritilan helps learning in general, but not in the case of EF, which are widely-considered learnable?

Also, going back to the issue of what is neuroethics, this work could obviously be seen as having neuroethical implications. But by the same token an incredibly large body of existing scholarship could be classed under the heading of neuroethics. I’m wondering if the use of such a “big tent” definition of neuroethics can’t help but to ultimately diminish the value of the term.