The prospect of being able to take safe and effective drugs to improve mental functioning is becoming a reality. With the potential for widespread use of cognitive enhancers by large sectors of the population, this article discusses the rationale behind the development of these drugs and how society might benefit from them. Important ethical questions and scenarios are also raised. Scientists are urged to explore the implications of their work and engage in active debate with a wide range of interested stakeholders about the ethical and moral consequences of these new technologies to ensure maximal benefit with minimal harm.

Most feminist analyses of pharmaceutical medication engage with social or cultural concerns. This commentary will be more organic in focus. Is it possible that biological treatments of depression are more politically interesting than hitherto imagined in feminist scholarship? I will argue that innovative analyses of the body and psychological distress are possible when one is closely attuned to the detail of psychopharmaceutical treatment.

In February 1929, James McKeen Cattell, the editor of Science, published an editorial about book reviews, opening with his opinion that, ‘[t]he reviewing of scientific books is the most difficult situation that the editor of Science must meet’. The difficulties he outlined included competency in diverse subjects, the physical limitations of journal space, and the questions of ‘impartiality’, collegial tact and whether reviewers should remain anonymous.