Ethical challenges are coming increasingly to the forefront of neuroscience. As we gain the ability to enhance our cognitive abilities pharmacologically, we are faced with ethical dilemmas for which few neuroscientists are trained. Should drugs that enhance memory or intelligence be made available to the general population, or limited to the treatment of those who fall below some definition of 'normal'? Should the safety of such 'enhancing' drugs be assessed more stringently than that of drugs that are designed to save lives? Will the existence of these drugs lead to a two-tier society, in which those who can afford to enhance their mental abilities have a huge advantage over those who cannot?

It is crucial for researchers to take the lead by initiating informed discussion of such issues. Last year, a group of prominent neuroscientists and ethicists met at the New York Academy of Sciences to discuss neurocognitive enhancement, and to debate how society should respond to it. On page 421, Martha Farah, Judy Illes and their colleagues summarize the main points of discussion, and the conclusions that were reached. The New York Academy of Sciences has also provided our readers with free access to an 'e-briefing' on their web site, which provides additional information about the workshop and discussions.

Meetings such as this are an excellent beginning. Now, the challenge is for scientists to get involved in wider discussions, with politicians, philosophers, clinicians and the public at large, so that all those who have a stake in the outcome can influence the debate. And this must be done quickly. As Farah and Illes point out, we are fast reaching the point where not deciding how to regulate these drugs is equivalent to deciding not to regulate them.