The consequences of state-guaranteed free access to potent neuroenhancement drugs to provide opportunities for participation in society would depend, among other things, on whether such drugs would bring about the same increase in concentration or memory skills for all people. If this were to be the case, the absolute level of cognitive ability would be raised, which could certainly be useful both from a social perspective and from that of the individual. From the point of view of equality, however, this possibility would be neutral, because the relative distribution of cognitive abilities would remain unchanged. Real leveling of existing inequalities in mental performance at a higher level could result from the widespread use of neuroenhancement drugs if people with a lower cognitive starting level were to benefit more from their effects than those with cognitive abilities that are already above average. If, however, it turns out that the existing cognitive differences are more likely to be exacerbated by the widespread intake of a particular neuroenhancement drug, then considerations of equality would tend to argue against its state subsidization.

The possibility of using potent neuroenhancement procedures to reduce the error rate of members of professions that are distinguished by both high cognitive demands and particularly high responsibility is often discussed as a special case of cognitive enhancement. As the benefit to society may be considerable if surgeons, pilots or air traffic controllers made fewer mistakes thanks to appropriate pharmaceutical preparations or stimulation procedures such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (cf. module on Non-invasive stimulation methods), selfish motives for neuroenhancement would play a subordinate role here. Provided that the use of the procedures in question was voluntary and sufficiently safe, persons in these professions could nevertheless also benefit personally from their use, as they would experience satisfaction from their improved ability to perform their duties. Some bioethicists therefore take these special application scenarios as an opportunity to question whether neuroenhancement in these cases is not only permitted, but possibly even imperative, i.e. whether it could be justified under certain circumstances to demand that surgeons or pilots be prepared to use certain enhancement procedures.