Exploring Some Challenges of the Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Discourse: Users and Policy Recommendations

A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals

This study is a pilot literature review that compares the interest of neuroethicists and neuroscientists. It aims to determine whether there is a significant gap between the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics journals and neuroscience journals. We retrieved 614 articles from two specialist neuroethics journals (Neuroethics and AJOB Neuroscience) and 82 neuroethics-focused articles from three specialist neuroscience journals (Neuron, Nature Neuroscience, and Nature Reviews Neuroscience). We classified these articles in light of the neuroethical issue in question before we compared the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics with those addressed by neuroscientists. A notable result is a parallelism between them as a general tendency. Neuroscientific articles cover most neuroethical issues discussed by philosophical ethicists and vice versa. Subsequently, there are notable discrepancies between the two bodies of neuroethics literature. For instance, theoretical questions, such as the ethics of moral enhancement and the philosophical implications of neuroscientific findings on our conception of personhood, are more intensely discussed in philosophical-neuroethical articles. Conversely, neuroscientific articles tend to emphasize practical questions, such as how to successfully integrate ethical perspectives into scientific research projects and justifiable practices of animal-involving neuroscientific research. These observations will help us settle the common starting point of the attempt at "ethics integration" in emerging neuroscience, contributing to better governance design and neuroethical practice.

The Role of Different Behavioral and Psychosocial Factors in the Context of Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancers’ Misuse

In an effort for better memory, greater motivation, and concentration, otherwise healthy individuals use pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers (PCEs), medicines for the treatment of cognitive deficits of patients with various disorders and health problems, to achieve greater productivity, efficiency, and performance. We examined the use of PCEs among 289 students at the Slovenian Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in the behavioral and psychosocial context (students’ attitudes towards study, parents, health, leisure time, and work). Furthermore, we also addressed the immediate reasons, or the hypothesized connections of behavioral and psychosocial aspects, related to PCE misuse. The study consisted of a structured questionnaire, and chi-squared tests were used. An analysis of student statements revealed differences in students’ and parents’ attitudes toward good academic grades. In addition, students chose among 17 values related to relationships with parents, friends, partners, careers, study obligations, leisure, hobbies, material goods, appearance, and the future, and assessed their importance. Regardless of the group they belonged to, young people cited the same values among the most important. Good grades and parental opinions have proven to be key factors in the context of PCE abuse. This research was the first study to examine the relation between PCE misuse and the role of different behavioral and psychosocial factors.

Cognitive enhancement with licit and illicit stimulants in the Netherlands and Finland: what is the evidence?

Purpose

European studies have shown lower prevalence rates of prescription stimulant use for cognitive enhancement, especially among student populations, compared to North America. This difference requires more cross-country research of the various factors involved. To find out whether other parts of the globe are witnessing similar increases in extra-medical stimulant use, and how this might relate to cognitive enhancement, requires empirical study of local contexts. This paper aims to argue that the academic and public discussion on cognitive enhancement should consider the specific country context of drug policy and research and rethink which drugs are included under the term cognitive enhancement drugs.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper offers a general review and a sociological country comparison between the Netherlands and Finland, focusing not only on prescription stimulants used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder but also illicit amphetamines among young adults and methylphenidate use among Dutch and Finnish participants of the Global Drug Survey. This paper emphasises sociocultural perspectives and the importance of context in cognitive enhancement in general as the line between therapeutic and enhancement use can often be blurred. Data is drawn from global, European and national sources, including the International Narcotics Control Board, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and Global Drug Survey.

Findings

There are hardly any national empirical studies done on cognitive enhancement drug use in Finland. On the other hand, there have been studies in the Netherlands showcasing that the use of prescription stimulants and other drugs for enhancement purposes is something that is happening among young people, albeit yet in a relatively small scale. Illicit and licit stimulant use and drug policy action in relation to cognitive enhancement drugs in the two countries varies, emphasising the importance of country context.

Originality/value

Given that cross-country research is scarce, this general review provides one of the first glimpses into cognitive enhancement drug use by comparing the country context and research in Finland, where the phenomenon has not been studied, with the Netherlands, where the topic has received more research and public attention. Further research areas are suggested.

Ethical aspects of the abuse of pharmaceutical enhancements by healthy people in the context of improving cognitive functions

Better memory, greater motivation and concentration lead to greater productivity, efficiency and performance, all of which are features that are highly valued in a modern society focused on productivity. In the effort for better cognitive abilities, otherwise healthy individuals use cognitive enhancers (also known as nootropics), medicines for the treatment of cognitive deficits of patients with various disorders and health problems, such as Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, stroke, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or ageing. The use of these is more common in professions with emphasised cognitive abilities, or in occupations that require more attention, focus and alertness. Their use is also associated with the general working population, in that they are supposed to use them to alleviate the effects of sleep deprivation and to cope with increasing workloads.In the paper, we are addressing the ethical issue and the dilemmas of the use of pharmaceutical enhancements by healthy people who have no medical reason for taking such substances, in the context of improving their cognitive functions.

A survey of substance use for cognitive enhancement by university students in the Netherlands

Background: Pharmacological cognitive enhancement, using chemicals to change cellular processes in the brain in order to enhance one's cognitive capacities, is an often discussed phenomenon. The prevalence among Dutch university students is unknown.

Methods: The study set out to achieve the following goals: (1) give an overview of different methods in order to assess the prevalence of use of prescription, illicit and lifestyle drugs for cognitive enhancement (2) investigate whether polydrug use and stress have a relationship with cognitive enhancement substance use (3) assessing opinions about cognitive enhancement prescription drug use. A nationwide survey was conducted among 1572 student respondents of all government supported Dutch universities.

Results: The most detailed level of analysis—use of specific substances without a prescription and with the intention of cognitive enhancement—shows that prescription drugs, illicit drugs and lifestyle drugs are respectively used by 1.7, 1.3, and 45.6% of the sample. The use of prescription drugs and illicit drugs is low compared to other countries. We have found evidence of polydrug use in relation to cognitive enhancement. A relation between stress and the use of lifestyle drugs for cognitive enhancement was observed. We report the findings of several operationalizations of cognitive enhancement drug use to enable comparison with a wider variety of previous and upcoming research.

Conclusions: Results of this first study among university students in the Netherlands revealed a low prevalence of cognitive enhancement drug use compared to other countries. Multiple explanations, such as a difference in awareness of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among students, accessibility of drugs in the student population and inclusion criteria of enhancement substances are discussed. We urge enhancement researchers to take the different operationalizations and their effects on the prevalence numbers into account.