Cognitive Enhancement: Perceptions Among Parents of Children with Disabilities

Influencing discussions and use of Neuroadvancements: Perspectives of Canadian occupational therapists

BACKGROUND: The early involvement of many actors including health professionals is identified in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions as crucial in constructing conversations around awareness, reaction, and knowledge development pertaining to the ethical, legal, and societal consequences of neuroscientific or neurotechnological advancements (NA). Occupational Therapists (OTs) have a stake in NA; however, OTs are rarely mentioned within this context. Lifelong learning (LL) could be used to increase OTs knowledge on NA and its consequences. However, LL is rarely mentioned within neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions. OBJECTIVE: The study’s purpose is to understand the role of OTs as professionals and citizens in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions and to examine the utility of LL processes put in place for OTs to empower OTs to contribute in a meaningful way to NA discussions. METHODS: 8 semi-structured interviews with OTs were conducted and analyzed using a directed content analysis. RESULTS: Although participants believed OTs can provide a holistic perspective to neurogovernance discussions, their knowledge on NA and its consequences is limited, and LL is not used as a tool to remain informed about such consequences. CONCLUSION: More education on NA and its consequences throughout their OT degree and through LL opportunities is warranted to facilitate their involvement.

Parents’ Perceptions on the Debated Parenting Practice of Cognitive Enhancement in Healthy Children and Adolescents

First evidence shows that some parents engage in the health-endangering practice of (mis-)using prescription drugs to boost their children’s school performance. But little is known about parental perspectives on this phenomenon. This study aims to better understand parents’ perspectives on the non-medical use of prescription drugs to improve healthy children’s cognitive functioning. We conducted twelve semi-structured face-to-face interviews with a diverse sample of parents in Germany, and applied qualitative content analysis to explore their perspectives on instrumentalizing prescription drugs for improving the performance of healthy children, including their underlying knowledge (gaps), moral evaluations, evaluations of accompanied risks and benefits, opinions on potential motivators, and wishes regarding policy-making. The results show that parents typically believed themselves knowledgeable about such prescription drug (mis-)use, although they were not aware of anyone in their social environment taking them for enhancement. Parents generally considered such behavior to be morally reprehensible, cheating, and similar to doping in sports, and they typically claimed that no situation or occasion could motivate them to administer prescription drugs to their healthy children. Health risks (including side effects or addiction) were a typical expectation of drug use. That doctors should give such drugs to healthy young people was seen as unjustifiable. The results suggest that morality and risk–benefit evaluations of parents play a major role in their decision-making concerning this potentially risky instrumentalization of non-medical drugs. These insights are of distinct importance, especially for future research and further discussions on this topic, such as an evidence-based public dialog and ethics debates.

Influencing discussions and use of neuroadvancements as professionals and citizens: Perspectives of Canadian speech-language pathologists and audiologists

BACKGROUND: Early involvement of stakeholders in neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses of neuroscientific and neurotechnological advancements is seen as essential to curtail negative consequences. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and audiologists (AUs) make use of neuroadvancements including cochlear implants, brain-computer interfaces, and deep-brain stimulation. Although they have a stake in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, they are rarely mentioned in having a role, whether as professionals or as citizens. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to explore the role of SLPs and AUs as professionals and citizens in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions and examine the utility of lifelong learning mechanisms to learn about the implications of neuroadvancements to contribute in a meaningful way to these discussions. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews conducted with 7 SLPs and 3 AUs were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants stated that their roles expected from them as professionals and as citizens indicate the importance to be knowledgeable on ethical, legal, and social implications of neuroadvancements and that lifelong learning is not used to learn about these implications. CONCLUSION: More must be done to facilitate the participation of SLPs and AUs in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, which would enrich the neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses benefitting patients, professionals, and the public.

Acceptability of Neuroscientific Interventions in Education

Researchers are increasingly applying neuroscience technologies that probe or manipulate the brain to improve educational outcomes. However, their use remains fraught with ethical controversies. Here, we investigate the acceptability of neuroscience applications to educational practice in two groups of young adults: those studying bioscience who will be driving future basic neuroscience research and technology transfer, and those studying education who will be choosing among neuroscience-derived applications for their students. Respondents rated the acceptability of six scenarios describing neuroscience applications to education spanning multiple methodologies, from neuroimaging to neuroactive drugs to brain stimulation. They did so from two perspectives (student, teacher) and for three recipient populations (low-achieving, high-achieving students, students with learning disabilities). Overall, the biosciences students were more favorable to all neuroscience applications than the education students. Scenarios that measured brain activity (i.e., EEG or fMRI) to assess or predict intellectual abilities were deemed more acceptable than manipulations of mental activity by drug use or stimulation techniques, which may violate body integrity. Enhancement up to the norm for low-achieving students and especially students with learning disabilities was more favorably viewed than enhancement beyond the norm for high-achieving students. Finally, respondents rated neuroscientific applications to be less acceptable when adopting the perspective of a teacher than that of a student. Future studies should go beyond the acceptability ratings collected here to delineate the role that concepts of access, equity, authenticity, agency and personal choice play in guiding respondents' reasoning.

Unhealthy parenting strategies: Situational (Dis-)Incentives, Machiavellian personality, and their interaction on misuse of ADHD medication for healthy children

Some parents engage in the potentially unhealthy and morally debateable parenting practice of giving prescription stimulant drugs to healthy children to boost their school and extracurricular performance. However, the parents' underlying reasoning remains unexamined. This web-based study (N_Respondents = 1360) simultaneously investigates eight experimentally-varied situational (dis-)incentives (e.g., financial gains and drug properties) within a factorial vignette survey (N_Vignettes = 256), Machiavellianism as a measured socially relevant personality trait, and possible interaction effects. Results show that approximately 40% of the described situations (N_Evaluations = 5440) provoked some willingness to medicate healthy children. Multilevel mixed-effect models revealed that this willingness was higher, for example, with increasing financial gains and weaker side effects. Machiavellians disclosed a higher willingness. They were more responsive to financial gains and threats (e.g., probable side effects). Respondents' sex, age, ethnicity, and experience with prescription drugs also had effects. Prevention measures might emphasize the dangers and limited potential of prescription drugs for healthy children.

Why Parents Misuse Prescription Drugs to Enhance the Cognitive Performance of Healthy Children: The Influence of Peers and Social Media

The mechanisms affecting parents’ misuse of prescription stimulant drugs to boost healthy children’s school performance are hardly unknown. Using four web-based factorial vignette surveys (2×2 between-subjects design experiment), we investigated the willingness of U.S. parents with school-aged children to medicate a fictitious 13-year-old child whose grades had declined. We examined mechanisms of informational and normative social influence on their decision-making: others’ behavior ( NExperiment 1 = 359), others’ definitions ( NExperiment 2 = 326), social control ( NExperiment 3 = 325), and others’ experience ( NExperiment 4 = 313). In addition, we explored the moderating role of influential sources (close friends vs. social media). Parents were more willing to engage in said behavior when others reported engagement in this behavior or positive drug experiences, especially if both influences were transmitted via social media. Others’ definitions and social control had no effect. Thus, social media might be a channel for the prevention of pharmacological cognitive enhancement.

Analysis of engagement between ethics and return-to-work discourses in respective academic literature

BACKGROUND

Return-to-work (RTW)/back-to-work (BTW) interventions that are designed to rehabilitate individuals impaired from fulfilling employment roles are facing challenges. Ethics discourses, including ethics theories, principles and concepts, are meant to give guidance on what one ought to do or not to do and RTW professionals could use them to respond to their challenges.

OBJECTIVE

A scoping review was performed to investigate to what extent 33 ethics concepts, theories, and principles are employed in RTW/BTW academic literature, and to what extent RTW/BTW is engaged with in ethics linked academic journals.

METHODS

Three academic databases were searched, and 147 article results were extracted from our literature review to be thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Searches with n = 11 ethics concepts and n = 4 ethics theories generated results. The content of 20 RTW/BTW article results demonstrated conceptual engagement between RTW and ethics discourses. Only one article in ethics-related journals conceptually engaged with RTW/BTW.

CONCLUSION

Ethics theories and principles were not used extensively in RTW/BTW academic literature and RTW/BTW is a topic under-engaged within ethics-related journals. Our findings indicate opportunities for further research, like conducting interviews, to better understand our findings and how to respond to them.

Would you be willing to zap your child's brain? Public perspectives on parental responsibilities and the ethics of enhancing children with transcranial direct current stimulation

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an experimental brain stimulation technology that may one day be used to enhance the cognitive capacities of children. Discussion about the ethical issues that this would raise has rarely moved beyond expert circles. However, the opinions of the wider public can lead to more democratic policy decisions and broaden academic discussion of this issue.

METHODS

We performed a quantitative survey of members of the U.S. public. A between-subjects design was employed, where conditions varied based on the trait respondents considered for enhancement.

RESULTS

There were 227 responses included for analysis. Our key finding was that the majority were unwilling to enhance their child with tDCS. Respondents were most reluctant to enhance traits considered fundamental to the self (such as motivation and empathy). However, many respondents may give in to implicit coercion to enhance their child in spite of an initial reluctance. A ban on tDCS was not supported if it were to be used safely for the enhancement of mood or mathematical ability. Opposition to such a ban may be related to the belief that tDCS use would not represent cheating or violate authenticity (as it relates to achievements rather than identity).

CONCLUSIONS

The wider public appears to think that crossing the line from treatment to enhancement with tDCS would not be in a child's best interests. However, an important alternative interpretation of our results is that lay people may be willing to use enhancers that matched their preference for "natural" enhancers. A ban on the safe use of tDCS for enhancing nonfundamental traits would be unlikely to garner public support. Nonetheless, it could become important to regulate tDCS in order to prevent misuse on children, because individuals reluctant to enhance may be likely to give in to implicit coercion to enhance their child.

"It has to be fixed": a qualitative inquiry into perceived ADHD behaviour among affected individuals and parents in Western Australia

BACKGROUND

The use of stimulant medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to improve classroom behaviour and sustained concentration is well known. Achieving a better academic grade has been reported as the prime motivation for stimulant use and is an increasingly discussed topic. The proliferation of stimulant use for ADHD has been a cause for public, medical and policy concern in Australia. This paper explores individuals' perceptions of ADHD, the meaning that the diagnosis carries for them and their attitudes to stimulant medication treatment.

METHODS

This qualitative study was underpinned by a social constructivist approach and involved semi-structured interviews with eight participants. The participants were parents of children with ADHD or were adults who themselves had been diagnosed with ADHD. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

There were three interrelated yet contradictory overarching themes: (i) An impairment to achieving success, which can be a double-edged sword, but has to be fixed; (ii) Diagnosis as a relief that alleviates fault and acknowledges familial inheritance; (iii) Responsibility to be normal and to fit in with societal expectations. Collectively, these perceptions and meanings were powerful drivers of stimulant use.

CONCLUSIONS

Paying attention to perceptions of ADHD and reasons for seeking or not seeking stimulant treatment is important when planning appropriate interventions for this condition.

Closing thoughts for cognitive enhancement

The wide-ranging field of cognition enhancing research along with its ethics as it stands today is summarized. In the forefront are potentially novel drugs and non-pharmacological treatments for cognitive impairment across many different psychiatric and neurologic indications. Today's research will bring new drugs to patients tomorrow, and tomorrow's research will bring new molecular targets to clinical development that should be cognitive domain-specific. There is the likelihood that special populations may be better treated and that personalized medicine for cognitive impairment could become a reality. It is conceivable that with the current research effort, cognition enhancing drugs will become available to wide-ranging populations of people with neuropsychiatric illness and to those that are healthy. In some cultures, there is a push in society to be more intelligent or have more cognitive prowess. Thus, the ethical use of cognitive enhancing drugs should be an area of debate and communication. Neuroethics is a growing field and it intends to bring together key contributors such as physicians, disease experts, regulatory officials, and policy makers to discuss how such medicines can or should be made available. Together with this, one has to consider the possibility that no single medicine or technology will have a great impact on cognition and, therefore, combination therapy of drugs plus other approaches like exercise or transcranial direct-current stimulation may be the path forward. This is another area of scientific inquiry and debate, and the results should be fruitful and helpful to patients. The science of cognition is advancing at a rapid rate, and communication of its progress along with the development of rational and ethical policies for use of cognitive enhancers will be beneficial.

Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement-a review

A primary means for the augmentation of cognitive brain functions is “pharmacological cognitive enhancement” (PCE). The term usually refers to the off-label use of medical substances to improve mental performance in healthy individuals. With the final aim to advance the normative debate taking place on that topic, several empirical studies have been conducted to assess the attitudes toward PCE in the public, i.e., in groups outside of the academic debate. In this review, we provide an overview of the 40 empirical studies published so far, reporting both their methodology and results. Overall, we find that several concerns about the use of PCE are prevalent in the public. These concerns largely match those discussed in the normative academic debate. We present our findings structured around the three most common concerns: medical safety, coercion, and fairness. Fairness is divided into three subthemes: equality of opportunity, honesty, and authenticity. Attitudes regarding some concerns are coherent across studies (e.g., coercion), whereas for others we find mixed results (e.g., authenticity). Moreover, we find differences in how specific groups—such as users, nonusers, students, parents, and health care providers—perceive PCE: a coherent finding is that nonusers display more concerns regarding medical safety and fairness than users. We discuss potential psychological explanations for these differences.