Ethics of neuroenhancement: A phantom debate

Translational Neuroethics: A Vision for a More Integrated, Inclusive, and Impactful Field

As early-career neuroethicists, we come to the field of neuroethics at a unique moment: we are well-situated to consider nearly two decades of neuroethics scholarship and identify challenges that have persisted across time. But we are also looking squarely ahead, embarking on the next generation of exciting and productive neuroethics scholarship. In this article, we both reflect backwards and turn our gaze forward. First, we highlight criticisms of neuroethics, both from scholars within the field and outside it, that have focused on speculation and lack of skepticism; the dearth of consideration of broader social issues such as justice and equality, both with regard to who speaks for neuroethics as a field and who benefits from its recommendations and findings; and the insufficient focus on the practical impact of our ethical work. Second, we embrace the concept of "translational neuroethics" to outline a vision for neuroethics that is integrated, inclusive, and impactful. Integration can help us identify more pertinent, real-world issues, and move away from speculation; inclusivity can help ensure that the questions we attend to are not merely relevant to a single subgroup but aim toward just distribution of benefits; and impact can help us think beyond guidelines and recommendations to focus on implementation. Our goal is for this call to action to help shape neuroethics into a discipline that develops rigorous research agendas through relationships with interdisciplinary partners, that is broadly inclusive and attends to issues beyond novel neurotechnologies, and that is devoted to the translation of scholarship into practice.

On pharmacological neuroenhancement as part of the new neurorights' pioneering legislation in Chile: a perspective

The so-called neurorights are emerging human rights, or rather reconfigurations of already existing human rights, seeking to address the impact of the possible misuse of neurotechnologies, which have the potential to become more invasive and harmful in the future if not regulated. The aim of specifying neurorights is to protect the dignity and autonomy of the individual in the face of neurotechnological advances. Recently, Chile proposed a Constitutional reform inspired by the neurorights, opening a debate. One of the proposed neurorights is fair and equitable access to cognitive enhancement, which will be the specific object of this perspective article. Starting from the legal proposal, we analyse and discuss some perspectives on cognitive enhancement, or "neuroenhancement", which could be considered as part of enhancement neurotechnologies, pointing out that pharmacological enhancers, or "smart drugs", might be considered as part of these enhancers. We present a classification of the different types of cognitive enhancements as it has been proposed in the literature, into which pharmacological cognitive enhancement can be included, concluding that there is currently no agreement amongst scholars and lawyers about the ethical consideration of pharmacological cognitive enhancement. We therefore argue that it is necessary for the legislator to explicitly address the issue in the proposed regulations, in order to take a clear position on the topic, as it has been done in the United Kingdom, where the pharmacological neuroenhancers have been explicitly excluded from the regulation. If pharmacological neuroenhancers are going to be considered neurotechnologies, then new law proposals should seek harmonization with the already existing legislation regulating pharmacological health and consumer rights (both globally, taking into account international drug laws, and locally, according to each country's internal regulations) and of course, with the whole system of fundamental rights. Finally, we briefly discuss the ethical problem of equitable access to this new type of neurotechnologies (as part of the neurorights) and leave the debate open for new insights from the scientific community on the possible consequences of including (or not) pharmacological neuroenhancers as neurotechnologies for cognitive enhancement in the framework of the ethical and legal debate.

The Socio-Political Roles of Neuroethics and the Case of Klotho

An increasing amount of very diverse scholarship self-identifies as belonging to the field of neuroethics, illuminating a need to provide some reference points for what that field actually entails. We argue that neuroethics is a single field with distinct perspectives, roles, and subspecialties. We propose that-in addition to the three traditional perspectives delineated by Eric Racine-a fourth, socio-political perspective, must be recognized in neuroethics. The socio-political perspective in neuroethics focuses on the interplay between the behavioral as well as the brain sciences and the socio-political system; this interplay includes social regulation in addition to all other realistic elements of social and political neurodiscourses. Thus, defining what-if any-roles the socio-political perspective in neuroethics might have is a pressing issue. Doing so could provide guidance for defining the criteria for prospective ethical evaluations in neuroethics. A promising approach to doing this could be by describing the roles of neuroethics in terms of the more concrete examples of the roles of political philosophy in general, as in the tradition of John Rawls. We take klotho, the supposed "longevity protein," as a modern neuroethics case to exemplify the obstacles faced in securing neuroethics' legitimacy and how the Rawlsian framework we propose may be applied to handle cases such as this. Ultimately, the socio-political perspective in neuroethics should not be swayed by the media hype and ought to offer useful ethical guidance and articulation of genuine ethical concerns to policy makers and the public alike.

Neuroenhancement in French and Romanian University Students, Motivations and Associated Factors

This cross-sectional study aimed to determine the use of neuroenhancers, the motivations and factors associated with their use in French and Romanian university students. Students from two universities in France (Rouen and Opal Coast University) and one in Romania (Cluj-Napoca) were asked to complete a self-administered anonymous questionnaire, either online or on paper, about the use of three different categories of substance: Prescription drugs (methylphenidate, modafinil, and beta-blockers), drugs of abuse (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, and amphetamines), and soft enhancers (coffee, vitamins, caffeine tablets, and energy drinks). In total, 1110 students were included: The users were 2.2% for prescription drugs, 4.3% for drugs of abuse, and 55.0% for soft enhancers. Students used neuroenhancement to stay awake for study (69.3%), to improve concentration (55.5%), to decrease stress (40.9%), and to improve memory (39.6%). Neuroenhancement was considered to meet expectations by 74.4% of users. The factors associated with the use of drugs of abuse were frequent binge drinking (Adjusted Odds Ratio-AOR: 6.49 [95% CI: 2.53-16.6]), smoking (AOR: 5.50 [95% CI: 2.98-10.14]), having a student job (AOR: 2.42 [95% CI 1.13-5.17]), and being male (AOR: 2.23 [95% CI:1.21-4.11]). No significant associations with eating disorders were detected for any of the three categories of substances. University students reported neuroenhancement with prescription drugs, drugs of abuse, and mainly soft enhancers. These substances were used mainly to increase the waking hours. Educational programs in universities seem to be required in order to increase student awareness of the problems caused by neuroenhancements, and to decrease the associated risks by changing students' attitudes and beliefs.

Neuroenhancement as Instrumental Drug Use: Putting the Debate in a Different Frame

The use of performance-enhancing drugs to study or work better is often called "cognitive enhancement" or "neuroenhancement" and sparked a debate between scholars from many disciplines. I argue that such behavior can better be subsumed under the more general category of "instrumental drug use". This broader perspective allows understanding neuroenhancement better from the perspective of addiction medicine and public health and supports a more consistent drug policy. I also summarize the most important systematic reviews and individual surveys of nonmedical substance use to study or work better. Different definitions and methodologies limit the comparability of these studies. The unified approach of drug instrumentalization would partially solve such problems. Finally, prevalence studies from the 1960s to 1980s as well as anecdotal evidence since the late 19th century show that instrumental drug use is and has been for a long time a common phenomenon. It should thus also be investigated and treated accordingly.

The brain as an agentic system: how the brain is articulated in the field of neuroenhancement

This article analyses the material of a European Project on Responsible Research and Innovation in Neuroenhancement (NERRI) to explore how the brain is articulated in this field. Since brains are closely connected to ideas of self, responsibility, free will and being human, and since brain metaphors have important effects on research practices and perspectives, it also matters how people talk about and use the brain. In the NERRI project, the brain is articulated as an agent interacting with or substituting the self; as a system that can, cannot or should not be analysed; and as the part of oneself that can potentially change human nature in positive and negative ways. Since most of the material analysed was produced by neuroscientists or other neuroenhancement experts, this article emphasises the responsibility of the experts in this process. By showing what brain images are disseminated within the field of neuroenhancement, and analysing how this depiction is related to ideas of self or being human, this article does not only intend to contribute to a more empirically based and societally relevant neuroenhancement debate, but also to a more realistic and societally relevant idea of the brain.

Pharmaceutical cognitive doping in students: A chimeric way to get-a-head?

For students, the pressing demands for memorization, top-level performance, and peer competition create an environment favorable for pharmaceutical cognitive doping behavior. We aimed to describe recent practices and the benefit/risk ratio of such behavior and to discuss the issues at stake. The prevalence of pharmaceutical cognitive doping among students has been reported from 1.3% to 33% across studies, with variations depending on country and definition of pharmaceutical cognitive doping. The therapeutic classes most frequently cited as being diverted for doping purposes are psychostimulants and nootropics (methylphenidate, modafinil, piracetam), corticosteroids, sedative drugs and beta-blockers. Some illegal substances such as cannabis, amphetamines and cocaine are also consumed in order to boost mental function. Finally, over-the-counter products, such as caffeine-based tablets or energy drinks, or alcohol, are also widely used by students whose motivations involve enhanced performance, concentration, memory, and staying awake during the revision and exam period. However, the expected (often fantasized) effectiveness of these products does not correspond to the reality of a modest controversial impact on cognitive performance. There appears to be an emerging profile of the student more inclined to doping behavior. Cognitive doping thus raises the question of its regulation, opening a debate opposing, on one hand, individual freedom and supposed collective benefits and, on the other hand, health consequences, educational (in)equality, and the risk of tarnished academic success. Strengthening school and university medicine, through prevention campaigns and the identification of subjects at risk, is essential to limit the extent, risk, and damages associated with such practices.

How Realistic Are the Scientific Assumptions of the Neuroenhancement Debate? Assessing the Pharmacological Optimism and Neuroenhancement Prevalence Hypotheses

Since two decades, neuroenhancement is a major topic in neuroethics and still receives much attention in the scholarly literature as well as in public media. In contrast to high hopes at the beginning of the “Decade of the Brain” in the United States and Europe that we subsume under the “pharmacological optimism hypothesis,” recent evidence from clinical neuroscience suggests that developing drugs that make healthy people smarter is even more difficult than finding new treatments for patients with mental disorders. However, cognitive enhancing drugs even for patients with impaired intellectual performance have not been successfully developed yet and new drugs that might have a disruptive impact on this field are unlikely to be developed in the near future. Additionally, we discuss theoretical, empirical, and historical evidence to assess whether cognitive enhancement of the healthy is common or even epidemic and if its application will further increase in the near future, as suggested by the “neuroenhancement prevalence hypothesis.” Reports, surveys, and reviews from the 1930s until today indicate that psychopharmacological neuroenhancement is a fact but less common than often stated, particularly in the public media. Non-medical use of psychostimulants for the purpose of cognitive enhancement exists since at least 80 years and it might actually have been more common in the past than today. Therefore, we conclude that the pharmacological optimism hypothesis and neuroenhancement prevalence hypotheses have to be rejected and argue that the neuroenhancement debate should take the available evidence more into account.

[Pharmaceutical cognitive doping in students: a chimeric way to get-a-head?]

For students, the pressing demands for memorization, top-level performance, and peer competition create an environment favorable for pharmaceutical cognitive doping behavior. We aimed to describe recent practices and the benefit / risk ratio of such behavior and to discuss the issues at stake. The prevalence of pharmaceutical cognitive doping among students has been reported from 1.3% to 33% across studies, with variations depending on country and definition of pharmaceutical cognitive doping. The therapeutic classes most frequently cited as being diverted for doping purposes are psychostimulants and nootropics (methylphenidate, modafinil, piracetam), corticosteroids, sedative drugs and beta-blockers. Some illegal substances such as cannabis, amphetamines and cocaine are also consumed in order to boost mental function. Finally, over-the-counter products, such as caffeine-based tablets or energy drinks, or alcohol, are also widely used by students whose motivations involve enhanced performance, concentration, memory, and staying awake during the revision and exam period. However, the expected (often fantasized) effectiveness of these products does not correspond to the reality of a modest controversial impact on cognitive performance. There appears to be an emerging profile of the student more inclined to doping behavior. Cognitive doping thus raises the question of its regulation, opening a debate opposing, on one hand, individual freedom and supposed collective benefits and, on the other hand, health consequences, educational (in)equality, and the risk of tarnished academic success. Strengthening school and university medicine, through prevention campaigns and the identification of subjects at risk, is essential to limit the extent, risk, and damages associated with such practices.

Neuroethics 1995-2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field

In bioethics, the first decade of the twenty-first century was characterized by the emergence of interest in the ethical, legal, and social aspects of neuroscience research. At the same time an ongoing extension of the topics and phenomena addressed by neuroscientists was observed alongside its rise as one of the leading disciplines in the biomedical science. One of these phenomena addressed by neuroscientists and moral psychologists was the neural processes involved in moral decision-making. Today both strands of research are often addressed under the label of neuroethics. To understand this development we recalled literature from 1995 to 2012 stored in the Mainz Neuroethics Database (i) to investigate the quantitative development of scientific publications in neuroethics; (ii) to explore changes in the topics of neuroethics research within the defined time interval; (iii) to illustrate the interdependence of different research topics within the neuroethics literature; (iv) to show the development of the distribution of neuroethics research on peer-reviewed journals; and (v) to display the academic background and affiliations of neuroethics researchers. Our analysis exposes that there has been a demonstrative increase of neuroethics research while the issues addressed under this label had mostly been present before the establishment of the field. We show that the research on the ethical, legal and social aspects of neuroscience research is hardly related to neuroscience research on moral decision-making and that the academic backgrounds and affiliations of many neuroethics researchers speak for a very close entanglement of neuroscience and neuroethics. As our article suggests that after more than one decade there still is no dominant agenda for the future of neuroethics research, it calls for more reflection about the theoretical underpinnings and prospects to establish neuroethics as a marked-off research field distinct from neuroscience and the diverse branches of bioethics.

"It Was Me on a Good Day": Exploring the Smart Drug Use Phenomenon in England

The non-medical use of prescription medication for the pursuit of increasing cognitive and intellectual capacities (defined neuroenhancement) has received growing attention from the scientific community and policymakers alike. To date, limited qualitative data exist exploring the nature of the phenomenon, especially as a potentially emerging trend among university students in England. Existing American literature suggests that students believe that neuroenhancement helps the individual to maximize his/her time, consenting a suitable balance between work and leisure. Students' motivation to experiment with neuroenhancement appears to be more in line with a need to regulate emotions surrounding study/work settings than to actually improve cognitive abilities beyond normal levels. This study aimed to qualitatively explore representations, motivations, beliefs, and consumption styles of a cohort of university student users residing in England. Through snowball sampling, 13 informants were contacted and interviewed regarding their experience with neuroenhancers. Narrations were analyzed and interpreted using qualitative analysis software and Grounded Theory methodology. Participants belonged to a broad variety of university courses and were predominantly habitual consumers of modafinil. Neuroenhancers were acquired either through friends or via the Internet. Motivations regarded the need to "catch up" and be on par with high achieving students. The entire cohort had previously experimented with other psychotropic substances. Synthetic compounds in particular were believed to be "gateway" drugs to using neuroenhancers. Experimentation with neuroenhancement can be seen as a self-governing strategy aimed at achieving continued focused productivity. Participants acknowledged sustainable benefits in neuroenhancement as it optimized work performance. The majority of the cohort also contemplated the possibility of using these drugs in the future once they entered the workforce. Neuroenhancing drug users expressed "situated morality," differentiating between using these substances for assessments (exams) or during revisions, finding only the former as an immoral conduct. In the present scenario, it appears that neuroenhancement is practiced by small numbers of students. Nonetheless, the instrumental views of psychotropic substances held by many young adults and the globalization of these practices make the normalization of neuroenhancement a plausible possibility of the future.

Associations Between the Big Five Personality Traits and the Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs for Cognitive Enhancement

While the number of studies of the non-medical use of prescription drugs to augment cognitive functions is growing steadily, psychological factors that can potentially help explain variance in such pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement (CE) behavior are often neglected in research. This study investigates the association between the Big Five personality traits and a retrospective (prior CE-drug use) as well as a prospective (willingness to use CE drugs) measure of taking prescription drugs with the purpose of augmenting one's cognitive functions (e.g., concentration, memory, or vigilance) without medical necessity. We use data from a large representative survey of German employees (N = 6454, response rate = 29.8%). The Five Factor Model (FFM) of Personality was measured with a short version of the Big Five Personality Traits Inventory (BFI-S), which includes: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Together with this, demographic variables such as gender, age, education, and income were used as potential confounders in multiple logistic regression models. Our results show a 2.96% lifetime prevalence of CE-drug use and a 10.45% willingness to (re)use such drugs in the future. We found that less conscientious and more neurotic respondents have a higher probability of prior CE-drug use and a greater willingness to use CE drugs in the future. No significant effects were found for openness, extraversion, or agreeableness. Prior CE-drug use was strongly associated with a greater willingness to take such drugs in the future. This study shows that specific personality traits are not only associated with prior enhancement behavior, but also affect the willingness to (re)use such drugs. It helps increase understanding of the risk factors of CE-drug use, which is a health-related behavior that can entail severe side-effects for consumers. The knowledge gathered can thus help improve interventions aimed at minimizing health problems.

The Use of Prescription Drugs and Drugs of Abuse for Neuroenhancement in Europe

Abstract. Pharmacological neuroenhancement, defined as the misuse of prescription drugs, illicit drugs, or alcohol for the purpose of enhancing cognition, mood, or prosocial behavior, is not widespread in Europe – nevertheless, it does occur. Thus far, no drug has been proven as safe and effective for cognitive enhancement in otherwise healthy individuals. European studies have investigated the misuse of prescription and illicit stimulants to increase cognitive performance as well as the use of tranquilizers, alcohol, and cannabis to cope with stress related to work or education. Young people in educational settings report pharmacological neuroenhancement more frequently than those in other settings. Although the regular use of drugs for neuroenhancement is not common in Europe, the irregular and low-dose usage of neuroenhancers might cause adverse reactions. Previous studies have revealed that obtaining adequate amounts of sleep and using successful learning techniques effectively improve mental performance, whereas pharmacological neuroenhancement is associated with ambiguous effects. Therefore, non-substance-related alternatives should be promoted to cope with stressful situations. This paper reviews the recent research on pharmacological neuroenhancement in Europe, develops a clear definition of the substances used, and formulates recommendations for practitioners regarding how to react to requests for neuroenhancement drug prescriptions. We conclude that monitoring the future development of pharmacological neuroenhancement in Europe is important to provide effective preventive measures when required. Furthermore, substance use to cope with stress related to work or education should be studied in depth because it is likely more prevalent and dangerous than direct neuroenhancement.

Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement in Healthy Individuals: A Compensation for Cognitive Deficits or a Question of Personality?

The ongoing bioethical debate on pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) in healthy individuals is often legitimated by the assumption that PCE will widely spread and become desirable for the general public in the near future. This assumption was questioned as PCE is not equally save and effective in everyone. Additionally, it was supposed that the willingness to use PCE is strongly personality-dependent likely preventing a broad PCE epidemic. Thus, we investigated whether the cognitive performance and personality of healthy individuals with regular nonmedical methylphenidate (MPH) use for PCE differ from stimulant-naïve controls. Twenty-five healthy individuals using MPH for PCE were compared with 39 age-, sex-, and education-matched healthy controls regarding cognitive performance and personality assessed by a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery including social cognition, prosocial behavior, decision-making, impulsivity, and personality questionnaires. Substance use was assessed through self-report in an interview and quantitative hair and urine analyses. Recently abstinent PCE users showed no cognitive impairment but superior strategic thinking and decision-making. Furthermore, PCE users displayed higher levels of trait impulsivity, novelty seeking, and Machiavellianism combined with lower levels of social reward dependence and cognitive empathy. Finally, PCE users reported a smaller social network and exhibited less prosocial behavior in social interaction tasks. In conclusion, the assumption that PCE use will soon become epidemic is not supported by the present findings as PCE users showed a highly specific personality profile that shares a number of features with illegal stimulant users. Lastly, regular MPH use for PCE is not necessarily associated with cognitive deficits.

Use of neuroenhancement drugs: prevalence, frequency and use expectations in Switzerland

Objective: The present study investigates the use expectations, prevalence and frequency of neuroenhancement drug (ND) use among the Swiss male population, separating college students from others. Methods: Young Swiss men were invited to participate in the Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors. A total of 5,967 participants responded to questions on six types of NDs (wakefulness medication, antidepressants, Alzheimer’s disease medication, Parkinson’s disease medication, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication, and beta-blockers). The frequency of use depending on five expectations (to enhance wakefulness, attention, memory, concentration and stress reduction) was analyzed for a twelve-month period. Results: (1) About 3% of the sample indicated use of at least one ND; (2) ADHD medication was the most prevalent; (3) The type of ND preferred differed depending on academic status (4). Quantitatively, over the year, college student users used ND much less frequently than other users. Conclusions: Prevalence of ND use is low in Switzerland relative to other countries such as the United States. Patterns of ND use differed depending on academic status, suggesting that while college student ND users tended to do so rarely (probably to enhance cognitive abilities for exams), non-college male users used other NDs more frequently (probably to “get high”).

To dope or not to dope: neuroenhancement with prescription drugs and drugs of abuse among Swiss university students

Background

Neuroenhancement is the use of substances by healthy subjects to enhance mood or cognitive function. The prevalence of neuroenhancement among Swiss university students is unknown. Investigating the prevalence of neuroenhancement among students is important to monitor problematic use and evaluate the necessity of prevention programs.

Study aim

To describe the prevalence of the use of prescription medications and drugs of abuse for neuroenhancement among Swiss university students.

Method

In this cross-sectional study, students at the University of Zurich, University of Basel, and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich were invited via e-mail to participate in an online survey.

Results

A total of 28,118 students were contacted, and 6,275 students completed the survey. Across all of the institutions, 13.8% of the respondents indicated that they had used prescription drugs (7.6%) or drugs of abuse including alcohol (7.8%) at least once specifically for neuroenhancement. The most frequently used prescription drugs for neuroenhancement were methylphenidate (4.1%), sedatives (2.7%), and beta-blockers (1.2%). Alcohol was used for this purpose by 5.6% of the participants, followed by cannabis (2.5%), amphetamines (0.4%), and cocaine (0.2%). Arguments for neuroenhancement included increased learning (66.2%), relaxation or sleep improvement (51.2%), reduced nervousness (39.1%), coping with performance pressure (34.9%), increased performance (32.2%), and experimentation (20%). Neuroenhancement was significantly more prevalent among more senior students, students who reported higher levels of stress, and students who had previously used illicit drugs. Although “soft enhancers”, including coffee, energy drinks, vitamins, and tonics, were used daily in the month prior to an exam, prescription drugs or drugs of abuse were used much less frequently.

Conclusions

A significant proportion of Swiss university students across most academic disciplines reported neuroenhancement with prescription drugs and drugs of abuse. However, these substances are rarely used on a daily basis and more sporadically used prior to exams.

What should we do about student use of cognitive enhancers? An analysis of current evidence

This article reviews current data on the use of cognition enhancers as study aids in the student population. It identifies gaps and uncertainties in the knowledge required to make a balanced assessment of the need for some form of regulation. The review highlights the weak evidence on the prevalence of use of such drugs, especially outside the US, and the ambiguous evidence for their efficacy in a healthy population. Risks are well documented for the commonly used drugs, but poorly appreciated by users. These include not only the side-effects of the drugs themselves, but risks associated with on-line purchase, which offers no guarantees of authenticity and which for some drugs is illegal. The case for urgent action to regulate use is often linked to the belief that new and more effective drugs are likely to appear in the near future. The evidence for this is weak. However, drugs are not the only possible route to neuroenhancement and action is needed to collect more data on the impact of existing drugs, as well as new technologies, in order to guide society in making a proportionate response to the issue. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Cognitive Enhancers'.