Pharmacological cognitive enhancement in pediatrics

Regulatory safeguards needed if preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic risk scores (PGT-P) is permitted in Singapore

Singapore, a highly affluent island city-state located in Southeast Asia, has increasingly leveraged new assisted reproductive technologies (ART) to overcome its dismal fertility rates in recent years. A new frontier in ART is preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for polygenic risk scores (PRS) to predict complex multifactorial traits in IVF (in vitro fertilisation) embryos, such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and various other characteristics like height, intelligence quotient (IQ), hair and eye colour. Unlike well-known safety risks with human genome editing, there are negligible risks with PGT-P, because there are no man-made genetic modifications that can be transmitted to future generations. Nevertheless, the current efficacy of using PGT-P to select IVF embryos for either increased or decreased probability of developing specific polygenic traits is still far from certain. Hence, the regulatory safeguards proposed here will be based on the assumption that the efficacy of this new technology platform has already been validated. These include: (1) restricting the application of PGT-P only for prevention of clinically relevant polygenic disease traits, (2) securely blocking patients' access to the raw genomic DNA sequencing data of their IVF embryos, (3) validating diagnosis of polygenic disease traits in the prospective parents/grandparents of IVF embryos, and restricting PGT-P only for preventing specifically diagnosed polygenic disease traits and (4) mandating rigorous and comprehensive genetic counselling for IVF patients considering PGT-P. There is an urgent and dire need to prevent abuse of the PGT-P technique, as well as protect the interests and welfare of patients if its clinical application is to be permitted in the country.

Cognitive Enhancement and Social Mobility: Skepticism from India

Cognitive enhancement (CE) covers a broad spectrum of methods, including behavioral techniques, nootropic drugs, and neuromodulation interventions. However, research on their use in children has almost exclusively been carried out in high-income countries with limited understanding of how experts working with children view their use in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). This study examines perceptions on cognitive enhancement, their techniques, neuroethical issues about their use from an LMICs perspective.Seven Indian experts were purposively sampled for their expertise in bioethics, child development and child education. In-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide to examine (1) understanding of CE, (2) which approaches were viewed as cognitive enhancers, (3) attitudes toward different CE techniques and (4) neuroethical issues related to CE use within the Indian context. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed before thematic analysis.Findings indicate Indian experts view cognitive enhancement as a holistic positive impact on overall functioning and well-being, rather than improvement in specific cognitive abilities. Exogenous agents, and neuromodulation were viewed with skepticism, whereas behavioral approaches were viewed more favorably. Neuroethical concerns included equitable access to CE, limited scientific evidence and over-reliance on technology to address societal problems. This highlights the need for more contextually relevant neuroethics research in LMICs.

Concept generation of cognitive enhancement: healthcare professionals' approach towards the impact and utilization of cognitive enhancers in academic context

Cognitive enhancers (CEs) encompass a wide range of drugs, including prescription medications for attention deficit disorders and pharmacological compounds for cognitive enhancement. It is well-documented that the students are the leading cohort of CEs users. Exploring how healthcare professionals perceive the use of CEs for academic accomplishments is significant to understand their encouragement of CE use. Hence, the purpose of the current study was to look at healthcare professionals' attitudes and perceived understanding about the usage of CEs in academic contexts. The study was a quantitative cross-sectional research design conducted in different healthcare and academic settings of Karachi. The respondents were approached either through social media platforms or the official email addresses of their working organizations. Data were collected through a web link of an online questionnaire that included four sections; inquiring about the respondents' demographics characteristics, their knowledge about CEs, their attitudes towards the use and impact of CEs, and their inclination to use a hypothetical prescription-only CE. The response rate of the study was 73.3%. The majority of the respondents negated to permit university students to using CEs for cognitive boost (n = 360, 67.1%), to concentrate (n = 406, 75.7%), to increase vigilance (n = 394, 73.5%) or to mitigate the effects of other medicines (n = 312, 58.2%). The pharmacists were more likely to refute that using CEs by the students is safe (pharmacists 10.8% vs. physicians 8.3%, p=<0.001), beneficial (pharmacists 12.7% vs. physicians 5.3%, p=<0.001), or necessary (pharmacists 17.6% vs. physicians 12.8%, p=<0.001). The major reasons for not encouraging the use of CEs were fear of misuse (n = 510, 95.1%), safety concerns (n = 495, 92.3%), and their consideration for CE as unnecessary medical intervention (n = 441, 82.2%). The findings indicated that overall, respondents have a clear consensus of not letting university students use CEs for cognitive improvement or any other purpose implying that cognitive enhancement is not yet a common or approved medical practice by the healthcare professionals in Pakistan.

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.

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.

Public Opinion on Cognitive Enhancement Varies across Different Situations

People vary widely in their acceptance of the use of pharmacological cognitive enhancement (CE). We tested the hypothesis that the acceptability of CE is malleable, by varying the context in which CE use takes place, by framing the use of CE with positive and negative metaphors, and by distinguishing between self and other CE use. 2,519 US-based participants completed 2 surveys using Amazon's Mechanical Turk. First, participants responded to vignettes describing a fictional character, which varied by framing metaphor (Pandora's box that releases brain performance vs. key that unlocks brain potential), role/setting (student/educational vs. employee/professional), and activity type (blue vs. white collar). Second, participants viewed personalized vignettes describing their own situations. Across both surveys, participants generally found CE use more acceptable for employees than students, while the effects of framing metaphors were unreliable and smaller than previously reported. People were more accepting of CE use by others than by themselves. Participants also found CE use more acceptable if more peers used CE, the environment was less competitive, and authority figures encouraged CE use. Our findings suggest that opinions about CE are indeed malleable, and concerns that peer pressure, the influence of authority figures, and competition might affect CE use are not unfounded.