Study drug use among university students in Western Australia: Results of a web survey and their policy and practice implications

Benefits and Harms of 'Smart Drugs' (Nootropics) in Healthy Individuals

'Smart drugs' (also known as 'nootropics' and 'cognitive enhancers' [CEs]) are being used by healthy subjects (i.e. students and workers) typically to improve memory, attention, learning, executive functions and vigilance, hence the reference to a 'pharmaceutical cognitive doping behaviour'. While the efficacy of known CEs in individuals with memory or learning deficits is well known, their effect on non-impaired brains is still to be fully assessed. This paper aims to provide an overview on the prevalence of use; putative neuroenhancement benefits and possible harms relating to the intake of the most popular CEs (e.g. amphetamine-type stimulants, methylphenidate, donepezil, selegiline, modafinil, piracetam, benzodiazepine inverse agonists, and unifiram analogues) in healthy individuals. CEs are generally perceived by the users as effective, with related enthusiastic anecdotal reports; however, their efficacy in healthy individuals is uncertain and any reported improvement temporary. Conversely, since most CEs are stimulants, the related modulation of central noradrenaline, glutamate, and dopamine levels may lead to cardiovascular, neurological and psychopathological complications. Furthermore, use of CEs can be associated with paradoxical short- and long-term cognitive decline; decreased potential for plastic learning; and addictive behaviour. Finally, the non-medical use of any potent psychotropic raises serious ethical and legal issues, with nootropics having the potential to become a major public health concern. Further studies investigating CE-associated social, psychological, and biological outcomes are urgently needed to allow firm conclusions to be drawn on the appropriateness of CE use in healthy individuals.

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.