Pharmacological cognitive enhancement-how neuroscientific research could advance ethical debate

Autonomy, procedural and substantive: a discussion of the ethics of cognitive enhancement

As cognitive enhancement research advances, important ethical questions regarding individual autonomy and freedom are raised. Advocates of cognitive enhancement frequently adopt a procedural approach to autonomy, arguing that enhancers improve an individual's reasoning capabilities, which are quintessential to being an autonomous agent. On the other hand, critics adopt a more nuanced approach by considering matters of authenticity and self-identity, which go beyond the mere assessment of one's reasoning capacities. Both positions, nevertheless, require further philosophical scrutiny. In this paper, we investigate the ethics of cognitive enhancement through the lenses of political and philosophical arguments about autonomy and freedom. In so doing, we contend that a substantive, relational account of individual autonomy offers a more holistic understanding of the ethical concerns of cognitive enhancement.

The Ethics of Supernumerary Robotic Limbs. An Enactivist Approach

Supernumerary robotic limbs are innovative devices in the field of wearable robotics which can provide humans with unprecedented sensorimotor abilities. However, scholars have raised awareness of the ethical issues that would arise from the large adoption of technologies for human augmentation in society. Most negative attitudes towards such technologies seem to rely on an allegedly clear distinction between therapy and enhancement in the use of technological devices. Based on such distinction, people tend to accept technologies when used for therapeutic purposes (e.g., prostheses), but tend to raise issues when similar devices are used for upgrading a physical or cognitive ability (e.g., supernumerary robotics limbs). However, as many scholars have pointed out, the distinction between therapy and enhancement might be theoretically flawed. In this paper, we present an alternative approach to the ethics of supernumerary limbs which is based on two related claims. First, we propose to conceive supernumerary limbs as tools that necessarily modify our psychological and bodily identity. At the same time, we stress that such a modification is not ethically bad in itself; on the contrary, it drives human interaction with the environment. Second, by comparing our view with the extended mind thesis, we claim that the mediation through tools is crucial for the formation of novel meanings and skills that constitute human interaction with the world. We will relate the latter claim to enactivism as a helpful theoretical perspective to frame issues related to artificial limbs and, more in general, to technologies for augmentation. Based on this approach, we finally sketch some suggestions for future directions in the ethics of supernumerary limbs.

Cognitive enhancement and authenticity: moving beyond the Impasse

In work on the ethics of cognitive enhancement use, there is a pervasive concern that such enhancement will—in some way—make us less authentic (e.g., Bublitz and Merkel 2009; Juth 2011). Attempts to clarify what this concern amounts to and how to respond to it often lead to debates on the nature of the “true self” (e.g., Maslen et al. 2014) and what constitutes “genuine human activity” (e.g., Kass 2003). This paper shows that a new and effective way to make progress on whether certain cases of cognitive enhancement problematically undermine authenticity is to make use of considerations from the separate debate on the nature of authentic emotion. Drawing in particular on Wasserman and Liao (2008), the present paper offers new conditions that can help us assess the impact of cognitive enhancements on authenticity.

Trust and Psychedelic Moral Enhancement

Moral enhancement proposals struggle to be both plausible and ethically defensible while nevertheless interestingly distinct from both cognitive enhancement as well as (mere) moral education. Brian Earp (Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 83:415–439, 12) suggests that a promising middle ground lies in focusing on the (suitably qualified) use of psychedelics as adjuncts to moral development. But what would such an adjunctive use of psychedelics look like in practice? In this paper, I draw on literature from three areas where techniques for moral development have been discussed: psychotherapy (e.g., Overholser 2010; Burns 1980) education (e.g., Uhl and Lütge, 2018), and AI-assisted enhancement (e.g., Lara and Deckers, Neuroethics 13(3):275–287, 17) in order to propose more concrete ways in which to use psychedelics as adjuncts to moral development. It is shown that in each of these areas, we can see that trusting relationships (e.g., Baier 1986; Hawley 2019) between the facilitator and the agent will very plausibly maximize the success of this type of moral enhancement. Finally, I appeal to literature on informed consent for use of psychedelics (e.g., Smith and Sisti, Journal of Medical Ethics, 22; Johnson et al., The Journal of Psychopharmacology 22(6):603–20, 23) and on the therapeutic relationship in psychotherapy (e.g., Dryden and Reeves 2013; Horvath et al. 2011) to outline concrete suggestions for facilitating dimensions of trust most likely to maximize the benefits of (adjunctive) psychedelic moral enhancement. The result is a newly detailed practical proposal for how we might best facilitate moral enhancement by using drugs as adjuncts to moral development

The impact of acoustic stimulation during sleep on memory and sleep architecture: A meta-analysis

The relationship between sleep and cognition has long been recognized, with slow-wave sleep thought to play a critical role in long-term memory consolidation. Recent research has presented the possibility that non-invasive acoustic stimulation during sleep could enhance memory consolidation. Herein, we report a random-effects model meta-analysis examining the impact of this intervention on memory and sleep architecture in healthy adults. Sixteen studies were identified through a systematic search. We found a medium significant effect of acoustic stimulation on memory task performance (g = 0.68, p = .031) in young adults <35 years of age, but no statistically significant effect in adults >35 years of age (g = -0.83, p = .223). In young adults, there was a large statistically significant effect for declarative memory tasks (g = 0.87, p = .014) but no effect for non-declarative tasks (g = -0.25, p = .357). There were no statistically significant differences in polysomnography-derived sleep architecture values between sham and stimulation conditions in either young or older adults. Based on these results, it appears that acoustic stimulation during sleep may only be an effective intervention for declarative memory consolidation in young adults. However, the small number of studies in this area, their small sample sizes, the short-term nature of most investigations and the high between-studies heterogeneity highlight a need for high-powered and long-term experiments to better elucidate, and subsequently maximise, any potential benefits of this novel approach.

The effectiveness and safety of serious games in improving cognitive abilities among elderly people with cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis (Preprint)

Background

Cognitive impairment is a mental disorder that commonly affects elderly people. Serious games, which are games that have a purpose other than entertainment, have been used as a nonpharmacological intervention for improving cognitive abilities. The effectiveness and safety of serious games for improving cognitive abilities have been investigated by several systematic reviews; however, they are limited by design and methodological weaknesses.

Objective

This study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of serious games for improving cognitive abilities among elderly people with cognitive impairment.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. The following 8 electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We also screened reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews, as well as checked studies citing our included studies. Two reviewers independently carried out the study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of evidence appraisal. We used a narrative and statistical approach, as appropriate, to synthesize the results of the included studies.

Results

Fifteen studies met the eligibility criteria among 466 citations retrieved. Of those, 14 RCTs were eventually included in the meta-analysis. We found that, regardless of their type, serious games were more effective than no intervention (P=.04) and conventional exercises (P=.002) for improving global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. Further, a subgroup analysis showed that cognitive training games were more effective than no intervention (P=.05) and conventional exercises (P<.001) for improving global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. Another subgroup analysis demonstrated that exergames (a category of serious games that includes physical exercises) are as effective as no intervention and conventional exercises (P=.38) for improving global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. Although some studies found adverse events from using serious games, the number of adverse events (ie, falls and exacerbations of pre-existing arthritis symptoms) was comparable between the serious game and control groups.

Conclusions

Serious games and specifically cognitive training games have the potential to improve global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. However, our findings remain inconclusive because the quality of evidence in all meta-analyses was very low, mainly due to the risk of bias raised in the majority of the included studies, high heterogeneity of the evidence, and imprecision of total effect sizes. Therefore, psychologists, psychiatrists, and patients should consider offering serious games as a complement and not a substitute to existing interventions until further more robust evidence is available. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of exergames, the safety of serious games, and their long-term effects.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Serious Games for Improving Cognitive Abilities Among Elderly People With Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint).. [DOI: 10.2196/preprints.34592]

BACKGROUND

Cognitive impairment is a mental disorder that commonly affects elderly people. Serious games, which are games that have a purpose other than entertainment, have been used as a nonpharmacological intervention for improving cognitive abilities. The effectiveness and safety of serious games for improving cognitive abilities have been investigated by several systematic reviews; however, they are limited by design and methodological weaknesses.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of serious games for improving cognitive abilities among elderly people with cognitive impairment.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. The following 8 electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We also screened reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews, as well as checked studies citing our included studies. Two reviewers independently carried out the study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of evidence appraisal. We used a narrative and statistical approach, as appropriate, to synthesize the results of the included studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met the eligibility criteria among 466 citations retrieved. Of those, 14 RCTs were eventually included in the meta-analysis. We found that, regardless of their type, serious games were more effective than no intervention (<i>P</i>=.04) and conventional exercises (<i>P</i>=.002) for improving global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. Further, a subgroup analysis showed that cognitive training games were more effective than no intervention (<i>P</i>=.05) and conventional exercises (<i>P</i>&lt;.001) for improving global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. Another subgroup analysis demonstrated that exergames (a category of serious games that includes physical exercises) are as effective as no intervention and conventional exercises (<i>P</i>=.38) for improving global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. Although some studies found adverse events from using serious games, the number of adverse events (ie, falls and exacerbations of pre-existing arthritis symptoms) was comparable between the serious game and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Serious games and specifically cognitive training games have the potential to improve global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. However, our findings remain inconclusive because the quality of evidence in all meta-analyses was very low, mainly due to the risk of bias raised in the majority of the included studies, high heterogeneity of the evidence, and imprecision of total effect sizes. Therefore, psychologists, psychiatrists, and patients should consider offering serious games as a complement and not a substitute to existing interventions until further more robust evidence is available. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of exergames, the safety of serious games, and their long-term effects.

Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement and Cheapened Achievement: A New Dilemma

Recent discussions of cognitive enhancement often note that drugs and technologies that improve cognitive performance may do so at the risk of “cheapening” our resulting cognitive achievements (e.g., Kass, Life, liberty and the defense of dignity: the challenge for bioethics, Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2004; Agar, Humanity’s end: why we should reject radical enhancement, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2010; Sandel, The case against perfection. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2007; Sandel, The case against perfection: what’s wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering?”. In: Holland (ed) Arguing about bioethics, Routledge, London, 2012; Harris in Bioethics 25:102–111, 2011). While there are several possible responses to this worry, we will highlight what we take to be one of the most promising—one which draws on a recent strand of thinking in social and virtue epistemology to construct an integrationist defence of cognitive enhancement. (e.g., Pritchard in Synthese 175:133–151, 2010; Palermos in Synthese 192:2955–2286, 2015; Clark in Synthese 192:3757–3375, 2015). According to such a line, there is—despite initial appearances to the contrary—no genuine tension between using enhancements to attain our goals and achieving these goals in a valuable way provided the relevant enhancement is appropriately integrated into the agent’s cognitive architecture (in some suitably specified way). In this paper, however, we show that the kind of integration recommended by such views will likely come at a high cost. More specifically, we highlight a dilemma for users of pharmacological cognitive enhancement: they can (1) meet the conditions for cognitive integration (and on this basis attain valuable achievements) at the significant risk of dangerous dependency, or (2) remain free of such dependency while foregoing integration and the valuable achievements that such integration enables. After motivating and clarifying the import of this dilemma, we offer recommendations for how future cognitive enhancement research may offer potential routes for navigating past it.

Doctor, please make me freer: Capabilities enhancement as a goal of medicine

Biomedical innovations are making possible the enhancement of human capabilities. There are two philosophical stances on the role that medicine should play in this respect. On the one hand, naturalism rejects every medical intervention that goes beyond preventing and treating disease. On the other hand, welfarism advocates enhancements that foster subjective well-being. We will show that both positions have considerable shortcomings. Consequently, we will introduce a third characterization in which therapies and enhancements can be reconciled with the legitimate objectives of medicine inasmuch as they improve the capabilities that enable the freedom to pursue personal well-being.

The Use and Impact of Cognitive Enhancers among University Students: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Cognitive enhancers (CEs), also known as "smart drugs", "study aids" or "nootropics" are a cause of concern. Recent research studies investigated the use of CEs being taken as study aids by university students. This manuscript provides an overview of popular CEs, focusing on a range of drugs/substances (e.g., prescription CEs including amphetamine salt mixtures, methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam; and non-prescription CEs including caffeine, cobalamin (vitamin B12), guarana, pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and vinpocetine) that have emerged as being misused. The diverted non-prescription use of these molecules and the related potential for dependence and/or addiction is being reported. It has been demonstrated that healthy students (i.e., those without any diagnosed mental disorders) are increasingly using drugs such as methylphenidate, a mixture of dextroamphetamine/amphetamine, and modafinil, for the purpose of increasing their alertness, concentration or memory.

AIM

To investigate the level of knowledge, perception and impact of the use of a range of CEs within Higher Education Institutions.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review was conducted in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Whilst 1400 studies were identified within this study through a variety of electronic databases (e.g., 520 through PubMed, 490 through Science Direct and 390 through Scopus), 48 papers were deemed relevant and were included in this review.

RESULTS

The most popular molecules identified here included the stimulant CEs, e.g., methylphenidate, modafinil, amphetamine salt mixtures and caffeine-related compounds; stimulant CEs' intake was more prevalent among males than females; drugs were largely obtained from friends and family, as well as via the Internet. It is therefore suggested that CEs are increasingly being used among healthy individuals, mainly students without any diagnosed cognitive disorders, to increase their alertness, concentration, or memory, in the belief that these CEs will improve their performance during examinations or when studying. The impact of stimulant CEs may include tolerance, dependence and/or somatic (e.g., cardiovascular; neurological) complications.

DISCUSSION

The availability of CEs for non-medical indications in different countries is influenced by a range of factors including legal, social and ethical factors. Considering the risk factors and motivations that encourage university students to use CE drugs, it is essential to raise awareness about CE-related harms, counteract myths regarding "safe" CE use and address cognitive enhancement in an early stage during education as a preventative public health measure.

Pharmacological Neuroenhancement: Current Aspects of Categorization, Epidemiology, Pharmacology, Drug Development, Ethics, and Future Perspectives

Recent pharmacoepidemiologic studies suggest that pharmacological neuroenhancement (pNE) and mood enhancement are globally expanding phenomena with distinctly different regional characteristics. Sociocultural and regulatory aspects, as well as health policies, play a central role in addition to medical care and prescription practices. The users mainly display self-involved motivations related to cognitive enhancement, emotional stability, and adaptivity. Natural stimulants, as well as drugs, represent substance abuse groups. The latter comprise purines, methylxanthines, phenylethylamines, modafinil, nootropics, antidepressants but also benzodiazepines, β-adrenoceptor antagonists, and cannabis. Predominant pharmacodynamic target structures of these substances are the noradrenergic/dopaminergic and cholinergic receptor/transporter systems. Further targets comprise adenosine, serotonin, and glutamate receptors. Meta-analyses of randomized-controlled studies in healthy individuals show no or very limited verifiability of positive effects of pNE on attention, vigilance, learning, and memory. Only some members of the substance abuse groups, i.e., phenylethylamines and modafinil, display positive effects on attention and vigilance that are comparable to caffeinated drinks. However, the development of new antidementia drugs will increase the availability and the potential abuse of pNE. Social education, restrictive regulatory measures, and consistent medical prescription practices are essential to restrict the phenomenon of neuroenhancement with its social, medical, and ethical implications. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the highly dynamic field of pharmacological neuroenhancement and elaborates the dramatic challenges for the medical, sociocultural, and ethical fundaments of society.

The efficacy, ethics, & pitfalls of stimulants for justice system involved individuals

Incarceration rates in the U.S. rank among the highest in the developed world. Large representative studies have revealed that approximately one third of individuals report having been arrested, or in some other way contacted by the justice system, at some point in their life. A natural outgrowth of this is the need to consider strategies aimed at preventing further CJ contact. Complicating the situation further is that incarcerated populations also report disproportionately high levels of both psychiatric disturbances in general, and ADHD symptomology in particular. Thus, much debate remains around the topic of preventing recidivism. We discuss the possibility of incorporating pharmacological interventions as adjuvant therapies directed toward preventing re-offending. In particular, we explore whether stimulant medications might provide additional return on investment on top of therapies already known to be effective. Given the virtual absence of evidence on this topic, we also endeavor to provide specific recommendations for designing studies that could yield convincing evidence either for, or against, the inclusion of stimulant medications in the recidivism prevention toolkit.

Dimensions of Ethical Direct-to-Consumer Neurotechnologies

The direct-to-consumer (DTC) neurotechnology market, which includes some brain-computer interfaces, neurostimulation devices, virtual reality systems, wearables, and smartphone apps is rapidly growing. Given this technology's intimate relationship with the brain, a number of ethical dimensions must be addressed so that the technology can achieve the goal of contributing to human flourishing. This paper identifies safety, transparency, privacy, epistemic appropriateness, existential authenticity, just distribution, and oversight as such dimensions. After an initial exploration of the relevant ethical foundations for DTC neurotechnologies, this paper lays out each dimension and uses examples to justify its inclusion.

Memory, Neuroscience and Memory Enhancement

This paper advances a new and updated understanding of memory that should also change the coordinates of the memory enhancement debate. Instead of thinking of memory as a storehouse, we should think of memory from a narrative perspective. This view allows for a better understanding of the process in which we actually construct our memories by elaborating meaningful summaries, rather than adding discrete elements. I argue that this new way of thinking about memory makes most of the memory enhancement technologies we have or will have in the near future much less ethically problematic. The main idea is that (biological) memory interacts with memory enhancement in the creative and re-elaborative way it ordinarily does. To conclude, I discuss some cases to illustrate the previous points.

Beyond Treatment Versus Enhancement: A Qualitative Study of Pharmacological Neuro-Enhancement Among Dutch and Lithuanian University Students

This article examines the ambiguous relationship between treating illness and enhancing normalcy through the use of “cognitive enhancement” drugs. Although the literature on pharmacological neuro-enhancement generally differentiates between the “licit/therapeutic” and “illicit/enhancement” use of substances, in-depth interviews with 35 university students in the Netherlands and Lithuania—both with and without formal medical diagnoses of (mainly) Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder—reveal the fluidity of these categories. Our study of the perceptions and experiences of people who use such drugs further suggests a much broader range of substances, motives, and sought-after effects than are commonly acknowledged in the “cognitive enhancement” literature. We need a more inclusive and context-sensitive approach to study pharmacological neuro-enhancement, for instance, by approaching both licit and illicit drugs as tools or instruments.

In search of optimal psychoactivation: stimulants as cognitive performance enhancers

An increasing number of people, students in particular, seek substances that improve their cognitive functioning. The most popular group of pharmacological cognitive enhancers (PCEs) are stimulants. Available studies suggest a small beneficial effect of methylphenidate and amphetamine on memory, executive functions, and processing speed. However small, this effect can make the difference between success and failure. In recent years, research has focused on the additional beneficial effect on the emotional state, increased motivation, and placebo-induced cognitive enhancement. This paper briefly reviews the latest and most important research on the relationship between popular stimulants and cognitive enhancement. One cannot understand this relationship without understanding the Yerkes-Dodson law, which explains the relationship between the degree of arousal and performance. It suggests that the effect of stimulants is a dose-dependent continuum. This law has repeatedly been confirmed by studies in which an optimal level of psychoactivation for cognitive enhancement was obtained with low stimulant doses, whereas exceeding the effective dose resulted in cognitive deficits, psychomotor agitation, and addiction. A separate section has been devoted to modafinil, an increasingly popular stimulant that differs from the rest in neurochemical profile and behavioural effects.

Motives and Side-Effects of Microdosing With Psychedelics Among Users

BACKGROUND

Microdosing with psychedelics has gained considerable media attention where it is portrayed as a performance enhancer, especially popular on the work floor. While reports are in general positive, scientific evidence about potential negative effects is lacking aside from the prevalence and motives for use. The present study addressed this gap by surveying psychedelic users about their experience with microdosing including their dosing schedule, motivation, and potential experienced negative effects.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was launched on several websites and fora between March and July 2018. Respondents who had consented, were 18 years of age or older, and had experience with microdosing were included in the analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 1116 of the respondents were either currently microdosing (79.5%) or microdosed in the past (20.5%). Lysergic acid diethylamide (10 mcg) and psilocybin (0.5 g) were the most commonly used psychedelics with a microdosing frequency between 2 and 4 times per week. The majority of users, however, were oblivious about the consumed dose. Performance enhancement was the main motive to microdose (37%). The most reported negative effects were of psychological nature and occurred acutely while under the influence.

CONCLUSION

In line with media reports and anecdotes, the majority of our respondents microdosed to enhance performance. Negative effects occurred mostly acutely after substance consumption. However, the main reason to have stopped microdosing was that it was not effective. Future experimental placebo-controlled studies are needed to test whether performance enhancement can be quantified and to assess potential negative effects after longer term microdosing.

Praiseworthiness and Motivational Enhancement: 'No Pain, No Praise'?

The view that exertion of effort determines praiseworthiness for an achievement is implicit in 'no pain, no praise'-style objections to biomedical enhancement. On such views, if enhancements were to reduce the need for effort, agents would be less praiseworthy. Motivational enhancement would appear to be the most problematic in this respect, given that increased motivation reduces the need for agents to rally themselves and to exert effort in activity. We use the prospect of motivational enhancement to re-examine the grounds of praiseworthiness for achievements. We consider the place of effort amongst the grounds for praise, whether effort exhausts these grounds, and how they can be better specified. We argue that praiseworthiness depends on (i) the voluntariness and strength of the agent's committed pursuit of a valuable end (E), (ii) the costliness of the committed pursuit of E, and (iii) the value of E. Effort is just one cost amongst many, and costs of activities can be traded-off. Motivational enhancement reduces the praise due to an agent only when it reduces the net cost to the agent (without strengthening the voluntary commitment). We emphasize the importance of a diachronic perspective on active agency for praiseworthiness, to include training, prior planning, and deliberate strategies to overcome weakness of will, even where this reduces the need for effort.

How perceived substance characteristics affect ethical judgement towards cognitive enhancement

Some individuals seek to enhance their cognitive capabilities through the use of pharmacology. Such behavior entails potential health risks and raises ethical concerns. The aim of this study was to examine whether a precursor of behavior, ethical judgement towards the use of existing biological cognitive enhancers (e.g., coffee, legal and illegal drugs), is shaped by the perceived characteristics of these cognitive enhancers. Students and employees completed an online questionnaire which measured perceived characteristics of 15 substances presented as potential cognitive enhancers and a measure of ethical judgement towards these cognitive enhancers. Results of mixed model regression analyzes show that ethical judgement is more favourable when cognitive enhancers are perceived as being legal, familiar, efficient, and safe for users’ health, supporting all hypotheses. Results further show that 36% of variance (in the null model) lies at the level of cognitive enhancers and 21% at the level of participants. In conclusion, cognitive enhancers vary widely in terms of ethical judgement, which is explained by the perception of the mentioned characteristics. Implications regarding prevention and policy-making are discussed.

Psychedelic Moral Enhancement

The moral enhancement (or bioenhancement) debate seems stuck in a dilemma. On the one hand, the more radical proposals, while certainly novel and interesting, seem unlikely to be feasible in practice, or if technically feasible then most likely imprudent. But on the other hand, the more sensible proposals – sensible in the sense of being both practically achievable and more plausibly ethically justifiable – can be rather hard to distinguish from both traditional forms of moral enhancement, such as non-drug-mediated social or moral education, and non-moral forms of bioenhancement, such as smart-drug style cognitive enhancement. In this essay, I argue that bioethicists have paid insufficient attention to an alternative form of moral bioenhancement – or at least a likely candidate – that falls somewhere between these two extremes, namely the (appropriately qualified) use of certain psychedelic drugs.

Social Policy and Cognitive Enhancement: Lessons from Chess

Should the development of pharmacological cognitive enhancers raise worries about doping in cognitively demanding activities? In this paper, we argue against using current evidence relating to enhancement to justify a ban on cognitive enhancers using the example of chess. It is a mistake to assume that enhanced cognitive functioning on psychometric testing is transferable to chess performance because cognitive expertise is highly complex and in large part not merely a function of the sum specific sub-processes. A deeper reason to doubt that pharmacological cognitive enhancers would be as significant in mind sports is the misleading parallel with physical enhancement. We will make the case that cognitive performance is less mechanical in nature than physical performance. We draw lessons from this case example of chess for the regulation of cognitive enhancement more generally in education and the professions. Premature regulation runs the risk of creating a detrimental culture of suspicion that ascribes unwarranted blame.

Novelty-seeking trait predicts the effect of methylphenidate on creativity

In recent years the use of psychostimulants for cognitive enhancement in healthy individuals with no psychiatric disorders has been on the rise. However, it is still unclear whether psychostimulants improve certain cognitive functions at the cost of others, and how these psychostimulants interact with individual personality differences. In the current study, we investigated whether the effect of one common stimulant, methylphenidate (MPH), on creativity is associated with novelty seeking. Thirty-six healthy adults, without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptomology, were assigned randomly in a double-blind fashion to receive MPH or placebo. We found that the effect of MPH on creativity was dependent on novelty-seeking (NS) personality characteristics of the participants. MPH increased creativity in individuals with lower NS, while it reduced creativity levels in individuals with high NS. These findings highlight the role of the dopaminergic system in creativity, and indicate that among healthy individuals NS can be seen as a predictor of the effect of MPH on creativity.

Sleep Deprivation Impairs and Caffeine Enhances My Performance, but Not Always Our Performance

What effects do factors that impair or enhance performance in individuals have when these individuals act in groups? We provide a framework, called the GIE ("Effects of Grouping on Impairments and Enhancements") framework, for investigating this question. As prominent examples for individual-level impairments and enhancements, we discuss sleep deprivation and caffeine. Based on previous research, we derive hypotheses on how they influence performance in groups, specifically process gains and losses in motivation, individual capability, and coordination. We conclude that the effect an impairment or enhancement has on individual-level performance is not necessarily mirrored in group performance: grouping can help or hurt. We provide recommendations on how to estimate empirically the effects individual-level performance impairments and enhancements have in groups. By comparing sleep deprivation to stress and caffeine to pharmacological cognitive enhancement, we illustrate that we cannot readily generalize from group results on one impairment or enhancement to another, even if they have similar effects on individual-level performance.

Drugs As Instruments: Describing and Testing a Behavioral Approach to the Study of Neuroenhancement

Neuroenhancement (NE) is the non-medical use of psychoactive substances to produce a subjective enhancement in psychological functioning and experience. So far empirical investigations of individuals' motivation for NE however have been hampered by the lack of theoretical foundation. This study aimed to apply drug instrumentalization theory to user motivation for NE. We argue that NE should be defined and analyzed from a behavioral perspective rather than in terms of the characteristics of substances used for NE. In the empirical study we explored user behavior by analyzing relationships between drug options (use over-the-counter products, prescription drugs, illicit drugs) and postulated drug instrumentalization goals (e.g., improved cognitive performance, counteracting fatigue, improved social interaction). Questionnaire data from 1438 university students were subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to address the question of whether analysis of drug instrumentalization should be based on the assumption that users are aiming to achieve a certain goal and choose their drug accordingly or whether NE behavior is more strongly rooted in a decision to try or use a certain drug option. We used factor mixture modeling to explore whether users could be separated into qualitatively different groups defined by a shared "goal × drug option" configuration. Our results indicate, first, that individuals' decisions about NE are eventually based on personal attitude to drug options (e.g., willingness to use an over-the-counter product but not to abuse prescription drugs) rather than motivated by desire to achieve a specific goal (e.g., fighting tiredness) for which different drug options might be tried. Second, data analyses suggested two qualitatively different classes of users. Both predominantly used over-the-counter products, but "neuroenhancers" might be characterized by a higher propensity to instrumentalize over-the-counter products for virtually all investigated goals whereas "fatigue-fighters" might be inclined to use over-the-counter products exclusively to fight fatigue. We believe that psychological investigations like these are essential, especially for designing programs to prevent risky behavior.

Methylphenidate as a cognitive enhancer in healthy young people

The so-called cognitive enhancers have been widely and increasingly used by healthy individuals who seek improvements in cognitive performance despite having no pathologies. One drug used for this purpose is methylphenidate, a first-line drug for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Objective

The aim of the present study was to test the effect of acute administration of varying doses of methylphenidate (10 mg, 20 mg, 40 mg and placebo) on a wide range of cognitive functions in healthy young people.

Methods

A total of 36 young university students and graduates participated in the study. The participants underwent tests of attention and of episodic, and working memory.

Results

No differences in performance were observed on any of the tests. There was a dose-dependent (40 mg > placebo) effect on self-reported wellbeing.

Conclusions

According to the recent literature, psychostimulant medications, such as methylphenidate, improve performance when cognitive processes are below an optimal level, which was not the case for the subjects of the present study. We suggest the impression that methylphenidate enhances cognitive performance in healthy young people, justifying its use, may be due to improvements in subjective wellbeing promoted by the drug.

Why is Cognitive Enhancement Deemed Unacceptable? The Role of Fairness, Deservingness, and Hollow Achievements

We ask why pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) is generally deemed morally unacceptable by lay people. Our approach to this question has two core elements. First, we employ an interdisciplinary perspective, using philosophical rationales as base for generating psychological models. Second, by testing these models we investigate how different normative judgments on PCE are related to each other. Based on an analysis of the relevant philosophical literature, we derive two psychological models that can potentially explain the judgment that PCE is unacceptable: the "Unfairness-Undeservingness Model" and the "Hollowness-Undeservingness Model." The Unfairness-Undeservingness Model holds that people judge PCE to be unacceptable because they take it to produce unfairness and to undermine the degree to which PCE-users deserve reward. The Hollowness-Undeservingness Model assumes that people judge PCE to be unacceptable because they find achievements realized while using PCE hollow and undeserved. We empirically test both models against each other using a regression-based approach. When trying to predict judgments regarding the unacceptability of PCE using judgments regarding unfairness, hollowness, and undeservingness, we found that unfairness judgments were the only significant predictor of the perceived unacceptability of PCE, explaining about 36% of variance. As neither hollowness nor undeservingness had explanatory power above and beyond unfairness, the Unfairness-Undeservingness Model proved superior to the Hollowness-Undeservingness Model. This finding also has implications for the Unfairness-Undeservingness Model itself: either a more parsimonious single-factor "Fairness Model" should replace the Unfairness-Undeservingness-Model or fairness fully mediates the relationship between undeservingness and unacceptability. Both explanations imply that participants deemed PCE unacceptable because they judged it to be unfair. We conclude that concerns about unfairness play a crucial role in the subjective unacceptability of PCE and discuss the implications of our approach for the further investigation of the psychology of PCE.

Swiss University Students' Attitudes toward Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement

Pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) refers to the nonmedical use of prescription or recreational drugs to enhance cognitive performance. Several concerns about PCE have been raised in the public. The aim of the present study was to investigate students' attitudes toward PCE. Students at three Swiss universities were invited by e-mail to participate in a web-based survey. Of the 29,282 students who were contacted, 3,056 participated. Of these students, 22% indicated that they had used prescription drugs (12%) or recreational substances including alcohol (14%) at least once for PCE. The use of prescription drugs or recreational substances including alcohol prior to the last exam was reported by 16%. Users of pharmacological cognitive enhancers were more likely to consider PCE fair (24%) compared with nonusers (11%). Only a minority of the participants agreed with the nonmedical use of prescription drugs by fellow students when assuming weak (7%) or hypothetically strong efficacy and availability to everyone (14%). Two-thirds (68%) considered performance that is obtained with PCE less worthy of recognition. Additionally, 80% disagreed that PCE is acceptable in a competitive environment. More than half (64%) agreed that PCE in academia is similar to doping in sports. Nearly half (48%) claimed that unregulated access to pharmacological cognitive enhancers increases the pressure to engage in PCE and educational inequality (55%). In conclusion, Swiss students' main concerns regarding PCE were related to coercion and fairness. As expected, these concerns were more prevalent among nonusers than among users of pharmacological cognitive enhancers. More balanced information on PCE should be shared with students, and future monitoring of PCE is recommended.

Pills or Push-Ups? Effectiveness and Public Perception of Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement

We review work on the effectiveness of different forms of cognitive enhancement, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological. We consider caffeine, methylphenidate, and modafinil for pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) and computer training, physical exercise, and sleep for non-pharmacological cognitive enhancement (NPCE). We find that all of the techniques described can produce significant beneficial effects on cognitive performance. However, effect sizes are moderate, and consistently dependent on individual and situational factors as well as the cognitive domain in question. Although meta-analyses allowing a quantitative comparison of effectiveness across techniques are lacking to date, we can conclude that PCE is not more effective than NPCE. We discuss the physiological reasons for this limited effectiveness. We then propose that even though their actual effectiveness seems similar, in the general public PCE is perceived as fundamentally different from NPCE, in terms of effectiveness, but also in terms of acceptability. We illustrate the potential consequences such a misperception of PCE can have.

The importance of stress, self-efficacy, and self-medication for pharmacological neuroenhancement among employees and students

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the relationship between stress, self-efficacy, self-medication, and pharmacological neuroenhancement (PNE) in the Swiss general population.

METHODS

Using the largest Swiss Internet panel, a sample of 10,171 employees and students (unweighted N=10,084) aged 15-74 years was recruited and asked to complete a self-administered online survey. The data were weighted for age, sex, and language region to provide results that were representative of the Swiss population. Multinomial logistic regression models were conducted to identify predictors of pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) and pharmacological mood enhancement (PME) over the past year. Two self-medication models and an overall model were determined.

RESULTS

Current medical treatment for a mental disorder was the best predictor of both PCE and PME use as serious self-medication. The overall model revealed that cannabis use, frequent stress, and long-term stress were predictors of both PCE and PME, whereas negative stressors and time pressure at work did not remain in the final model. Furthermore, past-year PCE with and without PME was associated with being male, being a student, and using illegal drugs other than cannabis, whereas being female and having low self-efficacy predicted past-year PME only.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of the predictor variables identified in this study may help to identify the potential PCE and PME users for whom measures to prevent drug abuse and manage stress are most appropriate. More specifically, the use of PCE and PME as self-medication to enhance performance at work or while studying needs further consideration in the neuroenhancement debate.

The impact of neuroscience on society: cognitive enhancement in neuropsychiatric disorders and in healthy people

In addition to causing distress and disability to the individual, neuropsychiatric disorders are also extremely expensive to society and governments. These disorders are both common and debilitating and impact on cognition, functionality and wellbeing. Cognitive enhancing drugs, such as cholinesterase inhibitors and methylphenidate, are used to treat cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, respectively. Other cognitive enhancers include specific computerized cognitive training and devices. An example of a novel form of cognitive enhancement using the technological advancement of a game on an iPad that also acts to increase motivation is presented. Cognitive enhancing drugs, such as methylphenidate and modafinil, which were developed as treatments, are increasingly being used by healthy people. Modafinil not only affects 'cold' cognition, but also improves 'hot' cognition, such as emotion recognition and task-related motivation. The lifestyle use of 'smart drugs' raises both safety concerns as well as ethical issues, including coercion and increasing disparity in society. As a society, we need to consider which forms of cognitive enhancement (e.g. pharmacological, exercise, lifelong learning) are acceptable and for which groups (e.g. military, doctors) under what conditions (e.g. war, shift work) and by what methods we would wish to improve and flourish.

Screening and personalizing nootropic drugs and cognitive modulator regimens in silico

The go-to cognitive enhancers of today are those that are widely available rather than optimal for the user, including drugs typically prescribed for treatment of ADHD (e.g., methylphenidate) and sleep disturbances such as narcolepsy (modafinil). While highly effective in their intended therapeutic role, performance gains in healthy populations are modest at best and profoundly inconsistent across subgroups and individuals. We propose a method for in silico screening of possible novel cognitive enhancers followed by high-throughput in vivo and in vitro validation. The proposed method uses gene expression data to evaluate the the collection of activated or suppressed signaling pathways in tissues or neurons of the cognitively enhanced brain. An algorithm maps expression data onto signaling pathways and quantifies their individual activation strength. The collective pathways and their activation form what we term the signaling pathway cloud, a biological fingerprint of cognitive enhancement (or any other condition of interest). Drugs can then be screened and ranked based on their ability to minimize, mimic, or exaggerate pathway activation or suppression within that cloud. Using this approach, one may predict the efficacy of many drugs that may enhance various aspects of cognition before costly preclinical studies and clinical trials are undertaken.

Brain stimulation for treatment and enhancement in children: an ethical analysis

Davis (2014) called for “extreme caution” in the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to treat neurological disorders in children, due to gaps in scientific knowledge. We are sympathetic to his position. However, we must also address the ethical implications of applying this technology to minors. Compensatory trade-offs associated with NIBS present a challenge to its use in children, insofar as these trade-offs have the effect of limiting the child’s future options. The distinction between treatment and enhancement has some normative force here. As the intervention moves away from being a treatment toward being an enhancement—and thus toward a more uncertain weighing of the benefits, risks, and costs—considerations of the child’s best interests (as judged by the parents) diminish, and the need to protect the child’s (future) autonomy looms larger. NIBS for enhancement involving trade-offs should therefore be delayed, if possible, until the child reaches a state of maturity and can make an informed, personal decision. NIBS for treatment, by contrast, is permissible insofar as it can be shown to be at least as safe and effective as currently approved treatments, which are themselves justified on a best interests standard.

Cognitive enhancement kept within contexts: neuroethics and informed public policy

Neurothics has far greater responsibilities than merely noting potential human enhancements arriving from novel brain-centered biotechnologies and tracking their implications for ethics and civic life. Neuroethics must utilize the best cognitive and neuroscientific knowledge to shape incisive discussions about what could possibly count as enhancement in the first place, and what should count as genuinely "cognitive" enhancement. Where cognitive processing and the mental life is concerned, the lived context of psychological performance is paramount. Starting with an enhancement to the mental abilities of an individual, only performances on real-world exercises can determine what has actually been cognitively improved. And what can concretely counts as some specific sort of cognitive improvement is largely determined by the classificatory frameworks of cultures, not brain scans or laboratory experiments. Additionally, where the public must ultimately evaluate and judge the worthiness of individual performance enhancements, we mustn't presume that public approval towards enhancers will somehow automatically arrive without due regard to civic ideals such as the common good or social justice. In the absence of any nuanced appreciation for the control which performance contexts and public contexts exert over what "cognitive" enhancements could actually be, enthusiastic promoters of cognitive enhancement can all too easily depict safe and effective brain modifications as surely good for us and for society. These enthusiasts are not unaware of oft-heard observations about serious hurdles for reliable enhancement from neurophysiological modifications. Yet those observations are far more common than penetrating investigations into the implications to those hurdles for a sound public understanding of cognitive enhancement, and a wise policy review over cognitive enhancement. We offer some crucial recommendations for undertaking such investigations, so that cognitive enhancers that truly deserve public approval can be better identified.

Cognitive biases can affect moral intuitions about cognitive enhancement

Research into cognitive biases that impair human judgment has mostly been applied to the area of economic decision-making. Ethical decision-making has been comparatively neglected. Since ethical decisions often involve very high individual as well as collective stakes, analyzing how cognitive biases affect them can be expected to yield important results. In this theoretical article, we consider the ethical debate about cognitive enhancement (CE) and suggest a number of cognitive biases that are likely to affect moral intuitions and judgments about CE: status quo bias, loss aversion, risk aversion, omission bias, scope insensitivity, nature bias, and optimistic bias. We find that there are more well-documented biases that are likely to cause irrational aversion to CE than biases in the opposite direction. This suggests that common attitudes about CE are predominantly negatively biased. Within this new perspective, we hope that subsequent research will be able to elaborate this hypothesis and develop effective de-biasing techniques that can help increase the rationality of the public CE debate and thus improve our ethical decision-making.

How cognitive enhancement can change our duties

This theoretical paper draws the scientific community's attention to how pharmacological cognitive enhancement may impact on society and law. Namely, if safe, reliable, and effective techniques to enhance mental performance are eventually developed, then this may under some circumstances impose new duties onto people in high-responsibility professions-e.g., surgeons or pilots-to use such substances to minimize risks of adverse outcomes or to increase the likelihood of good outcomes. By discussing this topic, we also hope to encourage scientists to bring their expertise to bear on this current public debate.