The Ethics of “Smart Drugs”: Moral Judgments About Healthy People's Use of Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs

Public Views on Whether the Use of Pharmaceutical Neuroenhancements Should Be Allowed

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Some individuals are using drugs to try to enhance cognitive and social-affective functioning and asking physicians for off-label prescriptions for neuroenhancement (e.g., stimulants). Several medical societies released guidance on prescribing neuroenhancers, some of which refer to potential societal effects of neuroenhancement (e.g., distributive justice), besides risks and benefits to users. Which institutions (e.g., medical societies, government, universities) should make decisions on allowing neuroenhancement and whether they should consider potential societal effects are unclear. We examined whether and how much support for allowing pharmaceutical neuroenhancers was influenced by the institution and potential individual and societal effects of neuroenhancers.

METHODS

We conducted a discrete-choice experiment using a constructed representative sample of the US adult public. Multinomial logit models were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 927) demographically resembled the US population. Risks of serious side effects (OR 0.20, CI 0.18-0.22) and a lack of benefits for users (OR 0.31, CI 0.26-0.38) had the largest negative effect on participants' support for allowing neuroenhancers. A risk of mild side effects had a moderate negative effect on participants' support for allowing neuroenhancers (OR 0.67, CI 0.62-0.74) and the prospect of more meaningful, long-lasting benefits for users a moderate positive effect (OR 1.74, CI 1.61-1.87). Positive or negative effects of neuroenhancers on the average well-being of people in society and on equality had moderate effects on participants' support for allowing neuroenhancers. For example, the odds of participants' support for allowing enhancers with a negative effect on societal well-being were around half (OR 0.45, CI 0.40-0.50) and the odds of allowing enhancers that worsen inequality were approximately 40% lower compared with enhancers without such effects (OR 0.62, CI 0.55-0.71). The odds of participants allowing neuroenhancers were slightly (10%) lower if enhancers reduced users' authenticity (OR 0.90, CI 0.84-0.97). The institution regulating neuroenhancers and neuroenhancers providing users with an unfair advantage did not affect participants' decisions.

DISCUSSION

When presented with both individual and societal considerations, the public seems to support medical societies and other institutions making policy decisions about neuroenhancers based on risks and benefits for users, as well as, but to a lesser extent, effects on equality and societal well-being.

Adapting Ourselves, Instead of the Environment: An Inquiry into Human Enhancement for Function and Beyond

Technology enables humans not only to adapt their environment to their needs but also to modify themselves. Means of Human Enhancement - embodied technologies to improve the human body's capabilities or to create a new one - are the designated means of adapting ourselves instead of the environment. The debate about these technologies is typically fought on ethical soil. However, alarmist, utopian, and science fiction scenarios distract from the fact that Human Enhancement is a historical and pervasive phenomenon incorporated into many everyday practices. In the vein of disentangling conceptual difficulties, we claim that means of Human Enhancement are either physiologically or psychologically embodied, rendering the merging with the human user their most defining aspect. To fulfill its purpose, an enhancement must pass the test-in-the-world, i.e., assisting with effective engagement with a dynamic world. Even if failing in this regard: Human Enhancement is the fundamental and semi-targeted process of changing the users relationship with the world through the physical or psychological embodiment of a hitherto external object and/or change of one's body. This can potentially change the notion of being human. Drawing on a rich body of theoretical and empirical literature, we aim to provide a nuanced analysis of the transformative nature of this phenomenon in close proximity to human practice. Stakeholders are invited to apply the theory presented here to interrogate their perspective on technology in general and Human Enhancement in particular.

Context-Dependent Risk & Benefit Sensitivity Mediate Judgments About Cognitive Enhancement

Opinions about cognitive enhancement (CE) are context-dependent. Prior research has demonstrated that factors like peer pressure, the influence of authority figures, competition, moral relevance, familiarity with enhancement devices, expertise, and the domain of CE to be enhanced can influence opinions. The variability and malleability of patient, expert, and public attitudes toward CE is important to describe and predict because these attitudes can influence at-home, clinical, research, and regulatory decisions. If individual preferences vary, they could influence opinions about practices and regulations due to disagreements about the desirable levels of risks and benefits. The study of attitudes about CE would benefit from psychological theories that explain judgments. In particular, we suggest that variability in risk and benefit sensitivity could psychologically mediate judgments about CE in many contexts. Drawing from prospect theory, which originated in behavioral economics, it is likely that framing effects, shifted reference points, and the tendency to weigh losses (risks) more heavily than gains (benefits) predict decisions about CE. We suggest that public policy could benefit from a shared conceptual framework, such as prospect theory, that allows us to describe and predict real-world decisions about CE by patients, experts, and the public.

How pills undermine skills: Moralization of cognitive enhancement and causal selection

Despite the promise to boost human potential and wellbeing, enhancement drugs face recurring ethical scrutiny. The present studies examined attitudes toward cognitive enhancement in order to learn more about these ethical concerns, who has them, and the circumstances in which they arise. Fairness-based concerns underlay opposition to competitive use-even though enhancement drugs were described as legal, accessible and affordable. Moral values also influenced how subsequent rewards were causally explained: Opposition to competitive use reduced the causal contribution of the enhanced winner's skill, particularly among fairness-minded individuals. In a follow-up study, we asked: Would the normalization of enhancement practices alleviate concerns about their unfairness? Indeed, proliferation of competitive cognitive enhancement eradicated fairness-based concerns, and boosted the perceived causal role of the winner's skill. In contrast, purity-based concerns emerged in both recreational and competitive contexts, and were not assuaged by normalization.

Cognitive Enhancement: Unanswered Questions About Human Psychology and Social Behavior

Stimulant drugs, transcranial magnetic stimulation, brain-computer interfaces, and even genetic modifications are all discussed as forms of potential cognitive enhancement. Cognitive enhancement can be conceived as a benefit-seeking strategy used by healthy individuals to enhance cognitive abilities such as learning, memory, attention, or vigilance. This phenomenon is hotly debated in the public, professional, and scientific literature. Many of the statements favoring cognitive enhancement (e.g., related to greater productivity and autonomy) or opposing it (e.g., related to health-risks and social expectations) rely on claims about human welfare and human flourishing. But with real-world evidence from the social and psychological sciences often missing to support (or invalidate) these claims, the debate about cognitive enhancement is stalled. In this paper, we describe a set of crucial debated questions about psychological and social aspects of cognitive enhancement (e.g., intrinsic motivation, well-being) and explain why they are of fundamental importance to address in the cognitive enhancement debate and in future research. We propose studies targeting social and psychological outcomes associated with cognitive enhancers (e.g., stigmatization, burnout, mental well-being, work motivation). We also voice a call for scientific evidence, inclusive of but not limited to biological health outcomes, to thoroughly assess the impact of enhancement. This evidence is needed to engage in empirically informed policymaking, as well as to promote the mental and physical health of users and non-users of enhancement.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a human enhancement story

BACKGROUND

Vaccination is an essential strategy for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. Besides its significance as a public health measure, vaccination is a sophisticated example of modern biotechnology. Since vaccination gives the human body an ability that it does not naturally possess, the question arises as to its classification as Human Enhancement.

MAIN BODY

Exemplified on a selection of different definitions, we conclude that vaccinations may indeed be classified and treated as a form of Human Enhancement. This raises some ethical issues that are notorious in the broad field of Human Enhancement. A study with N = 67 participants revealed that vaccinations are perceived neither as a clear nor poor example of Human Enhancement.

CONCLUSION

 We argue that qualifying vaccination technology as Human Enhancement does not provide convincing arguments to reject vaccination. By examining the Human Enhancement debate and the similarities to the issue of vaccination shown here, policymakers can learn valuable lessons regarding mass vaccination programs' current and future handling.

Medical Students' Attitudes Towards Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement With Methylphenidate

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess medical students' perception of pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) with methylphenidate and to determine whether this perception differs between junior and senior medical students.

METHODS

The second and fifth year medical student groups of 2017 at a specific university completed self-administered questionnaires in order to investigate if there were a difference in their attitudes towards methylphenidate use for PCE.

RESULTS

A total of 353 students were included as follows: 135 second year and 218 fifth year students. Fifth year students were more aware of PCE with methylphenidate than second year students (94% versus 87%; p value = 0.02). Many students (second year = 86%; fifth year = 71%; p value = 0.2469) were of the opinion that methylphenidate could enhance academic performance. Sixty-six percent of all the students were concerned about the fairness of PCE; 93% were concerned about the harmfulness of methylphenidate. There were no statistical significant differences in the attitudes towards methylphenidate use for PCE between the two groups of junior and senior students.

CONCLUSION

In both groups, the majority of students were against the use of methylphenidate for PCE in students without attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. Their attitudes regarding the use of methylphenidate for non-medical purposes did not differ significantly. Addressing the topic of PCE with medical students is essential, and the impact on their practice can be an important direction for future research.

The Dark Triad of personality and attitudes toward cognitive enhancement

Background

Cognitive enhancement (CE) refers to the voluntary improvement of human cognitive capabilities. Few studies have examined the general attitude of the public towards CE. Such studies have suggested that the use of CE is considered largely unacceptable by the public. In parallel, past research indicates that individuals scoring high on the Dark Triad of personality (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) and competitiveness have atypical views of ethical questions. In this study, we examined (a) whether attitudes towards CE are associated with individual differences in the Dark Triad of personality as well as in trait and contextual competitiveness and (b) whether the Dark Triad moderates the effect of trait and contextual competitiveness on attitudes towards CE.

Method

US employees (N = 326) were recruited using Mechanical Turk. Participants completed a web survey. Data were analyzed by means of (robust) hierarchical regression and (robust) ANCOVAs.

Results

The Dark Triad of personality and one of its subscales, Machiavellianism, predicted positive attitudes towards CE. Neither trait competitiveness nor contextual competitiveness were linked to general attitudes towards CE, but the DT was a positive moderator of the association between contextual competitiveness and positive attitudes.

Conclusion

Our findings extend the incipient knowledge about the factors relating to favourable views of CE by highlighting the role of dark personality traits in shaping such views. Our study further shows contextual factors can play a differentiated role with respect to such attitudes depending upon dark personality traits. Implications for policy-making are discussed.

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.

Moral Attitudes Toward Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement (PCE): Differences and Similarities Among Germans With and Without PCE Experience

Pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE), the use of illicit and/or prescription drugs to increase cognitive performance, has spurred controversial discussion in bioethics. In a semi-structured interview study with 60 German university students and employees, differences and similarities in moral attitudes toward PCE among 30 experienced participants (EPs) vs. 30 inexperienced participants (IPs) were investigated. Substances EPs used most often are methylphenidate, amphetamines, tetrahydrocannabinol and modafinil. Both EPs and IPs addressed topics such as autonomous decision making or issues related to fairness such as equality in test evaluation and distortion of competition. While most EPs and IPs were convinced that the decision of whether or not to use PCE is part of their individual freedom, their views varied considerably with regard to fairness. IPs considered issues related to fairness as much more critical than EPs. Thus, a person’s moral attitudes toward PCE may not only depend on moral common sense, but also on whether they have used illegal and/or prescription drugs for PCE before. This points to the importance of including the various relevant stakeholder perspectives in debates on the ethical and social implications of PCE.

Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement: The Role of Metaphor and Context

The widespread use of stimulants among healthy individuals to improve cognition has received growing attention; however, public attitudes toward this practice are not well understood. We determined the effect of framing metaphors and context of use on public opinion toward cognitive enhancement. We recruited 3,727 participants from the United States to complete three surveys using Amazon's Mechanical Turk between April and July 2017. Participants read vignettes describing an individual using cognitive enhancement, varying framing metaphors (fuel versus steroid), and context of use (athletes versus students versus employees). The main outcome measure was the difference in respondent-assigned level of acceptability of the use of cognitive enhancement by others and by themselves between the contrasting vignettes. Participants were more likely to support the use of cognitive enhancement by others than by themselves and more when the use of enhancement by others was framed with a fuel metaphor than with a steroid metaphor. Metaphoric framing did not affect participants' attitudes toward their own use. Participants supported the use of enhancement by employees more than by students or athletes. These results are discussed in relation to existing ethical and policy literature.

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.

Robust resilience and substantial interest: a survey of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among university students in the UK and Ireland

Use of 'smart drugs' among UK students is described in frequent media reports as a rapidly increasing phenomenon. This article reports findings from the first large-scale survey of pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) among students in the UK and Ireland. Conducted from February to September 2012, a survey of a convenience sample of 877 students measured PCE prevalence, attitudes, sources, purposes and ethics. Descriptive and logistic regression statistical methods were used to analyse the data. Lifetime prevalence of PCE using modafinil, methylphenidate or Adderall was under 10%, while past regular and current PCE users of these substances made up between 0.3%-4% of the survey population. A substantial majority of students was unaware of and/or uninterested in PCE; however about one third of students were interested in PCE. PCE users were more likely to be male, British and older students; predictors of PCE use included awareness of other students using PCEs, ADHD symptomatology, ethical concerns, and alcohol and cannabis use. The survey addresses the need for better evidence about PCE prevalence and practices among university students in the UK. We recommend PCE-related strategies for universities based on the survey findings.

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.

Neuroethical issues in pharmacological cognitive enhancement

Neuroethics is an emerging field that in general deals with the ethics of neuroscience and the neuroscience of ethics. In particular, it is concerned with the ethical issues in the translation of neuroscience to clinical practice and in the public domain. Numerous ethical issues arise when healthy individuals use pharmacological substances known as pharmacological cognitive enhancers (PCEs) for non-medical purposes in order to boost higher-order cognitive processes such as memory, attention, and executive functions. However, information regarding their actual use, benefits, and harms to healthy individuals is currently lacking. Neuroethical issues that arise from their use include the unknown side effects that are associated with these drugs, concerns about the modification of authenticity and personhood, and as a result of inequality of access to these drugs, the lack of distributive justice and competitive fairness that they may cause in society. Healthy individuals might be coerced by social institutions that force them to take these drugs to function better. These drugs might enable or hinder healthy individuals to gain better moral and self-understanding and autonomy. However, how these drugs might achieve this still remains speculative and unknown. Hence, before concrete policy decisions are made, the cognitive effects of these drugs should be determined. The initiation of accurate surveys to determine the actual usage of these drugs by healthy individuals from different sections of the society is proposed. In addition, robust empirical research need to be conducted to delineate not only whether or not these drugs modify complex higher-order cognitive processes but also how they might alter important human virtues such as empathy, moral reasoning, creativity, and motivation in healthy individuals. WIREs Cogn Sci 2014, 5:533-549. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1306 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author has declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

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'.