Psychopharmacological Neuroenhancement: Evidence on Safety and Efficacy

Repantis, Dimitris

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6253-4_3

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of prescription or recreational drugs by healthy individuals to enhance cognitive or affective function [1,2] is termed pharmacological neuroenhancement (PNE) when used explicitly for the purpose of improved performance at work or in education [3]. Prescription drugs indicated for the treatment of psychiatric disorders such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD) or narcolepsy are the focus of the PNE debate, because these drugs also have cognitive-enhancing effects in healthy individuals [1,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of and motives for pharmacological neuroenhancement in Switzerland-results from a national internet panel

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To estimate the prevalence of self-reported pharmacological neuroenhancement (PNE) with prescription or recreational drugs among the Swiss general population and correlates of PNE. Design A population-based crosssectional study using a self-administered online survey. Setting A telephone-recruited highly representative Internet Panel in Switzerland. Participants A total of 10 171 Swiss employees and students (unweighted N = 10 084) aged 15 to 74 years (mean age: 39.1 ± 13.3; 46.6% female). Measurements Self-reported lifetime, pastyear, and past-month use of prescription or recreational drugs for PNE, motives for use, and correlates of PNE including socio-demographic, health, and recreational drug use characteristics. Findings The lifetime prevalence of PNE was 4.0% (95% CI = 3.62, 4.38), and the past-year prevalence was 2.1% (95% CI = 1.82, 2.38). Lifetime pharmacological mood enhancement (3.1%; 95% CI = 2.76, 3.44) was more prevalent than pharmacological cognitive enhancement (1.4%; 95% CI = 1.17, 1.63). Fifty-four participants reported both (0.5%; 95% CI = 0.36, 0.64). PNE was associated with studying rather than full-time (

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of and motives for pharmacological neuroenhancement in Switzerland-results from a national internet panel

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…21 Third, the clearest positive finding in relation to modafinil has to do with attention and wakefulness in non-sleep-deprived adults; and wakefulness, executive function and memory in sleep-deprived adults. 22 This is not surprising given the on-label indications for this drug. Fourth, the positive effects of modafinil on attention and executive function tend not to sustain over repeated dosages, and users of the drug may build up a sleep-deficit from use of this drug that needs to be repaid at a later time.…”

Section: Does the Use Of Cognitive Enhancing Drugs Subvert The Point mentioning

confidence: 99%

Should we use Commitment Contracts to Regulate Student use of Cognitive Enhancing Drugs?

Danaher

2016

Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are universities justified in trying to regulate student use of cognitive enhancing drugs? In this paper I argue that they can be, but that the most appropriate kind of regulatory intervention is likely to be voluntary in nature. To be precise, I argue that universities could justifiably adopt a commitment contract system of regulation wherein students are encouraged to voluntarily commit to not using cognitive enhancing drugs (or to using them in a specific way). If they are found to breach that commitment, they should be penalised by, for example, forfeiting a number of marks on their assessments. To defend this model of regulation, I adopt a recently-proposed evaluative framework for determining the appropriateness of enhancement in specific domains of activity, and I focus on particular existing types of cognitive enhancement drugs, not hypothetical or potential forms. In this way, my argument is tailored to the specific features of university education, and common patterns of usage among students. It is not concerned with the general ethical propriety of using cognitive enhancing drugs.

show abstract

“…The review conducted by Repantis (2013) concluded that in the majority of trials, the drugs were well tolerated. However, side effects were noted.…”

Section: Ethical Debate and The Relevance Of Neuroscientific Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacological cognitive enhancementâ€”how neuroscientific research could advance ethical debate

Maslen

Faulmüller

Savulescu

2014

Front. Syst. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are numerous ways people can improve their cognitive capacities: good nutrition and regular exercise can produce long-term improvements across many cognitive domains, whilst commonplace stimulants such as coffee temporarily boost levels of alertness and concentration. Effects like these have been well-documented in the medical literature and they raise few (if any) ethical issues. More recently, however, clinical research has shown that the off-label use of some pharmaceuticals can, under certain conditions, have modest cognition-improving effects. Substances such as methylphenidate and modafinil can improve capacities such as working memory and concentration in some healthy individuals. Unlike their more mundane predecessors, these methods of “cognitive enhancement” are thought to raise a multitude of ethical issues. This paper presents the six principal ethical issues raised in relation to pharmacological cognitive enhancers (PCEs)—issues such as whether: (1) the medical safety-profile of PCEs justifies restricting or permitting their elective or required use; (2) the enhanced mind can be an “authentic” mind; (3) individuals might be coerced into using PCEs; (4), there is a meaningful distinction to be made between the treatment vs. enhancement effect of the same PCE; (5) unequal access to PCEs would have implications for distributive justice; and (6) PCE use constitutes cheating in competitive contexts. In reviewing the six principal issues, the paper discusses how neuroscientific research might help advance the ethical debate. In particular, the paper presents new arguments about the contribution neuroscience could make to debates about justice, fairness, and cheating, ultimately concluding that neuroscientific research into “personalized enhancement” will be essential if policy is to be truly informed and ethical. We propose an “ethical agenda” for neuroscientific research into PCEs.

show abstract

Psychopharmacological Neuroenhancement: Evidence on Safety and Efficacy

Cited by 9 publications

References 44 publications

Prevalence of and motives for pharmacological neuroenhancement in Switzerland-results from a national internet panel

Prevalence of and motives for pharmacological neuroenhancement in Switzerland-results from a national internet panel

Should we use Commitment Contracts to Regulate Student use of Cognitive Enhancing Drugs?

Pharmacological cognitive enhancementâ€”how neuroscientific research could advance ethical debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About