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

Why (not) enhance the brain? A mixed-methods exploration of the acceptability and desirability of neuroenhancement

Neuroenhancement, the prospect of enhancing mental and cognitive capacities, raises important ethical questions that have been widely debated in academic and public spheres. However, little is known about how values shape people’s attitudes towards this phenomenon, and how these attitudes vary across contexts and countries. This thesis addresses this gap by using a mixed-methods approach to empirically investigate the views of the public in five countries: Austria, Germany, Hungary, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and the perspectives of neuroenhancement users. The thesis consists of three main empirical studies. The first study analyses data from a representative multi-national survey that included two contrastive vignette experiments and a series of attitude questions. The study identifies two value orientations – the Societal-Restrictive and the Individual-Permissive stances – that underpin people’s views on neuroenhancement. The study also reveals the diversity and complexity of reasoning about neuroenhancement among different segments of the public, using cluster analysis methods and open-ended qualitative survey responses. The second empirical component of the work is an exploratory micro-study of a UK brain hacker collective. The findings highlight the heterogeneity of personal motivations for involvement in brain hacking. This work reveals that in contrast to the productivity-oriented pursuit of pharmacological neuroenhancement, brain hackers pursue a wider range of goals and are motivated by broader, more ambitious values. The third empirical chapter is based on repeat interviews conducted with users of a sensory augmentation device. It offers insights into the Proactionary Milieu, which is characterized by a culture of openness to risk, innovation, and self-experimentation in pursuit of a vision of voluntary cyborgisation and enhancement. The study tracks user experiences over time, uncovering motivations, experiences, and reflections on the successes and failures of the practical pursuit of transhumanism. The thesis argues that public attitudes towards neuroenhancement are not monolithic, but rather reflect the interplay of personal and social values and goals, as well as moral and practical considerations

Troubles with Posthumanism

Fortschritte im Bereich der Medizin und der Biotechnologie haben vorher als fundamental und solide geltenden Grenzziehungen, wie jene zwischen natürlich-künstlich oder lebendig-tot disloziert und verunsichert. Mit dem Verschwimmen der scharfen Trennung zwischen heilenden, restitutiven Eingriffen und verbessernden, optimierenden Massnahmen wird es allmählich möglich werden explizit in die „menschliche Natur“ einzugreifen um erwünschte Modifikationen zu unternehmen. Die Diplomarbeit beschäftigt sich mit dem Fragenkomplex der verbessernden Technologien und besteht aus drei Teilen. Zuerst soll eine historische Rekonstruktion der Idee der technologischen Verbesserung des Menschen gegeben werden. Es handelt sich um eine ideengeschichtliche Skizzierung die vor Augen führen wird, wie umfangreich die Geschichte dieser Idee ist und welche philosophische Strömungen auf gegenwärtige Positionen Einfluss ausgeübt haben. Diese geschichtliche Einführung führt zu den gegenwärtigen Debatten um die Normativität der menschlichen Natur, bzw. der Frage in welchem Verhältnis technologische Manipulationen zum Menschen stehen. Im zweiten Teil sollen also wichtige Autoren der aktuellen Debatte diskutiert werden, wie Jürgen Habermas und Francis Fukuyama, die von einer starken Normativität der menschlichen Natur ausgehen und meinen, dass die Grenzen der technologischen Verfügbarmachung in der menschlichen Natur liegen. Andererseits kommen auch solche Autoren zum Wort die in neuen technologischen Möglichkeiten eine Chance sehen die Schränke des Menschseins zu durchbrechen und eine helle „posthumane“ Zukunft einzuleiten. Auf der Grundlage von technikphilosophischen Argumenten wie jene von Donna Haraway und Katherine Hayles versucht die Arbeit die These stark zu machen, dass beide Positionen in der Debatte das ko-konstitutive Verhältnis zwischen Mensch und Technik viel zu wenig beachten. Beide Gruppen fassen Technik im Sinne eines Instruments auf mithilfe dessen die menschliche Natur entweder beschmutzt oder befreit werden kann. Im Gegensatz, scheinen Verbesserungs-, und konvergierenden Technologien andere Fragen aufzuwerfen, wenn wir das Verhältnis komplexer denken. Im dritten Teil wird Technik weder als Mittel zur Befreiung, noch als eine drohende Form der Instrumentalisierung und Entmenschlichung aufgefasst sondern etwas viel ambivalenteres das sowohl befreiende als auch potentiell unterdrückende Potentiale birgt. Rückgreifend auf Foucault´s Konzept der Biopolitik und der Governmentality Studies werden einige wichtige Züge der gegenwärtigen biopolitischen Landschaft diskutiert. Im Vordergrund stehen die Verallgemeinerung eines Risikodenkens und die wachsende Rolle vor preventiven Maßnahnamen und Screening-Verfahren

Public views on gene editing and its uses

Rapid advances in genome editing and its potential application in medicine and enhancement have been hotly debated by scientists and ethicists. Although it has been proposed that germline gene editing be discouraged for the time being1, the use of gene editing in somatic human cells in the clinical context remains controversial, particularly for interventions aimed at enhancement2. In a report on human genome editing, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS; Washington, DC) notes that “important questions raised with respect to genome editing include how to incorporate societal values into salient clinical and policy considerations”3. We report here our research that opens a window onto what the public thinks about these issues

Bottom up ethics - neuroenhancement in education and employment

Neuroenhancement involves the use of neurotechnologies to improve cognitive, affective or behavioural functioning, where these are not judged to be clinically impaired. Questions about enhancement have become one of the key topics of neuroethics over the past decade. The current study draws on in-depth public engagement activities in ten European countries giving a bottom-up perspective on the ethics and desirability of enhancement. This informed the design of an online contrastive vignette experiment that was administered to representative samples of 1000 respondents in the ten countries and the United States. The experiment investigated how the gender of the protagonist, his or her level of performance, the efficacy of the enhancer and the mode of enhancement affected support for neuroenhancement in both educational and employment contexts. Of these, higher efficacy and lower performance were found to increase willingness to support enhancement. A series of commonly articulated claims about the individual and societal dimensions of neuroenhancement were derived from the public engagement activities. Underlying these claims, multivariate analysis identified two social values. The Societal/Protective highlights counter normative consequences and opposes the use enhancers. The Individual/Proactionary highlights opportunities and supports use. For most respondents these values are not mutually exclusive. This suggests that for many neuroenhancement is viewed simultaneously as a source of both promise and concern