Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement—a review

A primary means for the augmentation of cognitive brain functions is “pharmacological cognitive enhancement” (PCE). The term usually refers to the off-label use of medical substances to improve mental performance in healthy individuals. With the final aim to advance the normative debate taking place on that topic, several empirical studies have been conducted to assess the attitudes toward PCE in the public, i.e., in groups outside of the academic debate. In this review, we provide an overview of the 40 empirical studies published so far, reporting both their methodology and results. Overall, we find that several concerns about the use of PCE are prevalent in the public. These concerns largely match those discussed in the normative academic debate. We present our findings structured around the three most common concerns: medical safety, coercion, and fairness. Fairness is divided into three subthemes: equality of opportunity, honesty, and authenticity. Attitudes regarding some concerns are coherent across studies (e.g., coercion), whereas for others we find mixed results (e.g., authenticity). Moreover, we find differences in how specific groups—such as users, nonusers, students, parents, and health care providers—perceive PCE: a coherent finding is that nonusers display more concerns regarding medical safety and fairness than users. We discuss potential psychological explanations for these differences

Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement-a review

\u3cp\u3eA primary means for the augmentation of cognitive brain functions is pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE). The term usually refers to the off-label use of medical substances to improve mental performance in healthy individuals. With the final aim to advance the normative debate taking place on that topic, several empirical studies have been conducted to assess the attitudes toward PCE in the public, i.e., in groups outside of the academic debate. In this review, we provide an overview of the 40 empirical studies published so far, reporting both their methodology and results. Overall, we find that several concerns about the use of PCE are prevalent in the public. These concerns largely match those discussed in the normative academic debate. We present our findings structured around the three most common concerns: medical safety, coercion, and fairness. Fairness is divided into three subthemes: equality of opportunity, honesty, and authenticity. Attitudes regarding some concerns are coherent across studies (e.g., coercion), whereas for others we find mixed results (e.g., authenticity). Moreover, we find differences in how specific groups-such as users, nonusers, students, parents, and health care providers-perceive PCE: a coherent finding is that nonusers display more concerns regarding medical safety and fairness than users. We discuss potential psychological explanations for these differences.\u3c/p\u3

Crowdsourcing user and design research

Crowdsourcing can be defined as a task, which is usually performed by an employee, that is given out as an open call to a crowd of users to be completed. Although crowdsourcing has been growing in recent years, its application to design research and education has only scratched the surface of its potential. In this chapter we first introduce the different types of crowdsourcing. Then, following the typical design cycle we present examples from literature and cases from an educational setting of how crowdsourcing can support designers. Based on these examples we provide a list of tips for utilizing crowdsourcing for design and user research activities

Wastewater-based tracing of doping use by the general population and amateur athletes

The present study investigates the applicability of the chemical analysis of wastewater to assess the use of doping substances by the general population and amateur athletes. To this end, an analytical methodology that can identify and quantify a list of 15 substances from the groups of anabolic steroids, weight loss products, and masking agents in wastewater has been developed. The method uses solid phase extraction to increase the detection sensitivity of the target analytes, expected to be present at very low concentrations (ng L−1 range), and decrease possible matrix interferences. Instrumental analysis is performed by liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry, allowing data acquisition in both full scan and tandem MS mode. The method has been successfully validated at two concentration levels (50 and 200 ng L−1) with limits of quantification ranging between 0.7 and 60 ng L−1, intra- and inter-day precision expressed as relative standard deviation below 15%, procedural recoveries between 60 and 160% and matrix effects ranging from 45 to 121%. The stability of the analytes in wastewater was evaluated at different storage temperatures illustrating the importance of freezing the samples immediately after collection. The application of the method to 24-h composite wastewater samples collected at the entrance of three wastewater treatment plants and one pumping station while different sport events were taking place revealed the presence in wastewater, and hence the use, of the weight loss substances ephedrine, norephedrine, methylhexanamine, and 2,4-dinitrophenol. The use of these stimulants was visible just prior and during the event days and in greater amounts than anabolic steroids or masking agents