Smart Drugs “As Common As Coffee”: Media Hype about Neuroenhancement

Background: The use of prescription drugs to improve cognitive functioning in normal persons -"neuroenhancement" - has gained recent attention from bioethicists and neuroscientists. Enthusiasts claim that the practice is widespread and increasing, and has many potential benefits; however recent evidence provides weak support for these claims. In this study we explored how the newsprint media portrays neuroenhancement

Lifespan extension and the doctrine of double effect

Recent developments in biogerontology—the study of the biology of ageing—suggest that it may eventually be possible to intervene in the human ageing process. This, in turn, offers the prospect of significantly postponing the onset of age-related diseases. The biogerontological project, however, has met with strong resistance, especially by deontologists. They consider the act of intervening in the ageing process impermissible on the grounds that it would (most probably) bring about an extended maximum lifespan—a state of affairs that they deem intrinsically bad. In a bid to convince their deontological opponents of the permissibility of this act, proponents of biogerontology invoke an argument which is grounded in the doctrine of double effect. Surprisingly, their argument, which we refer to as the ‘double effect argument’, has gone unnoticed. This article exposes and critically evaluates this ‘double effect argument’. To this end, we first review a series of excerpts from the ethical debate on biogerontology in order to substantiate the presence of double effect reasoning. Next, we attempt to determine the role that the ‘double effect argument’ is meant to fulfil within this debate. Finally, we assess whether the act of intervening in ageing actually can be justified using double effect reasoning

Public understandings of addiction: where do neurobiological explanations fit?

Developments in the field of neuroscience, according to its proponents, offer the prospect of an enhanced understanding and treatment of addicted persons. Consequently, its advocates consider that improving public understanding of addiction neuroscience is a desirable aim. Those critical of neuroscientific approaches, however, charge that it is a totalising, reductive perspective–one that ignores other known causes in favour of neurobiological explanations. Sociologist Nikolas Rose has argued that neuroscience, and its associated technologies, are coming to dominate cultural models to the extent that 'we' increasingly understand ourselves as 'neurochemical selves'. Drawing on 55 qualitative interviews conducted with members of the Australian public residing in the Greater Brisbane area, we challenge both the 'expectational discourses' of neuroscientists and the criticisms of its detractors. Members of the public accepted multiple perspectives on the causes of addiction, including some elements of neurobiological explanations. Their discussions of addiction drew upon a broad range of philosophical, sociological, anthropological, psychological and neurobiological vocabularies, suggesting that they synthesised newer technical understandings, such as that offered by neuroscience, with older ones. Holding conceptual models that acknowledge the complexity of addiction aetiology into which new information is incorporated suggests that the impact of neuroscientific discourse in directing the public's beliefs about addiction is likely to be more limited than proponents or opponents of neuroscience expect

Views of addiction neuroscientists and clinicians on the clinical impact of a ‘Brain Disease Model of Addiction’

Addiction is increasingly described as a "chronic and relapsing brain disease". The potential impact of the brain disease model on the treatment of addiction or addicted individuals' treatment behaviour remains uncertain. We conducted a qualitative study to examine: (i) the extent to which leading Australian addiction neuroscientists and clinicians accept the brain disease view of addiction; and (ii) their views on the likely impacts of this view on addicted individuals' beliefs and behaviour. Thirty-one Australian addiction neuroscientists and clinicians (10 females and 21 males; 16 with clinical experience and 15 with no clinical experience) took part in 1 h semi-structured interviews. Most addiction neuroscientists and clinicians did not uncritically support the use of brain disease model of addiction. Most were cautious about the potential for adverse impacts on individuals' recovery and motivation to enter treatment. While some recognised the possibility that the brain disease model of addiction may provide a rationale for addicted persons to seek treatment and motivate behaviour change, Australian addiction neuroscientist and clinicians do not assume that messages about "diseased brains" will always lead to increased treatment-seeking and reduced drug use. Research is needed on how neuroscience research could be used in ways that optimise positive outcomes for addicted persons

What does 'acceptance' mean? Public reflections on the idea that addiction is a brain disease

Public responses to the dissemination of neuroscientific explanations of addiction and other mental disorders are an interesting sociocultural phenomenon. We investigated how 55 members of the Australian public deliberated on the idea that 'addiction is a brain disease'. Our findings point to the diverse ways in which the public understands and utilises this proposition. Interviewees readily accepted that drugs affect brain functioning but were ambivalent about whether to label addiction as a 'disease'. Contrary to the prediction of neuroscientific advocates and social science critics, acceptance of a neurobiological conception of addiction did not necessarily affect beliefs about addicted persons' responsibility for their addiction. We discuss the theoretical and applied implications of these findings. Theoretically, we examine the complexity surrounding how people adopt new knowledge and its role in reshaping ethical beliefs. We also discuss the implications of these findings for the ethics of communication of neuroscientific information to reduce stigma and enhance social support for the treatment of addicted individuals

Perceptions of HIV cure research among people living with HIV in Australia

Participation in HIV cure-related clinical trials that involve antiretroviral treatment (ART) interruption may pose substantial individual risks for people living with HIV (PLHIV) without any therapeutic benefit. As such, it is important that the views of PLHIV are considered in the design of HIV cure research trials. Examining the lived experience of PLHIV provides unique and valuable perspectives on the risks and benefits of HIV cure research. In this study, we interviewed 20 PLHIV in Australia about their knowledge and attitudes toward clinical HIV cure research and explored their views regarding participation in HIV cure clinical trials, including those that involve ART interruption. Data were analysed thematically, using both inductive and deductive coding techniques, to identity themes related to perceptions of HIV cure research and PLHIV’s assessment of the possible risks and benefits of trial participation. Study findings revealed interviewees were willing to consider participation in HIV cure research for social reasons, most notably the opportunity to help others. Concerns raised about ART interruption related to the social and emotional impact of viral rebound, including fear of onward HIV transmission and anxiety about losing control. These findings reveal the ways in which PLHIV perspectives deepen our understanding of HIV cure research, moving beyond a purely clinical assessment of risks and benefits in order to consider the social context