A comparison of attitudes toward cognitive enhancement and legalized doping in sport in a community sample of Australian adults

Background: This article compares public attitudes toward the use of prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement with the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. We explore attitudes toward the acceptability of both practices; the extent to which familiarity with cognitive enhancement is related to its perceived acceptability; and relationships between the acceptability of cognitive enhancement and legalized doping in sport. Methods: A survey was administered through a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system to members of the Australian general public aged 18-101 years in the state of Queensland. Results: Of 1,265 participants, 7% agreed that cognitive enhancement is acceptable; 2.4% of the total sample said they had taken prescription drugs to enhance their concentration or alertness in the absence of a diagnosed disorder, and a further 8% said they knew someone who had done so. These participants were twice as likely to think cognitive enhancement was acceptable. Only 3.6% of participants agreed that people who play professional sport should be allowed to use performance-enhancing drugs if they wanted to. Participants who found cognitive enhancement acceptable were 9.5 times more likely to agree with legalized doping. Conclusions: Policies that facilitated the use of prescription drugs by healthy people for cognitive enhancement or permitted performance-enhancing drugs in sport would be at odds with the attitudes of the vast majority of our participants. Furthermore, our findings do not support media claims that the use of prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement is widespread in all sectors of society

Public attitudes towards the acceptability of using drugs to treat depression and ADHD

Objective: This paper examines public attitudes towards the acceptability of using prescription drugs to treat depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and whether attitudes are influenced by familiarity with the use of pharmacological treatments for these disorders

Building Bridges, Building Power: Developments in Institution-Based Community Organizing

Community organizing in America is alive and well and being vigorously practiced in the version we call institution- based community organizing.\u27 This national study shows that in the last decade institution- based community organizing has significantly increased its power base as it continues to bridge divides that deeply be- devil American politics—-divides of racial and ethnic identity, religion, socio-economic status, geography, and immigrant-na- tive background. This study details the dynamic expansion of the field over the last decade, outlines the impres- sive \u27bridging social capital\u27 it generates, discusses ways it has overcome the strategic limita- tions that previously undermined the field, and identifies some of the ongoing challenges that remain. We argue throughout that institution-based community organizing is poised to be an important strategic partner in the democratic renewal of America.\u2

Why don’t smokers want help to quit? A qualitative study of smokers’ attitudes towards assisted versus unassisted quitting

The development of prescription medication for smoking cessation and the introduction of evidence-based guidelines for health professionals has increasingly medicalised smoking cessation. There are debates about whether medicalisation is a positive development, or whether it has devalued unassisted quitting. In this debate the views of smokers have been neglected. This study explored the attitudes of smokers towards a range of quitting methods, and their considerations when judging their value. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 smokers and analysed data using thematic analysis. The results show that the perceived nature of an individual smoker's addiction was central to judgments about the value of pharmacological cessation aids, as was personal experience with a method, and how well it was judged to align with an individual's situation and personality. Unassisted quitting was often described as the best method. Negative views of pharmacological cessation aids were frequently expressed, particularly concerns about side effects from prescription medications. Smokers' views about the value of different methods were not independent: attitudes about cessation aids were shaped by positive attitudes towards unassisted quitting. Examining smokers' attitudes towards either assisted or unassisted quitting in isolation provides incomplete information on quitting preferences

Researchers’ perspectives on scientific and ethical issues with transcranial direct current stimulation: An international survey

In the last decade, an increasing number of studies have suggested that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may enhance brain function in healthy individuals, and ameliorate cognitive and other symptoms in patients suffering from various medical conditions. This, along with its presumed safety, simplicity, and affordability, has generated great enthusiasm amongst researchers, clinicians, patient populations, and the public (including a growing "do-it-yourself" community). However, discussion about the effectiveness and ethics of tDCS thus far has been confined to small groups of tDCS researchers and bioethicists. We conducted an international online survey targeting the opinions of researchers using tDCS who were asked to rate the technique's efficacy in different contexts. We also surveyed opinions about ethical concerns, self-enhancement and public availability. 265 complete responses were received and analyzed statistically and thematically. Our results emphasize the potential uses of tDCS in clinical and research contexts, but also highlight a number of emerging methodological and safety concerns, ethical challenges and the need for improved communication between researchers and bioethicists with regard to regulation of the device. Neither the media reputation of tDCS as a "miracle device" nor concerns expressed in recent neuroethical publications were entirely borne out in expert opinion

Female Sensitivity to Diet and Irradiation Treatments Underlies Sex-Mortality Differentials in the Mediterranean Fruit Fly

Large-scale experiments on medflies that were subjected to sterilizing doses of ionizing radiation (plus intact controls) and maintained on either sugar-only or full, protein-enriched diets revealed that, whereas the mortality trajectories of both intact and irradiated male cohorts maintained on both diets are similar, the mortality patterns of females are highly variable. Mean mortality rates at 35 days in male cohorts ranged from 0.2 to 0.3 but in female cohorts ranged from 0.09 to 0.35, depending on treatment. The study reports three main influences: (a) qualitative differences exist in the sex–mortality response of medflies subjected to dietary manipulations and irradiation, (b) the female mortality response is linked to increased vulnerability due to the nutritional demands of reproduction, and (c) female sensitivity to environmental changes underlies the dynamics of the sex-mortality differential

Sport-related concussion research agenda beyond medical science: culture, ethics, science policy

The Concussion in Sport Group guidelines have successfully brought the attention of brain injuries to the global medical and sport research communities, and has significantly impacted brain injury-related practices and rules of international sport. Despite being the global repository of state-of-the-art science, diagnostic tools and guides to clinical practice, the ensuing consensus statements remain the object of ethical and sociocultural criticism. The purpose of this paper is to bring to bear a broad range of multidisciplinary challenges to the processes and products of sport-related concussion movement. We identify lacunae in scientific research and clinical guidance in relation to age, disability, gender and race. We also identify, through multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary analysis, a range of ethical problems resulting from conflicts of interest, processes of attributing expertise in sport-related concussion, unjustifiably narrow methodological control and insufficient athlete engagement in research and policy development. We argue that the sport and exercise medicine community need to augment the existing research and practice foci to understand these problems more holistically and, in turn, provide guidance and recommendations that help sport clinicians better care for brain-injured athletes