Cynthia Forlini

Disagreements with implications: diverging discourses on the ethics of non-medical use of methylphenidate for performance enhancement

BackgroundThere is substantial evidence that methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin), is being used by healthy university students for non-medical motives such as the improvement of concentration, alertness, and academic performance. The scope and potential consequences of the non-medical use of MPH upon healthcare and society bring about many points of view.MethodsTo gain insight into key ethical and social issues on the non-medical use of MPH, we examined discourses in the print media, bioethics literature, and public health literature.ResultsOur study identified three diverging paradigms with varying perspectives on the nature of performance enhancement. The beneficial effects of MPH on normal cognition were generally portrayed enthusiastically in the print media and bioethics discourses but supported by scant information on associated risks. Overall, we found a variety of perspectives regarding ethical, legal and social issues related to the non-medical use of MPH for performance enhancement and its impact upon social practices and institutions. The exception to this was public health discourse which took a strong stance against the non-medical use of MPH typically viewed as a form of prescription abuse or misuse. Wide-ranging recommendations for prevention of further non-medical use of MPH included legislation and increased public education.ConclusionSome positive portrayals of the non-medical use of MPH for performance enhancement in the print media and bioethics discourses could entice further uses. Medicine and society need to prepare for more prevalent non-medical uses of neuropharmaceuticals by fostering better informed public debates.

The brain disease model of addiction: is it supported by the evidence and has it delivered on its promises?

Since 1997 the US National Institute on Drug Abuse has advocated a brain disease model of addiction (BDMA). We assess the strength of evidence for the BDMA in animals, neuroimaging studies of people with addiction, and current research on the role of genetics in addiction. We critically assess claims about the medical and social benefits of use of the BDMA because the social implications are often implied as a reason to accept this model. Furthermore, we argue that the BDMA is not supported by animal and neuroimaging evidence to the extent its advocates suggest; it has not helped to deliver more effective treatments for addiction; and its effect on public policies toward drugs and people with addiction has been modest. The focus of the BDMA is on disordered neurobiology in a minority of severely addicted individuals, which undermines the implementation of effective and cost-effective policies at the population level to discourage people from smoking tobacco and drinking heavily. The pursuit of high technology direct brain interventions to cure addiction when most individuals with addiction do not have access to effective psychosocial and drug treatments is questionable.

Stakeholder perspectives and reactions to “academic” cognitive enhancement: Unsuspected meaning of ambivalence and analogies

The existence of diverging discourses in the media and academia on the use of prescription medications to improve cognition in healthy individuals, i.e. “cognitive enhancement” (CE) creates the need to better understand perspectives from stakeholders. This qualitative focus-group study examined perspectives from students, parents and healthcare providers on CE. Stakeholders expressed ambivalence regarding CE (i.e. reactions to, definitions of, risks, and benefits). They were reluctant to adopt analogies to performance-enhancing steroids and caffeine though these analogies were useful in discussing concepts common to the use of different performance-enhancing substances. Media coverage of CE was criticized for lack of scientific rigor, ethical clarity, and inadvertent promotion of CE. Ambivalence of stakeholders suggests fundamental discomfort with economic and social driving forces of CE. Forms of public dialogue that voice the unease and ambivalence of stakeholders should be pursued to avoid opting hastily for permissive or restrictive health policies for CE.

Expectations regarding cognitive enhancement create substantial challenges

A recent discussion on cognitive enhancers has caused some controversy in the ethics and neuroscience fields by coming out in favour of making neuropharmaceuticals with enhancing properties available for general consumption. We highlight in this brief commentary why concerns regarding efficacy and safety, demands on resources, and public health are substantive enough to warrant serious reconsideration before pharmaceutical performance enhancement can be widely supported.

Added Stakeholders, Added Value(s) to the Cognitive Enhancement Debate: Are Academic Discourse and Professional Policies Sidestepping Values of Stakeholders?

Background: The debate on the nonmedical use of prescription medication for the enhancement of cognitive function (e.g., attention, memory, concentration, vigilance), accompanied by heated public discussions in the media, has spurred the interest of scholars and the public. Methods: In this article, we present qualitative data from a focus-group study with university students, parents, and health care providers. We identified ethical, social, and legal issues related to the nonmedical use of methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement (CE) and closely examined the positions taken on these issues and their supporting arguments. Results: The ethical, social, and legal issues we identified (e.g., authenticity, cheating) were similar to those identified in a previous discourse analysis of the bioethics literature but indicate the existence of moderately and highly contentious issues as well as factors and values underlying these issues. The model we generated from these findings shows how interplay between values (e.g., effort and honesty) and external factors (e.g., regulation and access) may lie at the root of contentious ethical issues in CE. Conclusions: Our discussion points to an unsuspected complexity in understanding the values of stakeholders and an unclear relationship to academic discourse and professional societies. We propose deliberative or other democratic processes as a way to recognize and incorporate the complexity of the CE debate.

Impact of Contextual Factors and Substance Characteristics on Perspectives toward Cognitive Enhancement

Enhancing cognitive performance with substances–especially prescription drugs–is a fiercely debated topic among scholars and in the media. The empirical basis for these discussions is limited, given that the actual nature of factors that influence the acceptability of and willingness to use cognitive enhancement substances remains unclear. In an online factorial survey, contextual and substance-specific characteristics of substances that improve academic performance were varied experimentally and presented to respondents. Students in four German universities rated their willingness to use and moral acceptance of different substances for cognitive enhancement. We found that the overall willingness to use performance enhancing substances is low. Most respondents considered the use of these substances as morally unacceptable. Situational influences such as peer pressure, policies concerning substance use, relative performance level of peers, but also characteristics of the substance, such as perceptions of substance safety, shape the willingness and acceptability of using a substance to enhance academic performance. Among the findings is evidence of a contagion effect meaning that the willingness was higher when the respondents have more CE drug users in their social network. We also found deterrence effects from strong side effects of using the substance, as well as from policy regulations and sanctions. Regulations might activate social norms against usage and sanctions can be seen as costly to users. Moreover, enhancement substances seem to be most tempting to low performers to catch up with others compared to high performers. By identifying contextual factors and substance characteristics influencing the willingness and acceptability of cognitive enhancers, policy approaches could consider these insights to better manage the use of such substances.

Navigating the enhancement landscape. Ethical issues in research on cognitive enhancers for healthy individuals.

Research into the efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers for recreational or lifestyle use has not been done. Should society pay for studies that might improve the lives of already healthy people?

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.

Food Addiction and Its Impact on Weight-Based Stigma and the Treatment of Obese Individuals in the U.S. and Australia

It is argued that food addiction explanations of obesity may reduce the significant stigma levelled at obese and overweight individuals. We surveyed 479 adults to determine the prevalence of food addiction in the U.S. (n = 215) and, for the first time, in Australia (n = 264) using the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS). We also assessed the level of weight-based stigma in this population. The prevalence of food addiction in our Australian sample was 11%, similar to U.S. participants and consistent with previous studies. Those who met criteria for diagnosis had a larger mean BMI (33.8 kg/m2) than those who did not (26.5 kg/m2). Overall, the level of stigma towards others was low and differed significantly based on BMI, predominately among normal weight and obese participants (p = 0.0036). Obese individuals scored higher on certain measures of stigma, possibly reflecting individual experiences of stigma rather than negative attitudes towards other obese individuals (p = 0.0091). Despite significant support for a “food addiction” explanation of obesity, participants still valued personal responsibility in overcoming obesity and did not support coercive approaches to treat their “addiction”.

Australian University Students’ Coping Strategies and Use of Pharmaceutical Stimulants as Cognitive Enhancers

Background: There are reports that some university students are using prescription stimulants for non-medical ‘pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement (PCE)’ to improve alertness, focus, memory, and mood in an attempt to manage the demands of study at university. Purported demand for PCEs in academic contexts have been based on incomplete understandings of student motivations, and often based on untested assumptions about the context within which stimulants are used. They may represent attempts to cope with biopsychosocial stressors in university life by offsetting students’ inadequate coping responses, which in turn may affect their cognitive performance. This study aimed to identify (a) what strategies students adopted to cope with the stress of university life and, (b) to assess whether students who have used stimulants for PCE exhibit particular stress or coping patterns. Methods: We interviewed 38 university students (with and without PCE experience) about their experience of managing student life, specifically their: educational values; study habits; achievement; stress management; getting assistance; competing activities and demands; health habits; and cognitive enhancement practices. All interview transcripts were coded into themes and analyzed. Results: Our thematic analysis revealed that, generally, self-rated coping ability decreased as students’ self-rated stress level increased. Students used emotion- and problem-focused coping for the most part and adjustment-focused coping to a lesser extent. Avoidance, an emotion-focused coping strategy, was the most common, followed by problem-focused coping strategies, the use of cognition on enhancing substances, and planning and monitoring of workload. PCE users predominantly used avoidant emotion-focused coping strategies until they no longer mitigated the distress of approaching deadlines resulting in the use of prescription stimulants as a substance-based problem-focused coping strategy. Conclusion: Our study suggests that students who choose coping responses that do not moderate stress where possible, may cause themselves additional distress and avoid learning more effective coping responses. Helping students to understand stress and coping, and develop realistic stress appraisal techniques, may assist students in general to maintain manageable distress levels and functioning. Furthermore, assisting students who may be inclined to use prescription stimulants for cognitive enhancement may reduce possible drug-related harms.