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

Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
EMBO Reports (Impact Factor: 7.86). 01/2013; DOI: 10.1038/embor.2012.225
Source: PubMed
  • Source
    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 01/2013; 7:874. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00874 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Progress toward pharmacological means for enhancing memory and cognition has been retarded by the widely discussed failure of behavioral studies in animals to predict human outcomes. As a result, a number of groups have targeted cognition-related neurobiological mechanisms in animal models, with the assumption that these basic processes are highly conserved across mammals. Here we survey one such approach that begins with a form of synaptic plasticity intimately related to memory encoding in animals and likely operative in humans. An initial section will describe a detailed hypothesis concerning the signaling and structural events (a "substrate map") that convert learning associated patterns of afferent activity into extremely stable increases in fast, excitatory transmission. We next describe results suggesting that all instances of intellectual impairment so far tested in rodent models involve a common endpoint failure in the substrate map. This will be followed by a clinically plausible proposal for obviating the ultimate defect in these models. We then take up the question of whether it is reasonable to expect, from either general principles or a very limited set of experimental results, that enhancing memory will expand the cognitive capabilities of high functioning brains. The final section makes several suggestions about how to improve translation of behavioral results from animals to humans. Collectively, the material covered here points to the following: (1) enhancement, in the sense of rescue, is not an unrealistic possibility for a broad array of neuropsychiatric disorders; (2) serendipity aside, developing means for improving memory in normals will likely require integration of information about mechanisms with new behavioral testing strategies; (3) a shift in emphasis from synapses to networks is a next, logical step in the evolution of the cognition enhancement field.
    Frontiers in Neuroscience 08/2013; 7:143. DOI:10.3389/fnins.2013.00143
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This survey aims to contribute to the current discussion about neuroenhancement by comparing cognitive enhancer(s) (CE) users with CE non-users with a focus on their characteristics and attitudes.An online survey was sent out to all undergraduate and graduate students of the University of Zürich who allow such e-mails (n=8 642), accompanied by advertisement for the survey in lectures. 1 765 students completed the survey, which was about healthy people's use of Ritalin, Adderall and/or Modasomil to increase concentration and/or alertness. A complementary paper-and-pencil survey (n=97 students, response rate: 95.1%) was also carried out in order to compare data.Non-therapeutic CE users (6.2%) were more often male, considered religion to be of less importance and had more experience with drugs. CE had been taken for study purposes by 4.7% of all students. CE users had tried Ritalin most often, which about half of them received from friends and colleagues. The CE users had more reasons for and fewer concerns about taking CE than non-users. The most common reasons for both groups were "the effects of learning quicker" and "for finishing more work in less time". The most common concerns for both groups were "the worries about possible side effects" and "the goal of CE to achieve more", and "an unnatural interference of such products with our bodies" (CE-users) or "the gut feeling of not using such products" (CE non-users).The comparison of CE users with CE non-users reveals insights about their attitudes, which will add to the understanding of why students take or could imagine taking such products.
    Pharmacopsychiatry 11/2013; 47(1). DOI:10.1055/s-0033-1358682 · 2.17 Impact Factor