Knowledge, Experiences and Views of German University Students Toward Neuroenhancement: An Empirical-Ethical Analysis
- 687 Downloads
Across normative and empirical disciplines, considerable attention has been devoted to the prevalence and ethics of the non-medical use of prescription and illegal stimulants for neuroenhancement among students. A predominant assumption is that neuroenhancement is prevalent, in demand, and calls for appropriate policy action. In this paper, we present data on the prevalence, views and knowledge from a large sample of German students in three different universities (n = 1,026) and analyze the findings from a moral pragmatics perspective. The results of our study indicate that neuroenhancement is a well-known phenomenon among German students, but not prevalent. 2.2 % of our sample reported having used a prescription medication for neuroenhancement. Exams and competitive situations were predominant motivators of use. Students were unenthusiastic and critical about neuroenhancement in the academic context and disapproved of neuroenhancement for professionals. The majority of respondents agreed that neuroenhancing substances should be regulated by the state. These stances were based on strong beliefs in resisting peer pressure, avoiding the creation of injustice and valuing of hard work. From a moral pragmatics standpoint, these results challenge the assumption that policy on neuroenhancement is necessary in academic environments.
KeywordsNeuroenhancement Empirical ethics Moral pragmatics
Jan Schildmann, Patrik Roser and Radim Beranek are members of the Global Young Faculty II, an initiative of Stiftung Mercator in cooperation with the University Alliance Ruhr (UA Ruhr), coordinated by the Mercator Research Center Ruhr (MERCUR) in Essen. Cynthia Forlini conducted this work as part of an International Visiting Fellowship in Medical Ethics at the Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr-University Bochum. We would like to thank Bettina Plum, Birte Dahmen and Antje Hütten for their support of data collection and management.
- 9.British Medical Association. 2007. Boosting your brainpower: Ethical aspects of cognitive enhancement. London: British Medical Association.Google Scholar
- 12.Commission de l’éthique de la science et la technologie. 2009. Position Statement on Psychotropic Drugs and Expanded Uses: An Ethical Perspective. Québec.Google Scholar
- 13.Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2013. Novel neurotechnologies: Intervening in the brain. London.Google Scholar
- 14.President’s Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond therapy. Washington, DC: President’s Council on Bioethics/Harper Collins.Google Scholar
- 19.Ott, R., and N. Biller-Andorno. 2014. Neuroenhancement among Swiss students—A comparison of users and non-users. Pharmacopsychiatry 47(1): 22–28.Google Scholar
- 20.Deline, S., S. Baggio, J. Studer, A.A. N’Goran, M. Dupuis, Y. Henchoz, M. Mohler-Kuo, J.B. Daeppen, and G. Gmel. 2014. Use of neuroenhancement drugs: Prevalence, frequency and use expectations in Switzerland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11(3): 3032–3045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Birnbacher, D. 1993. Welche Ethik ist als Bioethik tauglich. In Herausforderungen der Bioethik, ed. J.S. Ach and A. Gaidt, 45–67. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
- 31.Repantis, D., Peter Schlattmann, Oona Lainsey, and Isabella Heuser. 2008. Antidepressants for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Poiesis & Praxis 6(3–4): 139–174.Google Scholar
- 48.Sarewitz, D., and T.H. Karas. 2012. Policy implications of technologies for cognitive enhancement. In Neurotechnology: Promises, potential and problems, ed. James Giordano, 268–286. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- 49.Strech D., J. Schildmann. 2011. Quality of ethical guidelines and ethical content in clinical guidelines: the example of end-of-life decision-making. Journal of Medical Ethics 2011 37: 390–6.Google Scholar