Neuroenhancement among Swiss Students – A Comparison of Users and Non-Users

Abstract

Introduction: 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. Methods: An online survey was sent out to all undergraduate and graduate students of the University of Z?rich 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. Results: 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). Discussion: 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.

Empirical Support for the Moral Salience of the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction in the Debate Over Cognitive, Affective and Social Enhancement

“…Distributive justice is one of the cardinal concerns of the enhancement debate, mentioned as an important issue by nearly all commentators [22,23,57]. One interpretation of our results is that they contradict a large body of empirical research focused on concerns regarding inequality of access to pharmacological CAS enhancement [22,46,[58][59][60][61][62][63][64]. It is worth noting that the key difference between our results and these previous studies is that participants were unprompted as to potential causes of their discomfort towards the use of pharmacological CAS enhancement.…”

Who Uses Direct-to-Consumer Brain Stimulation Products, and Why? A Study of Home Users of tDCS Devices

“…Although the hypothetical enhancement technologies presented in the Pew study (synthetic blood transfusions, brain chip implants, gene editing) are far more invasive than tDCS, this study-which found that consumers of tDCS devices are less religious than the US population-suggests that religiosity may be a factor in individual willingness to adopt even less invasive enhancement technologies such as tDCS. Indeed, a study comparing Swiss student users of cognitive enhancement drugs to non-users found that a higher percentage of users were not affiliated with any religion, and that more users than non-users rated religion as Bnot important^ (Ott and Biller-Andorno 2014).…”

“…Although previous studies have examined the demographics, motivations, and attitudes of those who utilize cognitive enhancement drugs (e.g., Eickenhorst et al 2012;Ragan et al 2013;Forlini et al 2014;Ott and Biller-Andorno 2014;Vargo and Petróczi 2016;Riddell et al 2017), there is little data to-date on similar measures for those who utilize brain stimulation devices marketed for cognitive enhancement. In addition, while many studies on the use of cognitive enhancement drugs have focused on local populations, often comprised of university students, the methodology employed here allowed for the examination of a unique sample that cut across a wide array of ages and geographical locations.…”

“…In addition, while many studies on the use of cognitive enhancement drugs have focused on local populations, often comprised of university students, the methodology employed here allowed for the examination of a unique sample that cut across a wide array of ages and geographical locations. As users of pharmacological cognitive enhancement often source their drugs informally or illicitly (Ott and Biller-Andorno 2014;Vargo and Petróczi 2016), a similar methodology would not likely be feasible in that context. Furthermore, this study is one of the few to compare sociodemographics and attitudes of users of cognitive enhancement products-particularly with regard to education, income, political views, and views on religion and scienceto existing population data.…”

Methylphenidate Misuse in Adults: Survey of 414 Primary Care Physicians in Germany and Comparison with the Literature

“…In total, 90% of the people received methylphenidate free of charge [27]. 58% of the students who misuse stimulants Lifetime prevalence: 55% thought it was easy to obtain them [23].…”