Ethics

Interesting new study of attitudes towards enhancing concentration, mood & memory (Reiner)

By Peter Reiner

BERGSTROM &  LYNOE have an intriguing new paper in the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health entitled, "Enhancing concentration, mood and memory in healthy individuals: An empirical study of attitudes among general practitioners and the general population."  The abstract is reprinted below.

To study attitudes towards enhancing concentration, mood and memory in healthy individuals among the general public and general practitioners (GPs). Methods: A questionnaire consisting of vignettes including three cases dealing with enhancement of concentration, mood and memory was sent during 2006 to 1000 randomly selected people from Stockholm and 300 GPs. We asked about the use of pharmaceuticals for healthy individuals for the benefit of others and the benefit to oneself; we also asked whether or not society should pay the cost. Finally, we asked about enhancement of healthy people?s concentration, mood and memory through the use of natural remedies. Results: Fifty-two per cent of the general public and 39% of the GPs responded. While the use of natural remedies was perceived as fairly acceptable, majorities in both groups were negative with regard to the use of pharmaceuticals to enhance concentration, mood and memory in a healthy individual. The general public tended to be less negative than the GPs. There was a significant difference between the reasons for providing enhancement; altruistic reasons seem to be more acceptable than egoistic ones. For both groups, enhancing mood was more controversial than enhancing memory. Conclusions: Despite the large dropout rate, the study indicates that enhancement by means of natural remedies of different human capacities is acceptable to the general public, while only small minorities of both groups are inclined to allow the use of pharmaceuticals. When compared to the egoistic reason, the altruistic one for enhancing concentration, mood and memory with pharmaceuticals seems to influence the general public?s inclination to support prescriptions; this was also the case among the GPs, but only as regards mood enhancement.

It is worth noting that in this study, the scenario presented was one in which the enahncement technology was safe, and yet the majority of individuals, both physicians and members of the public did not approve of enhancing normal traits.  Interestingly, the general public was much more accepting of enhancing concentration and memory in normal people than general practitioners, while similar percentages of physicians and members of the public were supportive of enhancing mood in normal individuals. 

Hat tip to the Canadian Neuroethics Interest Group and their Brainstorm Literature Update

Full post as published by Neuroethics and Law on October 15, 2008 (boomark / email).