ReviewFrontiers in systems neuroscience2014
Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement-a review.
Review in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individual differences and motives for the acceptance of cognitive enhancement: A mixed-methods investigation.PloS one · 2026Article
- Exploring Cognitive Enhancers: from neurotherapeutics to ethical and regulatory challenges: a mini review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Evaluating Risk and Benefit Sensitivity for Cognitive Treatments.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2025Article
- Do Medical Universities Students Use Cognitive Enhancers while Learning?-Conclusions from the Study in Poland.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Human enhancement and personality: A new approach towards investigating their relationship.Heliyon · 2022Article
- Exploring the use of cognitive enhancement substances among Portuguese university students.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- What do people think about technological enhancements of human beings? An introductory study using the Technological Enhancements Questionnaire in the context of values, the scientistic worldview, and the accepted versions of humanism.Current issues in personality psychology · 2022Article
- Parents' Perceptions on the Debated Parenting Practice of Cognitive Enhancement in Healthy Children and Adolescents.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2022Article
- Cognitive Enhancement: Unanswered Questions About Human Psychology and Social Behavior.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- The Use and Impact of Cognitive Enhancers among University Students: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a human enhancement story.Translational medicine communications · 2021Review
- Medical Students' Attitudes Towards Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement With Methylphenidate.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2020Article
- The Dark Triad of personality and attitudes toward cognitive enhancement.BMC psychology · 2020Article
- Pharmacological cognitive enhancement: Examining the ethical principles guiding college students' abstention.Neuroethics · 2019Article
- "The White Version of Cheating?" Ethical and Social Equity Concerns of Cognitive Enhancing Drug Users in Higher Education.Journal of academic ethics · 2019Article
- Hacking the Brain: Dimensions of Cognitive Enhancement.ACS chemical neuroscience · 2019Review
- Bottom Up Ethics - Neuroenhancement in Education and Employment.Neuroethics · 2018Article
- Smarter Than Thou, Holier Than Thou: The Dynamic Interplay Between Cognitive and Moral Enhancement.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Moral Attitudes Toward Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement (PCE): Differences and Similarities Among Germans With and Without PCE Experience.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public.Human reproduction open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A primary means for the augmentation of cognitive brain functions is "pharmacological cognitive enhancement" (PCE). The term usually refers to the off-label use of medical substances to improve mental performance in healthy individuals. With the final aim to advance the normative debate taking place on that topic, several empirical studies have been conducted to assess the attitudes toward PCE in the public, i.e., in groups outside of the academic debate. In this review, we provide an overview of the 40 empirical studies published so far, reporting both their methodology and results. Overall, we find that several concerns about the use of PCE are prevalent in the public. These concerns largely match those discussed in the normative academic debate. We present our findings structured around the three most common concerns: medical safety, coercion, and fairness. Fairness is divided into three subthemes: equality of opportunity, honesty, and authenticity. Attitudes regarding some concerns are coherent across studies (e.g., coercion), whereas for others we find mixed results (e.g., authenticity). Moreover, we find differences in how specific groups-such as users, nonusers, students, parents, and health care providers-perceive PCE: a coherent finding is that nonusers display more concerns regarding medical safety and fairness than users. We discuss potential psychological explanations for these differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.