目标:有些人正在使用药物来尝试增强认知和社会情感功能,并要求医生提供非标签处方以增强神经功能(例如,兴奋剂)。几个医学协会发布了关于处方神经增强剂的指南,其中一些是指神经增强的潜在社会影响(例如,分配正义),除了给用户带来的风险和好处。哪些机构(例如,医学社会,政府,大学)应该做出允许神经增强的决定,他们是否应该考虑潜在的社会影响还不清楚。我们研究了允许药用神经增强剂的支持是否以及多少受神经增强剂的机构以及潜在的个人和社会影响的影响。
方法:我们使用美国成年公众的代表性样本进行了离散选择实验。使用多项logit模型对数据进行分析。
结果:参与者(n=927)在人口统计学上与美国人口相似。严重副作用的风险(OR0.20,CI0.18-0.22)和用户缺乏益处(OR0.31,CI0.26-0.38)对参与者支持神经增强剂的负面影响最大。轻度副作用的风险对参与者支持允许神经增强剂(OR0.67,CI0.62-0.74)和更有意义的前景有中等的负面影响,对用户的长期益处为中度正效应(OR1.74,CI1.61-1.87)。神经增强剂对社会中人们的平均福祉和平等的积极或消极影响对参与者允许神经增强剂的支持有中等影响。例如,参与者支持允许对社会福祉有负面影响的增强剂的几率约为一半(OR0.45,CI0.40-0.50),允许不平等恶化的增强剂的几率比没有这种效应的增强剂低约40%(OR0.62,CI0.55-0.71).如果增强剂降低了使用者的真实性,则参与者允许神经增强剂的几率略低(10%)(OR0.90,CI0.84-0.97)。调节神经增强子和神经增强子为用户提供不公平优势的机构不会影响参与者的决定。
结论:当提出个人和社会考虑时,公众似乎支持医疗社会和其他机构根据用户的风险和利益做出关于神经增强剂的政策决定,还有,但在较小程度上,对平等和社会福利的影响。
OBJECTIVE: Some individuals are using drugs to try to enhance cognitive and social-affective functioning and asking physicians for off-label prescriptions for neuroenhancement (e.g., stimulants). Several medical societies released guidance on prescribing neuroenhancers, some of which refer to potential societal effects of neuroenhancement (e.g., distributive justice), besides risks and benefits to users. Which institutions (e.g., medical societies, government, universities) should make decisions on allowing neuroenhancement and whether they should consider potential societal effects are unclear. We examined whether and how much support for allowing pharmaceutical neuroenhancers was influenced by the institution and potential individual and societal effects of neuroenhancers.
METHODS: We conducted a discrete-choice experiment using a constructed representative sample of the US adult public. Multinomial logit models were used to analyze the data.
RESULTS: Participants (n = 927) demographically resembled the US population. Risks of serious side effects (OR 0.20, CI 0.18-0.22) and a lack of benefits for users (OR 0.31, CI 0.26-0.38) had the largest negative effect on participants\' support for allowing neuroenhancers. A risk of mild side effects had a moderate negative effect on participants\' support for allowing neuroenhancers (OR 0.67, CI 0.62-0.74) and the prospect of more meaningful, long-lasting benefits for users a moderate positive effect (OR 1.74, CI 1.61-1.87). Positive or negative effects of neuroenhancers on the average well-being of people in society and on equality had moderate effects on participants\' support for allowing neuroenhancers. For example, the odds of participants\' support for allowing enhancers with a negative effect on societal well-being were around half (OR 0.45, CI 0.40-0.50) and the odds of allowing enhancers that worsen inequality were approximately 40% lower compared with enhancers without such effects (OR 0.62, CI 0.55-0.71). The odds of participants allowing neuroenhancers were slightly (10%) lower if enhancers reduced users\' authenticity (OR 0.90, CI 0.84-0.97). The institution regulating neuroenhancers and neuroenhancers providing users with an unfair advantage did not affect participants\' decisions.
CONCLUSIONS: When presented with both individual and societal considerations, the public seems to support medical societies and other institutions making policy decisions about neuroenhancers based on risks and benefits for users, as well as, but to a lesser extent, effects on equality and societal well-being.