Public Views on Whether the Use of Pharmaceutical Neuroenhancements Should Be Allowed.

Background and Objectives: 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.
Discussion: 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.