Read the report

Name of activity
MLE 46. 2 focus groups with students
Partner
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (OeAW), AT
Date
08-05-2015
Duration
Less than half a day
Short description
The events were part of a total of four focus groups (2x teachers, 2x
students). Since the template categories did not cover the discussions
sufficiently, additional categories had to be introduced (see “anything else”).
In general, opinions between students and teachers did not differ much: NE
is not considered an important topic in Austria and it is unclear if it should
become a topic at all. Participants in all four focus groups (except for a small
minority each) were rather sceptical towards NE concerning both
effectiveness and usefulness. This also applied to students declaring to be
more willing to try NE. Discussion about “normalcy”, “naturalness” and
“happiness” regularly came up. Since the topic was considered “exotic”, it
was difficult to keep the students focused.
Venue
High school (with different branches) in Vienna
Number of participants
Approximately 50 (in total)
Participant evaluation
Questionnaires, full transcription and evaluation
Agenda
Steigerung geistiger Leistungsfähigkeit - Hintergrundinformation zu NeuroEnhancement
Wer über lange Zeit konzentriert arbeitet oder nächtelang am Computer sitzt
trinkt gerne einmal einen Kaffee oder Energy Drink. Manche greifen auch zu
Medikamenten oder anderen Methoden, um die geistigen Leistungsfähigkeit
oder Aufmerksamkeit zu steigern, mit zwiespältigen Folgen. Dieses
sogenannte Neuro-Enhancement wird in Österreich (noch) kaum öffentlich
diskutiert – im Gegensatz zu anderen europäischen Ländern oder den USA. .
Das EU-finanzierte Projekt NERRI (Neuro-Enhancement and Responsible
Research and Innovation) mit Partnern aus 12 Ländern (in Österreich: das
Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung der ÖAW und die Universität Linz) will
die öffentliche Debatte darüber fördern.
Was ist Neuro-Enhancement?
Unter Neuro-Enhancement versteht man allgemein den Einsatz von
Substanzen und medizinischen Verfahren bei gesunden Personen mit dem
Ziel,
Hirnfunktionen
wie
die
geistige
Leistungsfähigkeit,
Konzentrationsfähigkeit oder das Gedächtnis zu verbessern.
Dazu dienen pharmakologische Substanzen (in Genussmitteln wie Kaffee,
apothekenpflichtigen Präparaten, verschreibungspflichtigen Medikamenten
oder illegalen Drogen) und neurotechnologische Verfahren (z.B. die
Hirnstimulation von außen mit Magnetfeldern oder Gleichstrom).
Beispiele für pharmakologische Substanzen
Methylphenidat (Ritalin®)
Anwendung in der Medizin: Therapie der AufmerksamkeitsdefizitHyperaktivitätsstörung (ADHS)
Enhancement-Wirkungen: konzentrierteres, fokussiertes Arbeiten; weniger
Ablenkung; Unterdrückung von Emotionen
Nebenwirkungen: Unruhe, Nervosität, Schlaflosigkeit, Übelkeit, Schwitzen,
Appetitverlust Amphetamin (Speed)
Anwendung in der Medizin: in den USA zur ADHS-Behandlung, in Europa
nur als „Partydroge“)
Enhancement-Wirkungen:
Verringerung des Schlafbedürfnisses, gesteigertes Selbstbewusstsein
Nebenwirkungen: u.a. Unruhe, Schlaflosigkeit, Redezwang,
Schweißausbrüche
Beispiel für neurotechnologische Verfahren
Transkranielle Gleichstromstimulation (tDCS)
angestrebte Ziele und Auswirkungen (die aber nicht erwiesen sind)
- Leichteres Lösen mathematischer Aufgaben
- Steigerung kognitiver Leistungen, Erhöhte Kreativität
- Mehr Lerneffizienz, verbesserte Gedächtniseinprägung
- Effizienteres Computerspiel
Stand der Technik und & Regulation
Die Medizin sieht Neuro-Enhancement eher kritisch. Studien zeigen, dass
bestimmte Substanzen das Gefühl vermitteln, mehr zu leisten, tatsächlich
aber zu mehr Fehlern führen. Eine mögliche Erklärung ist, dass
Hirnleistungen zu komplex sind um sie gezielt zu beeinflussen; die dafür
nötigen Erkenntnisse fehlen derzeit.
Der Stand der Neuro-Forschung blieb bislang hinter den Erwartungen zurück.
Es gibt kaum neue pharmakologische Substanzen; die für das Enhancement
angewandten Präparate sind meist alt. Bei neurotechnologischen Verfahren
zeigten sich in Versuchen reale Effekte, die aber individuell verschieden und
schwer einzuordnen sind.
Die technisch-wissenschaftliche Basis ist also eher dürftig. SkeptikerInnen
warnen zudem vor möglichen Gesundheitsschäden, da es bislang noch
keine langfristigen Studien zu pharmakologischem Neuro-Enhancement bei
Gesunden gibt.
In Österreich fallen Substanzen wie Amphetamine unter das
Suchtmittelgesetz. Der Erwerb über das Internet lässt sich aber kaum
regulieren. Für physikalische Methoden gilt (theoretisch) das
Medizingerätegesetz. EnthusiastInnen in bestimmten Szenen (Brainhacking)
wenden transkraniale Stimulation in Do-it-yourself-Manier an, wofür das
Internet Anleitungen und auch kommerzielle Angebote bereithält.
Grundlegende Fragen
Kognitive Leistungen sind individuell verschieden. Wer bestimmt nun, was
eine „normale“ geistige Leistung ist und wann die Leistung gesteigert werden
soll?
Prüfungsergebnisse unter Enhancement wären vielleicht weniger
aussagekräftig, individuelle Leistungen schwerer einzuschätzen. Das könnte
zu ungerechter Beurteilung führen.
Andererseits könnte Neuro-Enhancement individualle Leistungsunterschiede
ausgleichen und einheitlichere Startbedingungen schaffen.
Beruflicher Druck führt zu psychischer Erschöpfung bis hin zum Burn-out. In
Neuro-Enhancern könnten manche eine Möglichkeit sehen, Belastungen zu
begegnen und dabei wettbewerbsfähig zu bleiben.
Wird Leistungssteigerung normal, könnten alle sich gezwungen sehen,
Medikamente einzunehmen, um nicht ins Hintertreffen zu geraten.
Wer dann kein Geld für Enhancement hat, wäre benachteiligt; so würde die
soziale Ungleichheit vergrößert.
Version 21.04.2015
Thoughts
Although the school principal (in a previous interview) had considered one
group of students to be more technophile, both groups strictly refused to
apply NE. They were more interested in the addiction potential and
discussion about drugs, which suggests that the topic is considered purely
hypothetical. In the second group, a small part took side for NE use, mainly
motivated by their parents’ jobs (nurse) or their hope to pass the final exam.
The argument of ‘naturalness’ and ‘health’ were quite strong here. In
conclusion, NE for healthy people was not considered worth doing research
on.
Therapy/enhancement
distinction
In all four groups the distinction was very important, both regarding application
and research policy. Rather than the treatment of ‘healthy people’ medical
care and research were considered important and worth funding.
Contrary to application, some considered it worthwhile to do basic research
as it was neutral and open-ended.
Autonomy:
No agreement among the four groups but patterns: students generally
pleaded for freedom of choice. They emphasized the responsibility for their
own life styles – as long as there were no adverse effects of NE – being
aware that the use of NE might cause peer pressure. Nevertheless, they
were not willing to use NE regularly, only in extreme situations such as final
exams. Applying NE in response to demanding professional situations was
considered an individual choice.
Competitiveness:
All four groups discussed i) societal changes and competition said to trigger
the application of NE, ii) NE’s influence on the perception of competition and
solidarity. Some topics came up regularly: changes in the economic system
both as cause and consequence of NE, high demands in school, leisure
stress for students, the attitude vis-a-vis doping and the idea that NE would
not entail comparative benefits since demands would rise, too. NE was said
to offer concrete advantages for a few professional fields only.
All four groups discussed NE as adjustment to an increasingly demanding
and ‘inhumane’ (economic) system. It was suspected that - apart from the
military - the business sector and especially big companies have most
interest in intensifying work processes and would support NE use.
Commercial interest in the pharmaceutical industry would also push NE. As a
result, mental and physical health effects of stress would promote the trend
towards self-exploitation already existing in professional environments.
Triggers mentioned were the fear of failure, pending unemployment or
decreasing pay level pushing people to their performance limits. Short-term
consequences were seen in more demanding working conditions, declining
fairness or increasing pressure on individuals due to faster production, staff
savings and higher unemployment. In the long term, competition would
enhance, with negative individual and economic consequences. Regional
legalisation (e.g. in the European Union) would force other countries to
follow.
Similar trends were seen in the school environment. Students argued for
lowering the demands rather than raising them. Some were afraid that NE
use would standardize performances causing more people to compete for the
same job. NE would increase peer pressure and should not compensate for
an effective time management. One student brought up the topic of leisure
stress in a casual way, referring to school as ‘the nice period in life to be
enjoyed before everything gets real’.
Risks/benefits,
health/safety:
The discussion of side effects prevailed in all four groups; it is a major
argument for banning or allowing NE. However, when the lack of evidence for
positive effects on healthy people became clear the already small support
declined. Thus, only a proven effect justifies even discussing the use of NE.
All groups were concerned of (unknown) psychological and physical side
effects, addiction potential and habituation. Opinions about long-term
consequences varied; students mostly worried over physical harm, addiction
potential and permanent exhaustion. Consequently, only extreme situations
in professional life were considered worth the risk of applying NE. In short, a
few students were more positive on NE as long as the side-effects were kept
to a minimum - especially when it was used once or over a short time and in
the context of ‘work’ instead of ‘leisure’ (e.g. gaming).
Equity: access
Regularly but not prominently addressed. Apart from daily life, students also
took into consideration global fairness and competition, arguing that regional
access may increase global disparities. Easier access would result in mass
consumption and be more likely to cause addiction.
There was no consensus among students if a widespread use of NE is fair:
some thought that equal access would make it fair, especially if free of
charge. Others considered NE unfair to people not able or willing to apply it
because of costs or health status, further increasing social segregation.
Although an inclusive school, disabilities were not discussed.
Governance and
regulation:
Both student groups considered social acceptance as the most important
factor for legalization and consumption (like with alcohol), voting for NE
available only on prescription. One group thought that legalizing NE for specific
professions (e.g. doctors in hospitals) would be an option of last resort. The
other group was willing to support NE application for researchers in order to
exploit all possibilities for humankind. Some thought of legalization as a
slippery slope (as with drugs) but were aware that a ban would not solve the
problem: banning was a seen as reassurance for regulatory bodies rather than
an effective way of regulation. Legalization could also serve as quality
assurance of substances and offer the option of taxation. In addition, the
pharmaceutical industry was said to corrupt politicians while the public lacked
awareness.
Ethics of scientific
conduct/research:
Timeframes of future
scenarios:
Media coverage:
Hardly ever addressed.
DIY/Biohacking:
Although shortly introduced by the facilitator the topic did not come up.
Apparently, and consistent with the research result of a colleague, there is no
brain hacker community in Austria.
No time frames were mentioned.
The topic was mentioned once in a group of students: One had seen a report
on NE in a popular TV science show (Galileo).
Information needs:
Not mentioned at all.
National and historical
references & Anchors:
In one student group, the use of amphetamines during the Second World
War was briefly mentioned. Also, professional gamers in South Korea were
referred to as probable consumers.
Gender issues:
Not mentioned at all – despite one group of students (technical branch) being
more male dominated and the other (business branch) more female.
Anything else?
The categories provided in the template did not fully cover the discussions,
so we added the following categories to complement the analysis.
⇒ Comparisons, personal examples and attributions
The four groups came up with comparisons of NE with other substances or
practices from personal experience, such as drinking coffee, Red Bull or
alcohol, smoking and taking training boosters or caffeine pills (only students).
The most common reference was doping, though, although the assessment
varied: mostly, doping was seen as cheating, fraud and dishonesty while a
minority objected. Whether using NE under learning (rather than taking a test)
should be considered cheating or not was controversial.
Some referred to the movie “Limitless”.
A societal group considered prone to use NE were researchers (who even
might have a duty to do so to achieve better results for the common good).
⇒ Alternative approaches
Students described a placebo effect (including that from NE substances) as
most helpful to succeed in school, but also criticised the practice of “taking
pills all the time.” They thought self-motivation and effective time
management were more suitable to achieve goals. Thus, the assumed
willingness of students to apply NE could not be verified.
⇒ Naturalness & Normalcy
Apparently, an implicit notion of the ‘natural’ exists. One student group
focused on the question of ‘normalcy’ without being able to define it. In this
context, NE was considered promoting the trend towards uniformity in
education. The other student group discussed the ‘naturalness’ of substances
and processes: short time enhancement was considered ‘unnatural’ because
the human body couldn’t cope with it. They also held the view that ‘natural‘
substances are less harmful than chemical ones and that medication should
be avoided. Altogether, NE was considered ‘unnatural’ and therefore
negatively assessed. A minority only claimed that not all chemistry is
necessarily bad.
The exit questionnaire revealed one difference between the two groups:
while a majority of students from the economic branch considered cognitive
performance to be innate and should not be changed technically, students
form the technical branch thought the opposite.
⇒ Lifestyle and Happiness
Students saw NE as part of a general trend towards perfection, questioning
its possibility and meaningfulness. The impression prevailed that people
constantly try to improve themselves and their situation. Accordingly,
successful work is more satisfying while we need to accept our (physical and
mental) limits.
⇒ Public Research Policy
170
Discussions in all four groups similarly stressed that medical research should
be supported while most research on NE was considered unnecessary.
Participants objected spending public money on NE research because it was
no important topic or a first step towards commercialisation. In general, there
was a suspicion that economic interests would exploit research.
⇒ Assessment of different methods
Students’ opinions on various NE methods did not differ much.
Suggestions for MLEs?
better define the purpose, mobilisation, knowledge transfer, gauging
opinions, etc.
171