Science - International Graduate Program Medical Neurosciences

CNSNewsletter June 2011
CORRECTION: Table of Neuroenhancers
www.medical-neurosciences.de
3
Editorial
In our last issue, we focused on the topic of neuroenhancement, wherein we published a table of neuroenhancers. Unfortunately,
we included a number of compounds that are psychoactive but do not belong to the group of substances which are classically
called as neuroenhancers. The most common use of the term “neuroenhancement” is to determine the abuse of medication
by healthy people with the goal to increase cognitive performance (Larriviere and Williams, 2010; Norman and Berger, 2008;
memorandum in Gehirn & Geist, 2009). It is interesting to notice that the American debate on the topic differs from the German
debate in terminology and content (i.e. the term “cognitive enhancement” is used rather than “neuroenhancement”). It has to
be further emphasized that while these substances do enhance cognitive abilities, temporary enhancement always comes at
a cost (see risks). Additionally, the boosting effects are mostly restricted to specifi c cognitive functions while most tasks (like
learning for an exam) require more than an improvement in only one cognitive function like alertness. Finally, one should note
that until now only a few studies have been published, which are properly controlled and show neuroenhancing effects of the
listed substances. Most of the above mentioned effects are still under debate.
There are a few more NE candidates that are developed to improve the impaired cognitive performance in patients with
dementia. The idea to use these substances in healthy people to raise memory performance above one’s natural abilities seems
temptingly straight forward. However, clear empirical evidence to prove such effects is lacking:
For everybody interested in the topic of NE: Hollywood also discovered the potential and just recently made a movie called
“Limitless” (2011).
Adapted from Doping für das Gehirn, Spektrum der Wissenschaft, 2010