Neurostimulation, doping, and the spirit of sport.

IF 2.6 4区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Neuroethics Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-05-16 DOI:10.1007/s12152-020-09435-7
Jonathan Pugh, Christopher Pugh
{"title":"Neurostimulation, doping, and the spirit of sport.","authors":"Jonathan Pugh,&nbsp;Christopher Pugh","doi":"10.1007/s12152-020-09435-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is increasing interest in using neuro-stimulation devices to achieve an ergogenic effect in elite athletes. Although the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) does not currently prohibit neuro-stimulation techniques, a number of researchers have called on WADA to consider its position on this issue. Focusing on trans-cranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a case study of an imminent so-called 'neuro-doping' intervention, we argue that the emerging evidence suggests that tDCS may meet WADA's own criteria (pertaining to safety, performance-enhancing effect, and incompatibility with the 'spirit of sport') for a method's inclusion on its list of prohibited substances and methods. We begin by surveying WADA's general approach to doping, and highlight important limitations to the current evidence base regarding the performance-enhancing effect of pharmacological doping substances. We then review the current evidence base for the safety and efficacy of tDCS, and argue that despite significant shortcomings, there may be sufficient evidence for WADA to consider prohibiting tDCS, in light of the comparable flaws in the evidence base for pharmacological doping substances. In the second half of the paper, we argue that the question of whether WADA ought to ban tDCS turns significantly on the question of whether it is compatible with the 'spirit of sport' criterion. We critique some of the previously published positions on this, and advocate our own sport-specific and application-specific approach. Despite these arguments, we finally conclude by suggesting that tDCS ought to be monitored rather than prohibited due to compelling non-ideal considerations.</p>","PeriodicalId":49255,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics","volume":"14 Suppl 2","pages":"141-158"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12152-020-09435-7","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-020-09435-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/5/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

There is increasing interest in using neuro-stimulation devices to achieve an ergogenic effect in elite athletes. Although the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) does not currently prohibit neuro-stimulation techniques, a number of researchers have called on WADA to consider its position on this issue. Focusing on trans-cranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a case study of an imminent so-called 'neuro-doping' intervention, we argue that the emerging evidence suggests that tDCS may meet WADA's own criteria (pertaining to safety, performance-enhancing effect, and incompatibility with the 'spirit of sport') for a method's inclusion on its list of prohibited substances and methods. We begin by surveying WADA's general approach to doping, and highlight important limitations to the current evidence base regarding the performance-enhancing effect of pharmacological doping substances. We then review the current evidence base for the safety and efficacy of tDCS, and argue that despite significant shortcomings, there may be sufficient evidence for WADA to consider prohibiting tDCS, in light of the comparable flaws in the evidence base for pharmacological doping substances. In the second half of the paper, we argue that the question of whether WADA ought to ban tDCS turns significantly on the question of whether it is compatible with the 'spirit of sport' criterion. We critique some of the previously published positions on this, and advocate our own sport-specific and application-specific approach. Despite these arguments, we finally conclude by suggesting that tDCS ought to be monitored rather than prohibited due to compelling non-ideal considerations.

神经刺激,兴奋剂和运动精神。
有越来越多的兴趣使用神经刺激装置,以达到在精英运动员的有氧作用。虽然世界反兴奋剂机构(WADA)目前没有禁止神经刺激技术,但一些研究人员已经呼吁WADA考虑其在这个问题上的立场。将经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)作为即将到来的所谓“神经兴奋剂”干预的案例研究,我们认为,新出现的证据表明,tDCS可能符合世界反兴奋剂机构自己的标准(有关安全性、提高成绩的效果以及与“体育精神”的不兼容性),将一种方法列入其禁用物质和方法清单。我们首先调查了世界反兴奋剂机构对兴奋剂的一般做法,并强调了目前关于药理学兴奋剂提高成绩效果的证据基础的重要局限性。然后,我们回顾了目前关于tDCS安全性和有效性的证据基础,并认为尽管存在重大缺陷,但鉴于药理学兴奋剂证据基础中的类似缺陷,WADA可能有足够的证据考虑禁止tDCS。在本文的后半部分,我们认为世界反兴奋剂机构是否应该禁止tDCS的问题在很大程度上取决于它是否符合“体育精神”标准。我们对之前发表的一些观点进行了批判,并提倡我们自己针对特定运动和特定应用的方法。尽管有这些争论,我们最终得出结论,建议tDCS应该受到监控,而不是由于令人信服的非理想考虑而被禁止。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuroethics
Neuroethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroethics is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical questions provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind and brain; especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes articles on questions raised by the sciences of the brain and mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the brain and mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics and philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信