Enhancement imaginaries exploring public understandings of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancing drugs.pdf (1.12 MB)
Enhancement imaginaries: exploring public understandings of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancing drugs
journal contribution
posted on 2019-05-13, 13:12 authored by Katie CoveneyKatie Coveney, Simon J. Williams, Jonathan GabeThe growing use of psychoactive substances in everyday life, the increasing experimentation among users and the potential of poly drug use for non-medical, lifestyle or enhancement purposes presents an evolving policy challenge. The paper aims to build on previous research to gain a more in-depth qualitative understanding of the imaginaries around pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement (PCE). It focuses in particular on how the so-called pharmaceutical cognitive enhancing drugs (PCEDs) might be used and the social acceptability of these uses across multiple social contexts and groups. Data come from 23 focus groups (99 participants), representing a wide range of social groups, recruited in the UK. We discuss four distinct ‘enhancement practices’ where PCE use was conceptualised as a way to (1) become the best version of oneself; (2) gain a competitive edge over others; (3) for personal achievement or well-being; and (4) promote personal/public safety. The findings problematise the term ‘enhancement’ by showing the different ways in which the use of pharmaceutical ‘enhancement’ drugs can be imagined and understood. We argue for the value of policy responses that acknowledge and respond to a wider range of enhancement practices including those of prospective user groups.
Funding
Economic and Social Research Council [RES-062-23-2456].
History
School
- Social Sciences
Department
- Communication, Media, Social and Policy Studies
Published in
Drugs: Education, Prevention, and PolicyVolume
26Issue
4Pages
319-328Citation
COVENEY, C.M., WILLIAMS, S.J. and GABE, J., 2019. Enhancement imaginaries: exploring public understandings of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancing drugs. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 26 (4), pp.319-328.Publisher
Taylor & Francis © The AuthorsVersion
- VoR (Version of Record)
Publisher statement
This work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/Acceptance date
2019-03-03Publication date
2019-05-07Copyright date
2019Notes
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.ISSN
0968-7637eISSN
1465-3370Publisher version
Language
- en