Davis called for “extreme caution” in the use of non-invasive brain stimulation to treat neurological disorders in children, due to gaps in scientific knowledge. We are sympathetic to his position. However, we must also address the ethical implications of applying this technology to minors. Compensatory trade-offs associated with NIBS present a challenge to its use in children, insofar as these trade-offs have the effect of limiting the child’s future options. The distinction between treatment and enhancement has some normative force here. (...) As the intervention moves away from being a treatment toward being an enhancement—and thus toward a more uncertain weighing of the benefits, risks, and costs—considerations of the child’s best interests diminish, and the need to protect the child’s autonomy looms larger. NIBS for enhancement involving trade-offs should therefore be delayed, if possible, until the child reaches a state of maturity and can make an informed, personal decision. NIBS for treatment, by contrast, is permissible insofar as it can be shown to be at least as safe and effective as currently approved treatments, which are themselves justified on a best interests standard. (shrink)

Undergraduates (total N = 185) were asked about performance-affecting drugs. Some drugs supposedly affected athletic performance, others memory, and others attention. Some improved performance for anyone who took them, others for the top 10% of performers, others for the bottom 10%, and finally, yet other drugs worked only on the bottom 10% who also showed physical abnormalities. Participants were asked about the fairness of allowing the drug to be used, about banning it, and about whether predictions of future performance based (...) on testing with or without the drug were better. The study found that participants appreciated the "interaction effect", that they felt it was less unfair to allow the drug if it affected the bottom 10% than if it affected everyone, and they were more eager to have the drug banned if it affected everyone. Participants were least tolerant of drugs that affected athletic performance and most tolerant of those that affected attention. (shrink)

We discuss an epileptic incident in an undiagnosed 13-year old girl participating in a clinical study investigating the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy children and adolescents. This incident poses important research ethics questions with regard to study design, especially pertaining to screening and gaining informed consent. Potential benefits and problems of the incident also need to be considered. The ethical analysis of the case presented in this paper has been informed by an in-depth interview conducted after the (...) incident with the child and the accompanying parent. We discuss the ethical implications of the epileptic incident, the need for improving screening procedures for studies with minors and for providing more effective communication. This case also underscores the problem of undetected teenage epilepsy in neuropsychological clinical studies and the necessity of raising more awareness of this issue. Since research in tDCS is an active and expanding field, we conclude with providing some recommendation that could ensure that future research on tDCS, or other therapies and neuro-interventions where there is a risk of triggering an epileptic seizure, take into account the specifics of teenage epilepsy and the need for more thorough provision of information during the process of gaining informed consent. (shrink)