神经刺激,兴奋剂和运动精神。

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":"神经刺激,兴奋剂和运动精神。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Neurostimulation, doping, and the spirit of sport.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Responding to existential distress at the end of life: Psychedelics and psychedelic experiences and/ as medicine Deep Brain Stimulation for Consciousness Disorders; Technical and Ethical Considerations Neurorights, Mental Privacy, and Mind Reading A Transformative Trip? Experiences of Psychedelic Use Neurotechnological Applications and the Protection of Mental Privacy: An Assessment of Risks
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1