A Critical Discourse Analysis of Cognitive Enhancement Advertising: the Contemporary Mind

Home , Nootropic

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Cognitive Enhancement Advertising: The Contemporary Mind

as a Commodity

A thesis submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Anthropology

of the College of Arts and Sciences

Mindy Hamilton

B.A. Eastern Kentucky University

June 2014

Committee Chair: C.J. Jacobson, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

This study conducts a discourse analysis of marketing materials promoting what have come to be known in our late 20th early 21st century post-industrial service-based economy as nootropics. Cognitive enhancement is a proliferating and profitable market, with the greatest presence in the United States. A broad range of multimodal material was collected from nootropic sites and common semiotic-discursive strategies were identified as followed: (1)

Rhetorically endorse nootropic efficacy by reference to diverse, long-standing cultural traditions of use and importance, (2) Employ scientific language to legitimize the clinical use of nootropics, (3) Framing the average person’s brain as suboptimal or as holding unrealized potential, (4) Synonymizing the brain with the self, extending enhancement claims to consumer’s identity. Applying social semiotics and anthropological theory, this critical analysis of nootropic discourse aims to examine cognitive enhancement advertisements as part of a critical social analysis. Examining these discursive strategies critically and socially assumes nootropic advertisements reflect an idealized cultural self at a self-imaginary level of functioning.

Keywords: Nootropic, Neuroculture, Cognitive Enhancement, Marketing, Advertising, Critical

Discourse Analysis, Social Semiotics, Media, Medicalisation, Transhumanism.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work would not have been possible without the generosity of the University and those in the anthropology department. I want to thank my professors for their excellence in balancing teaching, research, and student guidance. I am grateful for the constant support and patience exercised by my thesis committee. Especially Dr. Jacobson, who has offered constant knowledge, wisdom, and kindness. I must acknowledge my honorary parents, Sybil and Leonard

Skinner, who are my strongest role models, and have been supportive of my dreams before and during graduate school. Finally, my canine companion who has grown up during this study. His never-ending love kept my spirits afloat during the late nights and long days.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1

Humans as Self-Enhancers………………………………………………………………..1

Personal Inspiration…………………………………………………………………….…3

Preliminary Statement of Research Questions………………………………………...…..4

BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………….…5

Defining Nootropics Pharmacologically………………………………………………..…5

Epidemiology of Cognitive Enhancement……………………………………………...…8

Political Economic Analysis of the Nootropic Industry…………………………………11

Nootropic Marketing Claims as Regulated by Federal Agencies……………………….13

METHODS………………………………………………………………………………..……..15

The Mind, Body, and Self as Discursive Constructions…………………………..……..15

The Rhetorical Constitution of Medicalisation…………………………………………..17

Commonly Identified Discursive Strategies……………………………………………..18

ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………...……….19

Rhetorical Validation of Long-Standing and Diverse Consumption…………………….19

Use of Scientific Language to Legitimize Clinical Research………………………...….22

Framing the Average Person’s Brain as Suboptimal…………………………………….24

Equivalating the Brain to the Self………………………………………………………..26

DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………………..…..28

Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………28

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..29

APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………….………..34

INTRODUCTION

Humans as Self Enhancers

The imagined society in Frank Herbert’s 1965 science fiction novel Dune, takes place in a distant human future.

“… the most precious substance in the universe is the spice Melange. The spice extends life. The spice expands consciousness. The spice is vital to space travel. The Spacing Guild and its navigators, who the spice has mutated over 4,000 years, use the orange spice gas, which gives them the ability to fold space. That is, travel to any part of universe without moving”

Humans are self-enhancers. Across (the Anthropocene) time and wide ranging social and ecological contexts, humans have imagined and sought ways to enhance, intensify, and extend their own faculties through the development and use of tools, language, and other useful and valued cultural practices and materials. Tools and techniques of the mind-body (e.g. meditation, dream-interpretation) aimed at connecting with altered realities, states of consciousness, or supernatural realms also characterize human cultures everywhere; and employing diverse – ritualistic, creative-artistic, dietary, therapeutic and other meditative and reflective practices, and ethnobotanical knowledge, humans have learned to alter and tune their senses of awareness and connection with the world and others.

The mentally and physically stimulating effects of coffee, tea, tobacco, and sugar helped sustain industrial workers and industrialization in the 18th and 19th centuries (Mintz 1985). In late

20th and early 21st century post-industrial, information and services-based economies, advances in the cognitive and neurosciences have been accompanied by demand for and development and proliferation of “smart drugs,” “brain boosters,” and other cognitive enhancers or “nootropics”

(from Greek “mind tuning”) aimed at improving memory, focus and learning.

The term nootropic is thought to have been coined by Corneliu Giurgea, a Romanian chemist, psychologist, and physician who synthesized piracetam (2-oxo-1-pyrrolidine) in the

1960s. Since then many hundreds of chemical analogues and derivates have been synthesized and studied for their clinical and psychoactive effects. Nootropics and cognitive boosters of all kinds are now widely advertised and available on the internet and alongside supplements and vitamins in pharmacies, grocery stores and in a variety of specialty shops. Cognitive enhancement has become a global industry and widespread human practice encompassing legal/illegal, synthetic/natural, clinical/recreational use of substances believed to augment everything from creativity, motivation, and mood to libido, reflexes, and motor skills.

Portrayals of enhanced cognitive performance resulting from ingestion of powerful substances—like the mélange spice in Dune--populate science fiction literature and film, story- telling, myth and mass media advertising. Though the ability to fold space time is not among the claims of today’s nootropic marketers, the mass appeal of mind tonics and other neurotechnologies that can expand or focus consciousness, improve productivity, creativity, mood and so on makes nootropic marketing discourses an excellent locus for studying the cultural construction of the mind, person, and identity. These discourses offer insight into what has been termed neuroculture, or the “agglomerate of mutually reinforcing fields connecting ongoing debates about mind and body, consciousness and intentionality” (Williams et al.

2011:64). The language and rhetorical practices employed in nootropic advertising signify in both direct and indirect ways. In this thesis I explore these constitutive practices in a sample of multimodal advertisements collected from television and online sources. Specifically, I will describe the common discursive strategies seen among these advertising samples, along with the objects and social processes constituted by them.

Personal Inspiration

There is a handful of health food stores in my hometown of Lexington, Kentucky.

However, the oldest and only family owned business of the bunch, is Robert’s Health Foods and

Services, established in 1973. I started riding my bike and working in this holistic health center when I was sixteen. Now after a decade of working for Robert’s, I can reflect on the mounting emergence of the nootropic industry and draw on ethnographic experiences to understand the effects of media on consumers navigating this expanding market. The section of brain supplements in Robert’s has more than tripled in volume during my ten years of employment. It was eight years before I was tempted to try a supplement being advertised as a nootropic.

Personally, I was looking for increased energy and a way to cope with my undergraduate biology class, where I was struggling to memorize a large amount of material. The process of choosing a brain product and consuming it consistently made me feel like a more proactive student, and it seemed to help with my alertness.

This experience aligns closely with customers I converse with on a regular basis. They do not come in looking for desired effects that sound quoted from a nootropic advertisement – they are more diverse and organic. For example, a sophomore attending Northern Kentucky

University came in during the Spring (2018) with her parents and siblings. She was on her

Spring break shopping for supplements “to help with her ADHD”. She wasn’t taking anything at the time, and when I asked what she was experiencing, what symptoms specifically, she went on to say: “I have a hard time focusing, and this triggers my depression. My mind wonders in class and I have a hard time staying positive.” Repeatedly when I converse with customers shopping for a cognitive enhancer, they say they are looking to address a lack of energy, anxiety, sluggish libido and other experiences that are interestingly being associated with the brain in these

3 ethnographic instances. By dissecting nootropic marketing materials, I hope to offer an unbiased discussion of the cognitive enhancement industry and as well as current neuroculture.

Preliminary Statement of Research Questions

A question I am asked nearly every day at my job: How do I improve my focus, concentration, or memory? This past January a customer brought in their empty Neuro Chewing

Gum packaging, hoping to find a refill. We did not carry the product, but I noticed after she left the empty Neuro Gum package laying on the front counter…

“Neuro Gum: Fuel your body. Activate your mind. Our proprietary nootropic blend of natural green tea caffeine plus L-theanine with brain-activating B-vitamins gives you the focus, clarity, and lasting energy to take on the world. Remember each day more clearly, dream more vividly, and live life more adventurously. Share a piece. Go explore.” (Neuro Chewing Gum Advertisement)

Cognitive enhancers or nootropics are numerous in type (synthetic, herbal, regulated, non-regulated, etc.) with differing desired and actual effects; there is a diverse demographic of users (clinical, causal-recreational, elderly, student, spiritualistic, etc.) with various expectations

(mindfulness, recollection, focus) reflecting different values (self-improvement, competitive advantage, economic productivity, inner-peace). In this study, I examine nootropic advertisements such as the Neuro Gum promotion above and apply social semiotics and critical discourse analysis to examine the relationship between language modalities and various sociocultural and sociopolitical messaging in the selected advertisements. Drawing from Norman

Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis (CDA) (2010), and van Leeuwen’s social semiotics

(2005), this analysis will focus on discourse and other social elements (power relations, ideologies, institutions, etc.), bringing social analysis into the study of language.

According to Fairclough, applying critical discourse analysis methodology to examine the social requires focusing on the “social wrongs” semiotically constructed within text

(Fairclough 2010). “Activate your mind… brain-activating b-vitamins.” Neuro Gum marketers exercise a mode of language illustrative of a social order involving activated and de-activated individuals alongside each other. Abstaining from cognitive enhancers and remaining de- activated is semiotically constructed in the Neuro Gum advertisement as a social wrong. CDA examines the significance of semiotically constructed wrongs in the context of a given social order (Fairclough 2010). Cognitive abilities left dormant are semiotically constructed by Neuro

Gum marketers as a social wrong in part because success obtained through neural innovation is rewarded in the current information-based economy.

These rhetorical aspects of what could be considered a neurocultural or nootropic movement are thought of as projecting an idealized version of the productive, attentive, neoliberal self. Given nootropics’ proliferation and penetration, this study aims to identify discursive strategies and social semiotic frameworks within nootropic marketing materials and consider how they reflect broader cultural and neurocultural trends. The research questions are as follows.

(1) In what ways do cognitive enhancement marketing materials construct their objects – i.e. the mind, body, and self. (2) By what discursive means are social processes, including but not limited to medicalisation, constituted in nootropic advertisements?

BACKGROUND

Defining Nootropics Pharmacologically

In terms of neurobiology, nootropics are defined as a group of compounds diverse in biological function and chemical composition, allegedly facilitating learning and memory, or easing symptoms of natural or induced cognitive disorders. Nootropics are classified as a type of central nervous system modulator, acting as “antiamnesiacs” in cooperation with the neurological

5 processes underlying memory storage (Ruchi et al. 2007:124). Through advertising, this has been translated to mean a variety of psychological and mental effects. An overview of nootropics, described in terms of United States regulatory conventions, can help demonstrate imagined effects by consumers subject to illustrative marketing.

In the United States, nootropics are neither explicitly legal nor illegal, but are regulated by the F.D.A.. Non-pharmaceutical nootropics are classified as dietary supplements and can be any vitamin, mineral, herb or botanical, amino acid, concentrate/ metabolite/ constituent/ extract

(U.S. F.D.A. 2015). Dietary supplement manufacturers are responsible for notifying the F.D.A. about ingredients new to the market, upholding manufacturing practices, and reporting known adverse effects. Subclasses of nootropics categorized as dietary supplements include what are known as acetylcholine supplements, natural or herbal enhancers, and racetams.

Acetylcholine is described in one biology textbook as one of the main vertebrate nervous system neurotransmitters. It has a role in many brain activities including attentiveness, aggression, sex drive, and thirst (Hine 2016). The body also produces acetylcholinesterase – an enzyme that in most basic terms, breaks down acetylcholine and can disrupt memory and learning. The only F.D.A. approved medications to treat Alzheimer’s disease are cholinesterase inhibitors, successful in demonstrating long term treatment benefits over the last several years

(Geldmacher 2003:258). However, there is much debate on whether acetylcholine supplements produce the desired results. Both prescription and over-the-counter acetylcholine products are described as beneficial for a wide range of cognitive disorders including ADHD and Alzheimer’s disease, with no known side effects or adverse reactions.

By comparison, herbal nootropics vary in perceived effectiveness and known adverse reactions. One example is gingko biloba, one of the more common ingredients in herbal

6 nootropics. Like acetylcholine supplements, there is debate on the cognitive enhancement capabilities of gingko. However, several studies suggest there are modest benefits including neuroprotection and memory recall. Also, gingko has other effects including anticoagulant properties, causing it to affect the vascular system and contraindicate several prescription medications, creating a danger for those, especially elderly. (Gold et al. 2002:5).

Racetams are chemical compounds sharing the same chemical nucleus (pyrrolidone). A few racetams are aniracetam, oxiracetam, and pramiracetam, all synthesized from their parent piracetam. Given the difference in chemistry makeup, some racetams are stimulants, while some are anticonvulsants, and others are simply labeled as nootropics. As in choline and herbal supplements, there is debate on whether racetams improve cognitive function. Racetams have been used in clinical settings across Europe, Asia, and South America for epilepsy and spasmodic disorders. Studies have examined whether racetams are effective in treating depression, anxiety, and dementia however these have produced no confirmations. Reported side effects have included weight gain, anxiety, headaches, and depression. In 2017 the FDA included

Piracetam on a list of drugs banned in the compounding of substances for internal use (FDA

503A:91071). Piracetam can still be found online but the label must state “Not for Human

Consumption.”

Nootropics sold as dietary supplements including acetylcholine syntheses, natural or herbal enhancers, and racetams are governed by FDA regulations as are pharmaceutical medications for cognitive function. However, prescription nootropics have their own history and abide a different set of laws. The first pharmaceutical supplement to produce a neurological effect was amphetamine; this was first synthesized in 1887 and studied as a substance to treat asthma, allergies, and colds (Rasmussen 2006:289). By the 1930’s amphetamine was synthesized

7 to create Benzedrine, originally produced in the form of inhalers, and later as a cognitive stimulant; today a synthesis of Benzedrine exists as Adderall. Another prescription medication modafinil (branded as Provigil, Alertec, and Modavigil), was produced to target sleep apnea and narcolepsy; modafinil is issued currently to heighten brain function and combat poor focus. The pharmaceutical drug Aricept (an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor), was used to treat Alzheimer’s disease in the 1990’s but was also found to treat attention deficit in otherwise healthy individuals

(Hoopes 1999:381). These pharmaceutical nootropics are monitored by the FDA and have a wide range of side effects. Each prescription label lists side effects in the order they are most likely to occur and urges consumers to contact medical personnel upon occurrence.

The history, psychological effects, and regulatory terms of nootropics contribute to how the marketing and advertising of such become translated into an array of imagined effects by consumers. These imagined effects are influenced by current neuroculture and vary in terms of consumer demographic.

Epidemiology of Cognitive Enhancement

Nootropics are marketed as a method of treating career stagnation, educational failure, and cognitive disease. The imagined effects of nootropics are suggestive of success as perceived by consumers in an information-based economy. Current rates of nootropic use by students, healthcare professionals, and seniors can help us understand societal conditions prompting consumption, as well as the effectiveness of discursive approaches in marketing materials.

Students in collegiate settings are known for caffeine intake, and more recently for the consumption of cognitive enhancers. One set of results showed 39% of interviewed students did not see a moral, ethical, or legal, difference between consuming caffeine and prescription stimulants for academic achievement (Franke et al. 2012:1). A study on Tennessee university

8 students showed through self-reported data that 11.3% of responding students had misused prescription stimulants (Bossaer et al. 2013:967). This study borrowed from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in defining misuse as “the use of prescription drugs not prescribed for the respondent or respondent use only for the experience of the feeling they caused” (2010:11). The same study included self-reported reasons for misuse as enhanced alertness/energy and improved academic performance (Bossaer et al. 2013:969). Another study showed in 2007, 35% of college students reported using a non-prescription nootropic (Wilens et al. 2008:23). Student use of non-prescription stimulants has been determined as a method of improving academic achievement, with students having lower GPA’s reporting higher use, as well as student consumers reporting higher expectations of non-prescription stimulants (Looby et al. 2015:143).

Several studies have been conducted on nootropic consumption by healthcare professionals, with data indicating use begins in medical school and continues into professional practice. A multi-institutional study in the greater Chicago area showed 11% of students (more males than females) using psychostimulants during medical school, with more non-users being first year students (Emanuel et al. 2013:1032). Ethical questions have been raised pertaining to the use of nootropics in the medical field. Some suggest it is ethical to promote nootropics among healthcare professionals, claiming it would save as many lives as technologically possible, however, ethics boards should be created to monitor consumption (Greely et al.

2008:704). Psychostimulants have been proposed as a legal requirement for surgeons, in attempt to avoid fatigue related errors (Goold and Maslen 2014:63). Analysts have suggested German medical schools include courses on nootropics as a preventative measure against addiction and

9 patient risk, because a high percentage of self-reported surgeons admitted to using prescription and non-prescription nootropics (Franke et al. 2013:7).

Promises of improved memory and attentiveness appeal to elderly demographics as rates of cognitive diseases including Alzheimer’s and dementia increase. In a study on the internet and how it is used, seventy-two percent (fifty-two million) of information seekers on the internet are searching for information related to memory loss, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia (Fox

2006:1). Alzheimer’s disease is the fifth leading cause of death for people aged 65 and older in the United States; the cost of healthcare for people with Alzheimer’s and other dementia is expected to reach 1.1 trillion in costs to Medicare and Medicaid by 2050 (NCHS 2013). Herbal remedies for cognitive deterioration have become increasingly relevant; a study on healthy individuals sixty-five years old and over, found the herb ginkgo biloba “was assumed to be effective for cognitive enhancement and the treatment of cognitive decline by two thirds of the surveyed participants and one third believed ginkgo to be effective for preventing dementia”

(Franke 2014:435). On the other hand, the use of prescription drugs to slow down the onset and diminish symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease increased from 2006-2012 (Hernandez and Zhang

2017:3). In future decades cognitive enhancers will become increasingly popular, as there will be an increased proportion of older adults, as well as a greater prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia (Gestuvo and Hung 2012:97).

Contemporary rates show nootropics being used primarily by university students, medical professionals, and elderly at a steady rate of increase. The cultural, social, and political conditions driving consumption increases include but are not limited to medical and non-medical university formats, care received by cognitive declining elderly, and great faith in neurotechnology. A critical discourse analysis of nootropic advertisements can elaborate on these

10 reasons for consumption in terms of culture and political economy– a contextual explanation for the recurrent growth of the cognitive industry.

Political Economic Analysis of the Nootropic Industry

“Tobacco, sugar, and tea were the first objects within capitalism that conveyed with their use the complex idea that one could become different by consuming differently” (Mintz 1985:185)

In Sidney Mintz’s book Sweetness and Power, the history of sugar is dissected and shown to promote power relations, economic influence on cultural change, social status, and food’s ability to acquire symbolic meaning. The political economic context during the American

Industrial Revolution allowed sugar to become a commodity symbolic of wealth and social status. The current information and services-based economy has permitted a similar occurrence with nootropics and self-imagined levels of functioning.

Slavery, labor exploitation, and conquest were consistent themes of sugar production, including in the sixteenth century when production spread to Atlantic islands controlled by Spain and Portugal. These islands established trade routes with Africa, Spanish colonies, England, and the West Indies, eventually supplying most of Europe with sugar. It can be argued that sugar is accountable for England society’s conversion from a “hierarchical, status-based, medieval society to a social-democratic, capitalistic, and industrial society” (Mintz 1985:185).

As of 2015, the United States supplement industry was worth 37 billion (Bradley 2015), where sales have more than doubled since the passing of the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) (Nichter 2006:177), which allows dietary supplements to be marketed without FDA approval (although FDA review is required). The neuropharmacology market alone has surpassed the coffee industry (Cheshire 2014), which generates 19 billion per year in the United States (Wild 2005:2). The nootropic market including both dietary supplements and pharmacological products, is worth 445 billion dollars in the United States

11 alone (Qudimat 2016:2). In 2015 the nootropic market in the United States had the largest observed CAGR (compound annual growth rate) with Europe having the second largest; this market is forecasted to grow exponentially through 2024 (NASDAQ 2017). These stimulants can be as common as coffee, pharmacological, over-the-counter both biomedical and alternative, or sold online by companies varying from small and independent to commercial. Following political economic theory, strong sources of wealth such as the nootropic industry, and political processes are interrelated.

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the federal government funds almost $140 billion a year for research and development, down from a

2010 peak of about $160 billion (Jahnke 2017:2). The current political climate is not promoting optimism among researchers and scientists dedicated to their field. President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for 2018 cuts funding to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by six million dollars (LaFrance 2017:2). However, amid the 2018 budget cuts described by some as the

“beginning of a lost generation in American research” (LaFrance 2017), the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative received a 41% funding increase. This initiative began under the Obama administration in 2013 and aims to develop and apply new technologies to “treat, cure, and even prevent brain disorders”; this initiative hopes to

“revolutionize our understanding of the human brain” (NIH 2018). This political decision to increase the federal funding of neuroscience, is a light amidst a bleak horizon of budget cuts, perhaps in part because the field of neuroscience is a low-risk investment, with the nootropic enterprise proving consumers are willing to pay for their brain.

The process of bestowing meaning upon objects which in turn create and shift social processes can be seen throughout history. The rise of biotechnologies within the postindustrial

12 era has contributed to cultural emphasis on cognitive function (i.e. the desk job), as opposed to physical labor. The current cyber economy, media, and marketing campaigns have contributed to nootropic supplements becoming associated with enhanced performance mentally, emotionally, financially, socially, and more. The process of objects becoming commodified and shaping culture is dialectical – furthering the need to discuss the cultural significance of nootropics now, prior to future political and social shifts.

Nootropic Marketing Claims as Regulated by Federal Agencies

How nootropic companies describe the power of their products and their ability to transform the mind and body of consumers is largely dictated and constrained by federal legislation. In the United States, non-pharmaceutical nootropics are governed by dietary supplement laws; product labels are regulated by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concentrates on advertising. Both agencies discuss advertising and labeling restrictions within their consumer protection policies, where company claims are categorized based on purpose. There are qualified health claims, nutrient content claims, and structure/function claims. In dictating the construction of claim types, these agencies are not exact in prohibiting words and phrases, rather they offer parameters around the type of research, and methods used to base claims off such research. Several jurisdictions allow the FTC and FDA to take legal action against dietary supplement companies; both agencies agree to analyze marketing materials and the meaning of claims from the position of targeted demographics (Hoffmann and Schwartz 2016:62). Consequences for companies not adhering to labeling and advertising laws include the seizing of products and monetary profit generated, and the recommendation of criminal prosecution (Hoffmann and Schwartz 2016:68).

Where the FTC assists in policing dietary supplement marketing, they have nothing to do with regulating pharmaceutical drug advertising – this is reserved strictly for the FDA.

Pharmaceutical drug companies in the United States are restricted by the FDA to three types of advertisement claims: Product Claim, Help Seeking, and Reminder Advertisements (U.S. FDA

2015). Each form of prescription marketing generally requires with every promotional description a reciprocal listing of side effects. The United States classifies most prescription nootropics as controlled substances and 21 states use a form of prescription monitoring program

(PMP) to prevent the misuse of prescription psychostimulants (Sussman et al. 2006:11).

Around the globe, regulation agencies for both dietary supplements and pharmaceuticals are not uniform. In the United Kingdom, the Food Supplement Agency (FSA) regulates the production of vitamins, minerals, and herbal supplements; advertising claims are controlled by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MRHA), and prescriptions are supervised under the National Health Service Agency (NHS). In the United States, dietary supplements can make claims if supported by evidence meeting FDA and FTC criteria.

However, in the UK any non-prescription supplement, commonly referred to in the UK as traditional herbal remedies (THR) or food remedies, cannot make any claim, other than stating support of overall health. To be legally sold in the UK, dietary supplements must be registered and stamped with an official THR logo. As in the United States, dietary supplements sold online and unregistered with the FDA or FSA, are immune to regulatory restrictions and enhancement claims are made freely in advertisements and marketing materials. However, the burgeoning nootropic market in the UK was recently stunted by the Psychoactive Substance Act of 2016. UK government commentary on the legal action stated the policy was meant to target “legal highs”.

The act prohibits the sale, use, import, export, possession, and possession with intent to supply

14 any “substance intended for human consumption that is capable of producing a psychoactive effect; the maximum sentence will be 7 years imprisonment”. This act excludes “legitimate substances” such as nicotine, alcohol, food, tobacco, and caffeine (UK Parliament 2016).

The internet provides immediate access to dietary supplements around the world, meaning consumers can purchase products produced outside of FDA jurisdiction. Online consumers are exposed to numerous advertisements as well as illegal dietary supplements – described in the U.S. as supplements containing “hidden or deceptively labeled ingredients”

(U.S. FDA 2018). With the abundance of nootropics on the market, regulating those available online is a daunting task. The FDA urges consumers to report to their website products suspected of fraudulent claims seeming “exaggerated or unrealistic.” The FDA maintains power in the ability to ban the consumption of products, as seen with nootropics phenibut and piracetam.

These recently banned nootropics were removed from Ebay and Amazon by the FDA. Still sold on other websites, phenibut and piracetam must now be labeled, “Not for Human Consumption”.

This study provides several pieces of rhetoric extracted from nootropic marketing materials written by marketers following federal legislation.

METHODS

The Mind, Body, and Self as Discursive Constructions

Recent scientific advancements in genetics, pharmacology, and neurosciences have brought biology closer to curing cognitive diseases such as dementia. Biomedical feats such as this widen the scope of feasibility for recent medications including nootropics and their capacity to augment cognitive function. This widened scope of perceived viability can be seen manifested in the discursive colloquy of nootropic advertisements.

“Biohacking broadly encompasses the practice of individuals without a specific disability applying technology to self-experiment with aspects of their own biology” (Xu and

Laumann 2016:AB30). Biohacking and related terms and concepts contribute to the discursive construction of the mind, body, and self as operable machines containing no mystery.

Lifevantage, a United States supplement brand, uses language including biohacking and nutrigenomics to signify the legitimacy of their nutritional, beauty, and fitness products, and their consumers as capable of optimizing their functionality. The homepage of the Lifevantage website…

“What more are you capable of? Lets find out. Any biohacker knows that to truly take control of your body’s output, you need to first control what is input - beginning with what nutrients it receives. This is why Nutrigenomics are a fundamental part of the biohacker’s arsenal. And why they are our passion. We agree with leading researchers that extending human life is inevitable. However, we believe that in order to truly enjoy extreme longevity, we need to biohack our healthspan” (Lifevantage Advertisement)

Nutrigenomics describes the interface of nutrition and genes, especially in relation to disease prevention. Lifevantage marketers use this term to describe the mind, body, and self, as apparatuses working on an input/output design. The promotion above explicitly uses the term body, while alluding to the mind and self with the language, “truly enjoy.” Outside the context of nootropic marketing, truly enjoy(ing) longevity might be understood in terms of (moderately controllable) circumstances aligning in the correct circumstantial way; however, in cognitive enhancing advertisements biohacking and related language constructs the mind, body, and self as operable machines, capable of being controlled down to the exact condition.

We continuously absorb endless forms of discourse and constantly reproduce our interpretations of these into new forms (Foucault 1970). Biohacking and related terms construct the ideal mind, body, and self as requiring micromanagement for optimal fulfillment.

Foucauldian philosophy warns against underestimating the power of discourse, as the absorption and reproduction of ideas leads to cultural and historical shifts.

The Rhetorical Constitution of Medicalisation

The discursive strategies identified here as common in nootropic marketing are significant in their combined and individual power to perpetuate social processes. Harvey in his critical discourse analysis of prescription hair loss drug promotions (Harvey 2013) argued that common discursive strategies put forth by marketers contribute to the social process of medicalisation. Peter Conrad defines medicalisation as the social process by which “nonmedical problems become deﬁned and treated as medical problems, usually in terms of illness and disorders” (Conrad 2007:4).

The percentage of gross national product spent on health care in the U.S. has increased from 4.5 percent in 1950 to 16 percent in 2006 (Kaiser Family Foundation 2005:5). Largely an alleged social process in the Western world, medicalisation is perpetuated by the pharmaceutical and dietary supplement industries. If a drug can treat a problem, then the origin of the problem, so the logic of medicalisation dictates, must be illness” (Rubin 2004:372). More so than the vast market of products, it is the persuasive discourse in product marketing perpetuating medicalisation as this process is largely a “discursive enterprise” convincing individuals they would benefit from treatment (Harvey 2013:692).

“I forgot keys again. Why am I always late for work? Is living up to your potential feel like a game that never goes your way? If these symptoms have frustrated you your whole life, it could be adult ADD. For more information, visit Strattera.com. Strattera is the only non-stimulant treatment for adult ADD—a condition your doctor can diagnose and treat. It helps control ADD symptoms throughout the day, so you can focus.” (Strattera Advertisement aired in 2005)

A critique of medicalisation questions whether its premise assumes too great an influence of biomedicine in the daily life of current individuals (Petersen 1997). However, this study

17 disagrees and points to the large range of practices emerging around the management of what some has called our “embrained existence” (Rose and Abi-Rached 2014:16). This discussion has occurred within the arena of law, with the recent practice of using mapped brain images as argument within the legal justice system. This has been highly criticized by law theorists and termed Brain Overclaim Syndrome (BOS): The use of neuroscience as evidence in the making of unsupported moral or legal claims, afflicting those inflamed by new neuroscientific discoveries

(Morse 2005:397). The creation of cognitive therapy treatments to treat BOS makes this syndrome another example of medicalisation.

Interrogating marketing and advertising discourse can provide a better understanding of how exactly medicalized discursive-semiotic strategies operate on consumers (Harvey

2013:692). The Strattera advertisement provided in this section describes ordinary occurrences such as being late, forgetting keys, and self-doubt as treatable symptoms. Strattera marketers use vocabulary including treatment, diagnose, and symptoms, medicalizing cognitive function. On an individual level, this marketing strategy has been described as disease-mongering and anxiety- inducing (Harvey 2013:695). Medicalisation as a sociocultural phenomenon, perpetuated and demonstrated discursively in nootropic marketing capitalizes on consumer’s self-imagined productive and attentive neoliberal self.

Commonly Identified Discursive Strategies

In his discourse analysis of hair loss drugs, Harvey (2013) borrowed from Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen, social semiotic linguists, when he defined his social semiotic framework in terms of discourse, design, production, and distribution. Kress and van Leeuwen describe these strata as modes of articulation in the process of human signification (2001:18). Previous literature has laid a strong foundation for this critical discourse analysis of nootropic advertising.

Among a wide range of nootropic advertisements, I identify four prominent discursive-semiotic strategies, each exercising one of Kress and van Leeuwen’s modes of articulation: (1) The rhetorical endorsement of nootropic efficacy through referencing diverse and long-standing cultural traditions of use and importance (production), (2) Employing scientific language to legitimize the clinical use of nootropics, (3) Framing the average person’s brain as suboptimal

(discourse), (4) Synonymizing the brain with the self, extending enhancement claims to consumer’s identity (distribution).

ANALYSIS

Rhetorical Validation of Long-Standing and Diverse Consumption

In various nootropic commercials and promotions, marketers establish the diverse and long-standing use of cognitive enhancement products, a salient discursive-semiotic strategy.

Deconstructing this linguistic approach explains the semiotic mode and theoretical frameworks embodied in select nootropic advertisements. This critical analysis considers why marketers telegraph a history of nootropics in their advertising and offers possible explanations to why the antiquity of these substances enhances their value. This linguistic approach demonstrates numerous elements of current neuroculture including but not limited to the construction, conception, and disillusionment with allopathic medicine as an institution.

“Many of the supplements we now recognize as natural nootropics can be traced back hundreds of centuries; for example, Ginkgo Biloba was widely used as a brain tonic in ancient Chinese medicine, while Ashwagandha was commonly prescribed by India’s traditional Ayurvedic practitioners to improve concentration and relieve stress. Other natural nootropics like Lion’s Mane mushroom and Bacopa Monnieri were used as memory enhancers by ancient cultures all over the world, from areas as diverse as Europe, Asia, and both North and South America. Many clinical trials now exist to support and explain the effects of these natural nootropic supplements” (Braintropic Advertisement)

Identifying the mode of articulation is methodologically helpful when critically analyzing text (Kress and van Leeuwen 2001). Endorsing nootropics as longstanding in the Braintropic commercial above, exemplifies the articulation mode of production. Describing nootropics as being “traced back hundreds of centuries”, linguistically constructs their origin and production as being global and historic. This example of production as a mode of articulation describes natural nootropics as having a long history in terms of both time and space. Furthermore,

Braintropic marketers align the “ancient” use of nootropics with current cognitive enhancement supplements, generating a cultural space where consumers can participate in a global and historical practice. Marketers linguistically divide natural nootropics and the medical field with their phrasing, “Many clinical trials now exist…”. Use of the word “now” exaggerates the consumption of natural nootropics having historically preceded select scientific technology, while also making clear allopathic medicine is a distinct structural institution.

While Braintropic marketers recognize the extensive history of nootropic supplement ingredients, they take an interpretive approach in richly describing multiple examples of global consumption. Details provided in the advertisement include the continents, countries, and cultures who have consumed natural nootropic ingredients, as well as the reasons for consumption (“brain tonic… improve concentration and relieve stress… memory enhancer”).

Braintropic marketers construct a certainty pertaining to natural nootropics, while recognizing the authority of biomedicine in the last line of their commercial. In the reality constructed by

Braintropic marketers, both natural nootropics and the clinical realm have legitimacy, but in this promotion, alternative supplements like Braintropic are accredited with a rich unbound history.

These are a few interpretations potentially conceptualized by consumers, indicating how discursive social realities are reflexive in nature (Fairclough 2012:9). You could describe the

Braintropic product as material-semiotic (Jessop 2004), or “simultaneously material and semiotic in character” (Fairclough 2012:9). The formation of consumer ideas, largely influenced by marketing media, and consumer behavior, is dialectical. In other words, social change is

“dialectically operationalized” (Fairclough 2012:9). Braintropic marketers use thick description to accredit their product’s ingredients with a global history; frequent in nootropic advertising, this discursive strategy operates on consumers effectively in part because of current culture and contemporary notions including the disillusionment with orthodox medicine.

Conducting this study as a critical social analysis calls for a historical examination of the semiotic realities in nootropic marketing discourse. A critical social analysis considers these realities as “humanly produced constraints… (or) transformed realities that enhance well-being”

(Fairclough 2012:10). The Braintropic promotion, like many other nootropic advertisements, emphasizes the ingredients being natural and used throughout history. The growth of what has come to be known as contemporary alternative medicine, has provoked a plethora of literature analyzing the power of “natural” on supplement labels. One study suggests “natural” labeling

“evokes positive feelings and sentimental imagery associated with a pastoral view of nature” due to contemporary “naïve naturalism” (the viewing of earth as a human source of strength and renewal generated by human distance from nature) (Clinton et al. 2014:69). This confidence in natural ingredients is argued as a consumer perspective rivaling any views historically held by patients in the orthodox medicine system; whether patients seek alternative medicine, reject specific facets such as vaccines, or remain as skeptics aiming to reform, patients of orthodox medicine have asserted their agency since the beginnings of U.S. health care (Jones 2017:135).

Establishing a history in marketing texts, is an attempt to delink products from negative connotations and associate them more with a shared ritual or alternative social venue (Gopaldas

2014:158). In the case of nootropics, the shared social venue is the current consumer’s disillusionment with medicine. The semiotic reality of the nootropic industry, as constructed in marketing materials, is a reterritorialized space where consumers can assert cognitive agency in a culture separated from nature and disillusioned with orthodox medicine.

Use of Scientific Language to Legitimize Clinical Research

In marketing and advertising, both pharmaceutical and alternative cognitive enhancement products discursively situate themselves on a foundation of science. This linguistic strategy and its frameworks, both semiotic and theoretical, assist in the communication of current neurocultural processes, clarified here through a critical discourse and social analysis.

“Bacopa Extract: Nature’s Viagra for the Brain. Bacopa Extract comes from a plant called Brahmi and has been used in Ayvurveda, traditional Indian medicine, for centuries. Pure Science Supplements naturally sourced Bacopa Monnieri in vegetarian capsule form has been widely known to give a boost to memory. Bacosides are the main component of Bacopa Extract, which can perk up the transmission of impulses in the brain. Increasing the rate of transfer of impulses on the brain synapses would mean better and faster memory formation and recall…” (Bacopa Advertisement)

(Good Manufacturing Practice Certification)

There are several examples of design as a mode of articulation in the above Bacopa promotion. Marketers construct a positive social relationship between consumers and pharmaceutical medicine by describing Bacopa as “Viagra for the brain”. Beyond constructed social relations, design as a mode of articulation describes images and symbols used in multimodal text. This Bacopa nootropic is brandished with a certification known as Good

Manufacturing Practice (GMP); these are awarded by the FDA to both pharmaceutical and dietary supplements who have established their product as being pure, accurately labeled, and of

22 good quality. Moreover, the FDA describes this certification as “science-based consumer protection” (FDA 2007). This centimeter sized symbol enhances the value of its product through communicating legitimacy and authority to the consumer, both on the grounds of science.

Logical positivism asserts that all worthy propositions are verifiable by experience or quantitatively analytic. The marketers at Pure Science Supplements project positivism with their language: “Bacosides are the main component of Bacopa Extract, which can perk up the transmission of impulses in the brain. Increasing the rate of transfer of impulses on the brain synapses would mean better and faster memory formation and recall…”. This described demonstrable sensation is discursively evidence-based in form. Legitimation is the discursive

“why”, normally exuded in credentials whether they be in text or visual form (van Leeuwen

2007:95). The objective certainty as well as the GMP certification label, discursively reinforce the legitimacy of Bacopa. Authority however, is the discursive “who.” Bacopa marketers project authority of tradition when they describe the Ayurvedic consumption dating back “centuries”.

Expert authority is enacted with their techno-scientific language, extending to the company name: Pure Science Solutions. Evaluative adjectives help to reinforce methods of authority (van

Leeuwen 2007:198), whereas “naturally” is used here to describe the extraction process. Bacopa marketers use positive science to situate their product on a platform of legitimacy and authority; this common strategy among nootropic marketers is clear in conveying current cultural notions, such as the power bestowed by science and technology.

Power is legitimated authority (Piercy 2014:93) and in current culture, the field of science has social power. Modern science and its acquired technology are referenced in nootropic promotions as part of a discursive regime; in part because medicine and science go hand-in-hand, and also because of the immense socio-cultural importance of those in the profession (Gillett

2007:3). The Bacopa product described above, discursively positions grammaticalization

(language fitting the mode of discourse) in conjunction with lexicalization – a linguistic shift in form, within the last line of text. The line begins with grammaticalization – a techno-scientific description of the product (“Increasing the rate of transfer of impulses on the brain synapses…”). The line ends with a more casual description of how Bacopa acts on the brain, hence lexicalization (“…would mean better and faster memory formation and recall”). Harvey in his discourse analysis of pharmaceutical hair loss drugs, witnessed a similar pattern occurring among these drug commercials. “In order not to alienate their audiences and to maintain relations with them, many of the websites suffuse their technical, scientific explanations of hair loss with more informal discourse language forms redolent of ordinary face-to-face communication”

(2013:706). It has been said techno-scientific discourses in marketing, media, and culture contribute to the expansion of medicalisation (Clarke et al. 2003:163). The rhetorical use of scientific language would not operate as effectively on consumers without the culturally bestowed legitimation, authority, and power to the field of science.

Framing the Average Person’s Brain as Suboptimal

In 1990, President George Bush declared the following ten years, the “Decade of the

Brain” (President Proclamation 1990). Over the course of this decade, several studies and various neuroscientists contributed to verifying neurogenesis in adult human brains. It was thought prior to this point neurons could not be regenerated after a certain point of development.

Now we know designated areas of the adult human brain can produce neurons from primitive cells (Gage 2002:2). Neurogenesis is one of numerous neuropolitical concepts semiotically projected in nootropic advertising, these notions discursively driving how the human brain is culturally perceived.

“Out of the long list of nootropics, only a few assist with neurogenesis. Since neurogenesis is key for both sharp mental performance and long-range brain health, Mind Lab Pro® is formulated to supply several of the best nootropics for brain regeneration. Few natural substances have been found to improve brain growth and development beyond the standard measures of basic nutrition, such as oils and phospholipid-rich foods. Yet, some natural nootropics stand out, and continue to stand out with more and more clinical research, for their profound brain building potential. Here are some of the best natural nootropics found in Mind Lab Pro® that support healthy brain regeneration…” (Mind Lab Pro Nootropics Promotion)

Succeeding the “Decade of the Brain”, the twenty-first century brought an influx of brain studies, and neuroscience took on a large presence in the media. Popular culture began referencing brain mapping and imaging, whether it be on the topic of brain health, or falling in love. “In the context of an economy increasingly dependent on brain power… neuroscience was implicating how individuals managed their daily life” (Rose and Abi-Rached 2014:6). The Mind

Lab Pro advertisement above lexically expresses the scientific knowledge of neurogenesis. As a stratum of multimodal communication, discourse can indicate changes in economic and social practices (Kress and van Leeuwen 2001:35). The commonness of neuroscience discourse in nootropic advertisements, suggests staying attuned to neural research is becoming cultural practice. As a mode of articulation, discourse is constructed knowledge, based on the pertaining reality and social context (Kress and van Leeuwen 2001:4). The Mind Lab Pro puts forth knowledge surrounding a neuroscientific reality (neurogenesis), constructed based on the cultural context (advances in neuroscience). The above advertisement discursively attributes “sharp mental performance and long-range brain health” to neurogenesis, however the workings of this biological process are more abstract, and this is a constructed understanding in the context of advertisement text.

The human ‘embrained’ existence is political as much as it is commoditized. The capacity to think has taken precedence over the capacity to make, with some referring to recent culture as a “knowledge society” (Rose and Abi-Rached 2014:3). The global economy is

25 information-based, demands flexibility, and hinges success on cognitive innovation. This cultural emphasis on the brain and the current global economy has caused some to describe the brain as a biopolitical resource (Rose and Abi-Rached 2014:4). Nootropic promotions conveying supplementation as an avoidance tactic to neural decline, permeates culture on an individual and societal level. Part of a critical discourse analysis involves examining what is not said; in the

Mind Lab Pro commercial, marketers claim their product is “formulated to supply several of the best nootropics for brain regeneration.” This implies brain degradation has already occurred.

Moreover, marketers place their supplements’ capabilities higher than “standard measures of basic nutrition,” constructing the purchase of a commodity as the best viable option.

Supplements and prescriptions offering “brain building potential” like the nootropic above, offer manipulation of every cognitive function. The supplemented brain has been ideologically and discursively constructed by multimodal media as better fit for the current political economic context. This call to action marketing strategy suggests the human brain without supplementation is suboptimal.

Equivalating the Brain to the Self

Neurological enhancements rely on the assumption that all behavior, interactions, and physiological functions are related to neuronal structures, brain chemistry, or the mind.

Marketers synonymize the brain with the self, discursively constructing cognition as the source of consumer identity.

“Competition is unavoidable. No matter how altruistic your intentions, you are competing. If you are in the corporate structure, you are competing for a promotion. If you are in the stock market, you are competing against other investors. If you run a small business, you are competing against other companies. If you are dating, you are competing against other suitors. If you are a parent, you are competing to create more time to do what you love. If you aren’t taking Alpha Brain, you are playing at a disadvantage” (Alpha Brain Advertisement)

“The brain is considered to be the organ of mind and consciousness and, particularly in

Western cultures, the locus of selfhood” (Hogle 2005:709). The Alpha Brain promotion demonstrates the discursive synonymizing. “If you aren’t taking Alpha Brain, you are playing at a disadvantage”. This perspective minimalizes social reliance and contributes to the large demand for enhancement products (Rose 2003:49). Diminished social reliance is encouraged above by the repetitive theme of competition among all cohorts including coworkers, family members, and even spouses. The rhetorical tone in the Alpha Brain promotion is emblematic of what has been discussed as modern humanism, or transhumanism: “The modern expression of ancient and transcultural aspirations to radically transform human existence, socially and bodily”

(Hughes 2012). Essentially, the influence of a globalized internet commerce and continuous growth of modern medicine, has led to science entering the debate on how “I” or the “self” should be culturally recognized. “Whether or not the originator of the nootropic concept was explicitly influenced by some transhumanist writings is neither evident nor important, but the fact that transhumanist aspirations largely fuel the quest of smart drugs is obvious” (Margineanu

2011:48).

Transhumanism is an “interdisciplinary approach to understanding and evaluating the opportunities for enhancing the human condition and the human organism opened up by the advancement of technology” (Bostrom 2003:3). This movement conjures reflexivity, in an era of what some have called the age of neurological reflexivity (Taylor 2013). In this era, we are constantly reminded that our brain shapes who we are, but that we have the power to shape our brains through conscious decision making (Rose and Abi-Rached 2014:6). Transhumanism and neurological reflexivity are ideologies welcoming a human transition to something different and new. Although neuroscience broadcasts new understandings of the brain at a constant pace,

27 ethical and moral values have shifted very little throughout human history; human or posthuman: “Species does not dictate moral value” (Lawrence 2017:179). Nootropic marketers describe the self in terms of neurochemicals or cognitive function. If nootropic discourse conveys a self-imagined version of the neoliberal self, as hypothesized here, a twenty-first century post-humanism era is just beginning.

DISCUSSION

Conclusions

Here a discourse analysis does not wish to provide truth on the power of nootropics or historical commentary on the arrival of the wellness industry; but a better understanding of how exactly nootropic discourses seen in advertising contribute to constructions of the contemporary mind, body, and self. The growing prevalence of nootropics reinforces recent discussions of wellness becoming a commodified industry. The contemporary healthy mind and ideas behind its meaning are increasingly influenced by the evolution of societal pressures.

Exemplified in advertisement lingo are evidences of modern ideas on the brain and the self. This demonstrated language used in cognitive enhancer, or “nootropic” advertising, suggests the way in which modern information driven lifestyles are manifesting themselves in cultural ideals of the body. A better understanding of the language seen in nootropic marketing materials can provide insight into cultural and moral shifts causing contemporary ideas of the mind, body, and self to include cognitive enhancement.

REFERENCES Bossaer, J., J. Gray, S. Miller, G. Enck, V. Gaddipati, and R. Enck 2013 The Use and Misuse of Prescription Stimulants as “Cognitive Enhancers” by Students at One Academic Health Sciences Center. Academic Medicine 88(7): 967-971.

Bostrom, Nick 2005 Ethical Issues for the Twenty-First Century: Transhumanist Values. Philosophy Documentation Center: 3-14.

Bradley, John 2015 NBJ: ‘The U.S. Supplement Industry is 37 Billion, Not 12 Billion. Nutrition Business Journal.

Cheshire, William 2014 Drugs for Enhancing Cognition and their Ethical Implications: A Hot New Cup of Tea. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics 6(3): 263-266.

Clarke, A., J. Shim, L. Mamo, J. Fosket, and J. Fishman 2003 Biomedicalization: Technoscientiﬁc Transformations of Health, Illness, and U.S. Biomedicine. American Sociological Review 68(2): 161-94.

Clinton Amos, Iryna Pentina, Timothy G. Hawkins, and Natalie Davis 2014 “Natural” Labeling and Consumers’ Sentimental Pastoral Notion. Journal of Product & Brand Management 23(4/5): 268-281.

Conrad, Peter 2007 The Medicalization of Society on the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Dune 1984 David Lynch, director. Universal Studios Home Entertainment.

Emanuel, R., S. Frellsen, K. Kashima, S. Sanguino, F. Sierles, and C. Lazarus 2013 Cognitive Enhancement Drug Use Among Future Physicians: Findings from a Multi-Institutional Census of Medical Students. Journal of General Internal Medicine 28(8): 1028-1034.

Fairclough, Norman 2012 Critical Discourse Analysis. Lancaster: Academia.

Fairclough, Norman 2010 Second Edition Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York, NY: Taylor Francis Group.

Foucault, Michel 1970 The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Fox, Susannah 2006 Online Health Search 2006: Most Internet Users Start at a Search Engine when Looking for Health Information Online. Very Few Check the Source and Date of the Information They Find. Pew Internet and American Life Project: 1-22.

Franke, A., I. Heinrich, K. Lieb, and A. Fellgiebel 2014 The Use of Gingko Biloba in Healthy Elderly. Age 36(1): 435-444.

Franke, A., C. Bagusat, P. Dietz, I. Hoffmann, P. Simon, R. Urich, and K. Lieb 2013 Use of Illicit and Prescription Drugs for Cognitive or Mood Enhancement Among Surgeons. BMC Medicine 11(102): 1-9.

Franke, Andreas, Klaus Lieb, and Elisabeth Hildt 2012 What Users Think about the Differences between Caffeine and Illicit/Prescription Stimulants for Cognitive Enhancement. Public Library of Science 7(6): 1-7.

Gage, Fred H. 2002 Neurogenesis in the Adult Brain. Journal of Neuroscience 22(3): 612-613.

Geldmacher, David 2003 Long-Term Cholinesterase Inhibitor Therapy for Alzheimer's Disease: Practical Considerations for the Primary Care Physician. The Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 5(6): 251-259.

Gestuvo and Hung 2012 Common Dietary Supplements for Cognitive Health. Aging Health 8(1): 89-97.

Gold, Paul, Larry Cahill, and Gary Wenk 2002 Gingko biloba: A Cognitive Enhancer? Psychological Science in the Public Interest 3(1): 2-11.

Goold, I. and H. Maslen 2014 Must the Surgeon take the Pill? Negligence duty in the Context of Cognitive Enhancement. Mod. Law Rev. 77: 60–86.

Gopaldas, Ahir 2014 Translating Anthropological Consumption Theories into Humanistic Marketing Practices. Humanistic Marketing 11: 150-163.

Gillett, Grant 2006 Medical Science, Culture, and Truth. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine: 1-13.

Harvey, Kevin 2013 Medicalisation, Pharmaceutical Promotion and the Internet: A Critical Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Hair Loss Websites. Social Semiotics 23(5): 691-714.

Hernandez, Immaculada and Yuting Zhang 2017 Pharmaceutical Use and Spending Trend in Medicare Beneficiaries With Dementia, From 2006 to 2012. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine 3: 1-9.

Hine, Robert and Elizabeth Martin 2016 A Dictionary of Biology, 7th Edition. Oxford University Press.

Hoffmann, Diane and Jack Schwartz 2016 Stopping Deceptive Health Claims: The Need for a Private Right of Action Under Federal Law. American Journal of Law and Medicine 42.1: 53-84.

Hogle, Linda 2005 Enhancement Technologies and the Body. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 695-716.

Hoopes, Scott 1999 Donepezil for Tourette’s Disorder and ADHD. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 19(4): 381-382.

Hughes, James 2012 The Politics of Transhumanism and the Techno-Millennial Imagination, 1626- 2030. The Journal of Religion and Science 47(4): 757-776.

Jahnke, Art 2017 Who Picks up the Tab for Science? For Half a Century, the Government Funded Research. Times are Changing. Research

Jessop, Bob 2004 Critical Semiotic Analysis and Cultural Political Economy. Critical Discourse Studies 1(2): 159-175).

Kaiser Family Foundation 2005 Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries. Health Costs: Exhibit 5.

Kress, G. and T. van Leeuwen 2001 Multimodal Discourse. London: Arnold.

Jones, David Shumway 2017 Patients, Consumers, and the Enduring Challenge to Medical Authority. Reviews in American History 45(1): 128-135.

LaFrance, Adrienne 2017 Scientists Brace for a Lost Generation in American Research. The Atlantic.

Lawrence, David R. 2017 The Edge of Human? The Problem with the Posthuman as the ‘Beyond’. Bioethics 31(3): 171-179.

Leeuwen, Theo van 2005 Introducing Social Semiotics. New York, NY: Routledge.

Leeuwen, Theo van 2007 Legitimation in Discourse and Communication. Sage Publications 1(1): 91-112.

Looby, Alison, Danielle Beyer, and Lauren Zimmerman 2015 Non-Medical Prescription Stimulant Use: Investigating Modifiable Risk Factors. Addiction Research and Theory 23(2): 143-147).

Margineanu, Doru Georg 2011 A Weird Concept with Unusual Fate: Nootropic Drug. Revue des Questions Scientifiques 182 (1): 33-52.

Morse, Stephen J. 2005 Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility: A Diagnostic Note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 3: 397-412.

Mintz, Sidney 1985 Sweetness and Power. New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc.

NASDAQ OMX's News Release Distribution Channel 2017 Global Nootropics Market Outlook, Competitive Strategies and Forecasts, 2014- 2016 & 2014: Analysis of the top 30 Nootropic Drug Profiles featuring Onnit and Nootrobox.

NCHS (National Center for Health Statistics) 2013 National Vital Statistics System. Multiple Cause-of-Death Files.

Nichter, Mark, and Jennifer J. Thompson 2006 For My Wellness, Not Just My Illness: North Americans’ Use of Dietary Supplements. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 30(2): 175–222.

NIH (National Institutes of Health) 2018 What is the Brain Initiative? https://www.braininitiative.nih.gov/

Petersen, Alan R. and Robin Bunton 1997 Foucault, Health and Medicine. London: Routledge.

Piercy, Nigel 2014 Marketing Organisation (RLE Marketing). London: Routlege.

President Proclamation 6158 1990 George Bush. Decade of the Brain.

Qudimat, Nader 2016 Find Out Why This 1 Trillion Dollar Brain Bending Market Is One of The Best Niches to Get Involved In. Niche Market Ideas: 1-4.

Rose, Nikolas 2003 Neurochemical Selves. Society: 46-59.

Rose, Nikolas and Joelle Abi-Rached 2014 Governing through the Brain: Neuropolitics, Neuroscience and Subjectivity. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 32(1): 3-23.

Rubin, L 2004 Merchandising Madness: Pills, Promises, and Better Living Through Chemistry. The Journal of Popular Culture 38(2): 369-83.

Ruchi, Malik, Abhijeet Sangwan, Ruchika Saihgal, Dharam Paul Jindal, and Poonam Piplani 2007 Towards Better Brain Management: Nootropics. Current Medicinal Chemistry 14(2): 123-131.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2010 Results From the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH): Summary of National Findings. NSDUH H-41(SMA): 11-4658.

Sussman, Steve, Mary Ann Pentz, Donna Spruijt-Metz, Toby Miller 2006 Misuse of ‘study drugs:’ Prevalence, Consequences, and Implications for Policy. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy: 1-15.

Taylor, Matthew 2013 Changing Minds: Preparing for an Era of Neurological Reflexivity. Royal Society of the Arts Community Archive: https://archive.org/details/Matthew_Taylor_- _Changing_minds_-_preparing_for_an_era_of_neurological_reflexivity

United Kingdom (UK) Parliament 2016 Psychoactive Substance Act 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/psychoactive-substances-bill-2015

United States Federal Drug Administration (FDA) 2018 Beware of Fraudulent Dietary Supplements. https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm246744.htm

United States Federal Drug Administration (FDA) 2017 List of Bulk Drug Substances That Can Be Used To Compound Drug Products in Accordance With Section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/16/2016-30109/list-of-bulk-drug- substances-that-can-be-used-to-compound-drug-products-in-accordance-with-section

United States Federal Drug Administration (FDA) 2015 Basics of Drug Ads. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/PrescriptionDrugAdvertising/u cm072077.htm

United States Federal Drug Administration (FDA) 2007 Backgrounder on the Final Rule for Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) for Dietary Supplements. https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/CGMP/ucm110863.htm

Wild, Antony 2005 Coffee: A Dark History. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Wilens, T., Adler, L., Adams, J., Sgambati, S., Rotrosen, J., Sawtelle, R., and Fusillo, S. 2008 Misuse and Diversion of Stimulants Prescribed for ADHD: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (47): 21–31.

Williams, Simon, Paul Higgs, and Stephen Katz 2011 Neuroculture, Active Ageing and the ‘Older Brain’: Problems, Promises and Prospects. Sociology of Health and Illness 34(1): 64-78.

Xu, Shuai and Anne Laumann 2016 The Emerging Trend of Biohacking: Self-Implanted Devices for Human Enchancement. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 74(5):AB30.

Appendix 1: Overview of Nootropic Websites

Alpha Brain www.onnit.com/alphabrain Alpha Brain is one of many supplements created by Onnit Labs, based in Texas. Onnit Labs has celebrity Joe Rogan’s endorsement, and has opened a series of gyms and exercise outlets where their nootropics are promoted.

Bacopa https://www.puresciencesupplements.com/blogs/articles/bacopa-extract-nature-s-viagra-for-the- brain Located in North Dakota, Pure Science supplement company considers their specialty the research and application of herbs found in the highlands and rainforests of the Asia Pacific.

Braintropic Products https://www.braintropic.com/best-natural-nootropic-stack/ An information-based site offering reviews, background material on nootropic ingredients, and nootropic shopping site comparisons, offering links for purchase.

Lifevantage Products www.lifevantage.com Lifevantage Corporation located in Utah, wishes to biohack the human genome to live a longer, healthier life. Their products are organized into categories of nutritionals, beauty, and fitness.

Mind Lab Pro Products https://www.mindlabpro.com/blog/nootropics/grow-brain-cells-nootropics-neurogenesis/ A brand under the European distributor, Opti Nutraceuticals, Mind Lab Pro markets one nootropic on the premise it can achieve neurogenesis for its consumer.

Strattera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ywdoz0T6EY Atomoxetine, sold under the name Strattera, was produced by Eli Lilly and Company, and approved by the FDA for treatment of ADD in 2002. The drug has been approved to treat children, adolescents, and adults.

Appendix 2: Visual Representations of Nootropic Marketing

Good Manufacturing Practice Image Backgrounder on the Final Rule for Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) for Dietary Supplements. https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/CGMP/ucm110863.htm