Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Neuroethics
Published in: Neuroethics 1/2013

01-04-2013 | Original Paper

Australian University Students’ Attitudes Towards the Acceptability and Regulation of Pharmaceuticals to Improve Academic Performance

Authors: Stephanie Bell, Brad Partridge, Jayne Lucke, Wayne Hall

Published in: Neuroethics | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

There is currently little empirical information about attitudes towards cognitive enhancement - the use of pharmaceutical drugs to enhance normal brain functioning. It is claimed this behaviour most commonly occurs in students to aid studying. We undertook a qualitative assessment of attitudes towards cognitive enhancement by conducting 19 semi-structured interviews with Australian university students. Most students considered cognitive enhancement to be unacceptable, in part because they believed it to be unethical but there was a lack of consensus on whether it was similar or different to steroid use in sport. There was support for awareness campaigns and monitoring of cognitive enhancement use of pharmaceutical drugs. An understanding of student attitudes towards cognitive enhancement is important in formulating future policy.
Literature
1.
Sahakian, B.J., and S. Morein-Zamir. 2011. Neuroethical issues in cognitive enhancement. Journal of Psychopharmacology 25(2): 197–204.CrossRef
2.
Pieters, T., and S. Snelders. 2009. Psychotropic drug use: between healing and enhancing the mind. Neuroethics 2(2): 63–73.CrossRef
3.
Bostrom, N., and A. Sandberg. 2009. Cognitive enhancement: methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 15(3): 311–341.CrossRef
4.
Schermer, M. 2008. On the argument that enhancement is "cheating". Journal of Medical Ethics 34(2): 85–88.CrossRef
5.
McCabe, S.E., J.R. Knight, C.J. Teter, and H. Wechsler. 2005. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addiction 100(1): 96–106.CrossRef
6.
Franke, A.G., C. Bonertz, M. Christmann, M. Huss, A. Fellgiebel, E. Hildt, and K. Lieb. 2011. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants and illicit use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in pupils and students in Germany. Pharmacopsychiatry 44(2): 60–66.CrossRef
7.
Lucke, J.C., S. Bell, B. Partridge, and W.D. Hall. 2011. Deflating the Neuroenhancement Bubble. AJOB Neuroscience 2(4): 38–43.CrossRef
8.
Chatterjee, A. 2009. Is it acceptable for people to take methylphenidate to enhance performance? British Medical Journal 338: 1532–1533.CrossRef
9.
Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2009. Autonomy and coercion in academic "cognitive enhancement" using methylphenidate: perspectives of key stakeholders. Neuroethics 2(3): 163–177.CrossRef
10.
Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2010. Stakeholder perspectives and reactions to “academic” cognitive enhancement: unsuspected meaning of ambivalence and analogies. Public Understanding of Science. doi:10.​1177/​0963662510385062​.
11.
Appel, J.M. 2008. When the boss turns pusher: a proposal for employee protections in the age of cosmetic neurology. Joural of Medical Ethics 34(8): 616–618.CrossRef
12.
Schoomaker, E.B. 2007. Military medical research on cognitive performance: the warfighter's competitive edge. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. Special Issue: Operational applications of cognitive performance enhancement technologies 78(5, Sect II, Suppl): B4–B6.
13.
Warren, O.J., D.R. Leff, T. Athanasiou, C. Kennard, and A. Darzi. 2009. The neurocognitive enhancement of surgeons: an ethical perspective. Journal of Surgical Research 152(1): 167–172.CrossRef
14.
Dees, R.H. 2007. Better brains, better selves? The ethics of neuroenhancements. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17(4): 371–395.CrossRef
15.
DeSantis, A., S.M. Noar, and E.M. Webb. 2010. Speeding through the frat house: a qualitative exploration of nonmedical ADHD stimulant use in fraternities. Journal of Drug Education 40(2): 157–171.CrossRef
16.
DeSantis, A.D., and A.C. Hane. 2010. "Adderall is definitely not a drug": justifications for the illegal use of ADHD stimulants. Substance Use & Misuse 45(1–2): 31–46.CrossRef
17.
DeSantis, A., E.M. Webb, and S.M. Noar. 2008. Illicit use of prescription ADHD medications on a college campus: a multimethodological approach. Journal of American College Health 57(3): 315–324.CrossRef
18.
Cakic, V. 2009. Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology. Journal of Medical Ethics 35(10): 611–615.CrossRef
19.
Greely, H., B. Sahakian, J. Harris, R.C. Kessler, M. Gazzaniga, P. Campbell, and M.J. Farah. 2008. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456(7223): 702–705.CrossRef
20.
Singh, I., and K.J. Kelleher. 2010. Neuroenhancement in young people: proposal for research, policy, and clinical management. AJOB Neuroscience 1(1): 3–16.CrossRef
21.
DeSantis, A., S.M. Noar, and E.M. Webb. 2009. Nonmedical ADHD stimulant use in fraternities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 70(6): 952–954.
22.
Hansen, E.C. 2006. Successful qualitative health research. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
23.
Hill, C.E., S. Knox, B.J. Thompson, E.N. Williams, S.A. Hess, and N. Ladany. 2005. Consensual qualitative research: an update. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52(2): 196–205.CrossRef
24.
Hill, C.E., B.J. Thompson, and E.N. Williams. 1997. A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist 25(4): 517–572.CrossRef
25.
Fox, N.J., and K.J. Ward. 2008. Pharma in the bedroom … and the kitchen … the pharmaceuticalisation of daily life. Sociology of Health & Illness 30(6): 856–868.CrossRef
26.
Hall, W. 2004. Feeling 'better than well:' can our experiences with psychoactive drugs help us to meet the challenges of novel neuroenhancement methods? EMBO Reports 5(12): 1105–1109.CrossRef
27.
Farah, M.J. 2002. Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience 5(11): 1123–1129.CrossRef
28.
Forlini, C., and E. Racine. 2009. Disagreements with implications: diverging discourses on the ethics of non-medical use of methylphenidate for performance enhancement. BMC Medical Ethics 10: 9. doi:10.​1186/​1472-6939-10-9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Australian University Students’ Attitudes Towards the Acceptability and Regulation of Pharmaceuticals to Improve Academic Performance
Authors
Stephanie Bell
Brad Partridge
Jayne Lucke
Wayne Hall
Publication date
01-04-2013
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Neuroethics / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1874-5490
Electronic ISSN: 1874-5504
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-012-9153-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Neuroethics 1/2013 Go to the issue

Original Paper

What is the “Cognitive” in Cognitive Neuroscience?

Original Paper

Introduction: Reconsidering Disorders of Consciousness in Light of Neuroscientific Evidence

Original Paper

Involuntary & Voluntary Invasive Brain Surgery: Ethical Issues Related to Acquired Aggressiveness

Original Paper

The Neuroscience of Decision Making and Our Standards for Assessing Competence to Consent

Original Paper

Ideals of Student Excellence and Enhancement

Original Paper

‘The Thorny and Arduous Path of Moral Progress’: Moral Psychology and Moral Enhancement