‘Cognitive enhancers’: A qualitative exploration of university students’ experiences with prescription medicines for academic purposes

Qualitative work with students who use prescription medicines for academic purposes is limited. Thus, a more nuanced understanding of tertiary students’ experiences is urgently needed. Our study – which draws on five semi-structured interviews with New Zealand university students, complemented with information from local newspapers, blog entries and discussion forums – reveals students’ motivations and perceived effects, their risk perceptions and provides insights into the circumstances enabling the engagement with prescription medicines for academic purposes. Students were influenced by peers and social norms; and ideas about identity, morality and fairness also played a role for engaging with cognitive enhancers. Students used high levels of stress and workload to justify their use but took individual responsibility for their practices. By taking responsibility in this way, rather than considering it as a product of their environment, they buy into the neoliberal university discourse. Unexpectedly, some participants were already receiving medically justified psychopharmacological treatment but extended and supplemented this with nonmedical use. Others considered their use as being for academic emergencies, and that their low level of use helped manage risks. Overall, students viewed pharmacological cognitive enhancement for improving academic performance as cautious, safe, and morally acceptable. We argue in this paper that a local understanding of students’ motivations, justifications and perceptions of pharmacological cognitive enhancement is required, to tailor policies and support systems better to their needs and behaviours.

Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement and Cheapened Achievement: A New Dilemma

Recent discussions of cognitive enhancement often note that drugs and technologies that improve cognitive performance may do so at the risk of “cheapening” our resulting cognitive achievements (e.g., Kass, Life, liberty and the defense of dignity: the challenge for bioethics, Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2004; Agar, Humanity’s end: why we should reject radical enhancement, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2010; Sandel, The case against perfection. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2007; Sandel, The case against perfection: what’s wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering?”. In: Holland (ed) Arguing about bioethics, Routledge, London, 2012; Harris in Bioethics 25:102–111, 2011). While there are several possible responses to this worry, we will highlight what we take to be one of the most promising—one which draws on a recent strand of thinking in social and virtue epistemology to construct an integrationist defence of cognitive enhancement. (e.g., Pritchard in Synthese 175:133–151, 2010; Palermos in Synthese 192:2955–2286, 2015; Clark in Synthese 192:3757–3375, 2015). According to such a line, there is—despite initial appearances to the contrary—no genuine tension between using enhancements to attain our goals and achieving these goals in a valuable way provided the relevant enhancement is appropriately integrated into the agent’s cognitive architecture (in some suitably specified way). In this paper, however, we show that the kind of integration recommended by such views will likely come at a high cost. More specifically, we highlight a dilemma for users of pharmacological cognitive enhancement: they can (1) meet the conditions for cognitive integration (and on this basis attain valuable achievements) at the significant risk of dangerous dependency, or (2) remain free of such dependency while foregoing integration and the valuable achievements that such integration enables. After motivating and clarifying the import of this dilemma, we offer recommendations for how future cognitive enhancement research may offer potential routes for navigating past it.

Why Parents Misuse Prescription Drugs to Enhance the Cognitive Performance of Healthy Children: The Influence of Peers and Social Media

The mechanisms affecting parents’ misuse of prescription stimulant drugs to boost healthy children’s school performance are hardly unknown. Using four web-based factorial vignette surveys (2×2 between-subjects design experiment), we investigated the willingness of U.S. parents with school-aged children to medicate a fictitious 13-year-old child whose grades had declined. We examined mechanisms of informational and normative social influence on their decision-making: others’ behavior ( NExperiment 1 = 359), others’ definitions ( NExperiment 2 = 326), social control ( NExperiment 3 = 325), and others’ experience ( NExperiment 4 = 313). In addition, we explored the moderating role of influential sources (close friends vs. social media). Parents were more willing to engage in said behavior when others reported engagement in this behavior or positive drug experiences, especially if both influences were transmitted via social media. Others’ definitions and social control had no effect. Thus, social media might be a channel for the prevention of pharmacological cognitive enhancement.

Limitless? Imaginaries of cognitive enhancement and the labouring body

This article seeks to situate pharmacological cognitive enhancement as part of a broader relationship between cultural understandings of the body-brain and the political economy. It is the body of the worker that forms the intersection of this relationship and through which it comes to be enacted and experienced. In this article, we investigate the imaginaries that both inform and are reproduced by representations of pharmacological cognitive enhancement, drawing on cultural sources such as newspaper articles and films, policy documents, and pharmaceutical marketing material to illustrate our argument. Through analysis of these diverse cultural sources, we argue that the use of pharmaceuticals has come to be seen not only as a way to manage our brains, but through this as a means to manage our productive selves, and thereby to better manage the economy. We develop three analytical themes. First, we consider the cultural representations of the brain in connection with the idea of plasticity – captured most graphically in images of morphing – and the representation of enhancement as a desirable, inevitable, and almost painless process in which the mind-brain realizes its full potential and asserts its will over matter. Following this, we explore the social value accorded to productive employment and the contemporary (biopolitical) ethos of working on or managing oneself, particularly in respect of improving one’s productive performance through cognitive enhancement. Developing this, we elaborate a third theme by looking at the moulding of the worker’s productive body-brain in relation to the demands of the economic system.

Public Opinion on Cognitive Enhancement Varies Across Different Situations

People vary widely in their acceptance of the use of pharmacological cognitive enhancement (CE). We tested the hypothesis that the acceptability of CE is malleable, by varying the context in which CE use takes place, by framing the use of CE with positive and negative metaphors, and by distinguishing between self and other CE use. 2519 US-based participants completed 2 surveys using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. First, participants responded to vignettes describing a fictional character, which varied by framing metaphor (Pandora’s box that releases brain performance vs. key that unlocks brain potential), role/setting (student/educational vs. employee/professional), and activity type (blue vs. white collar). Second, participants viewed personalized vignettes describing their own situations. Across both surveys, participants generally found CE use more acceptable for employees than students, while the effects of framing metaphors were unreliable and smaller than previously reported. People were more accepting of CE use by others than by themselves. Participants also found CE use more acceptable if more peers used CE, the environment was less competitive, and authority figures encouraged CE use. Our findings suggest that opinions about CE are indeed malleable, and concerns that peer pressure, the influence of authority figures, and competition might affect CE use are not unfounded.