, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 163–177 | Cite as

Autonomy and Coercion in Academic “Cognitive Enhancement” Using Methylphenidate: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders

  • Cynthia Forlini
  • Eric RacineEmail author
Original Paper


There is mounting evidence that methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin) is being used by healthy college students to improve concentration, alertness, and academic performance. One of the key concerns associated with such use of pharmaceuticals is the degree of freedom individuals have to engage in or abstain from cognitive enhancement (CE). From a pragmatic perspective, careful examination of the ethics of acts and contexts in which they arise includes considering coercion and social pressures to enhance cognition. We were interested in understanding how university students, parents of university students, and healthcare providers viewed autonomy and coercion in CE using MPH. We found that perspectives converged on the belief that CE is a matter of personal and individual choice. Perspectives also converged on the existence of tremendous social pressures to perform and succeed. Parents emphasized personal responsibility and accountability for CE choices, and expressed feelings of worry, sadness and fear about CE. Students emphasized the importance of personal integrity in CE, expressed tolerance for personal choices of others, and highlighted the challenge that CE poses to maintaining one’s personal integrity. Healthcare providers emphasized the health consequences of CE. These results illustrate: (1) the importance of understanding how context is viewed in relation to perspectives on autonomous choice; (2) the limitations of individualistic libertarian approaches that do not consider social context; and (3) the ethical implications of public health interventions in a value-laden debate where perspectives diverge.


Cognitive enhancement Autonomy Neuroethics Public understanding Neuropharmaceuticals 



The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the International Institute for Research and Ethics in Biomedicine, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal. Thanks to Nicole Palmour, Dr. Emily Bell and William Affleck. We also thank the anonymous reviewer who helped us make significant changes to this paper including focusing on the group-level differences between stakeholders.The authors report no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Wilens, T.E., L.A. Adler, J. Adams, et al. 2008. Misuse and diversion of stimulants prescribes for ADHD: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 47:21-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maher, B. 2008. Poll results: look who’s doping. Nature 452: 674–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCarthy, M. 2007. Prescription drug abuse up sharply in the USA. Lancet 369: 1505–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    British Medical Association. 2007. Boosting your brainpower: Ethical aspects of cognitive enhancement, 42. London, UK: British Medical Association.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farah, M.J., J. Illes, R. Cook-Deegan, et al. 2004. Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5: 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Appel, J.M. 2008. When the boss turns pusher: a proposal for employee protections in the age of cosmetic neurology. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 616–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chatterjee, A. 2006. The promise and predicament of cosmetic neurology. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 110–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Warren, O.J., D.R. Leff, T. Athanasiou, et al. 2008. The neurocognitive enhancement of surgeons: an ethical perspective. Journal of Surgical Research 152: 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chatterjee, A. 2004. Cosmetic neurology: the controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Neurology 63: 968–974.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baylis, F. and J.S. Robert. 2004. The inevitability of genetic enhancement technologies. Bioethics 18: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farah, M.J. 2005. Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hall, W. 2004. Feeling ‘better than well’. EMBO Reports 5: 1105–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mehlman, M.J. 2004. Cognition-enhancing drugs. Milbank Quarterly 82: 483–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Racine, E. and J. Illes. 2006. Neuroethical responsibilities. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 33: 269–277.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caplan, A.L. 2003. Is better best? A noted ethicist argues in favor of brain enhancement. Scientific American 289: 104–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Racine, E. 2008. Which naturalism for bioethics? A defense of moderate (pragmatic) naturalism. Bioethics 22: 92–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arria, A.M. and E.D. Wish. 2006. Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants among students. Pediatric Annals 35: 565–571.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barrett, S.P., C. Darredeau, L.E. Bordy, et al. 2005. Characteristics of methylphenidate misuse in a university student sample. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 50: 457–461.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Teter, C.J., S.E. McCabe, C.J. Boyd, et al. 2003. Illicit methylphenidate use in an undergraduate student sample: prevalence and risk factors. Pharmacotherapy 23: 609–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Teter, C.J., S.E. McCabe, K. LaGrange, et al. 2006. Illicit use of specific prescription stimulants among college students: prevalence, motives, and routes of administration. Pharmacotherapy 26: 1501–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Babcock, Q. and T. Byrne. 2000. Student perceptions of methylphenidate abuse at a public liberal arts college. Journal of American College Health 49: 143–145.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    White, B.P., K.A. Becker-Blease, and K. Grace-Bishop. 2006. Stimulant medication use, misuse, and abuse in an undergraduate and graduate student sample. Journal of American College Health 54: 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Racine, E., and C. Forlini. 2009. Cognitive enhancement, lifestyle choice or misuse of prescription drugs? Ethical blindspots in current debates. Neuroethics. doi: 10.1007/s12152-008-9023-7.
  24. 24.
    Twenge, J.M., L. Zhang, and C. Im. 2004. It’s beyond my control: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960–2002. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8: 308–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vohs, K.D. and J.W. Schooler. 2008. The value of believing in free will: encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating. Psychological Science 19: 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Racine, E., O. Bar-Ilan, and J. Illes. 2005. fMRI in the public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6: 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCabe, S.E. 2008. Misperceptions of non-medical prescription drug use: a web survey of college students. Addictive Behaviours 33: 713–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cohen, E. 2006. Conservative bioethics and the search for wisdom. Hastings Center Report 36: 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Habermas, J. 1973. La technique et la science comme “idéologie”. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Habermas, J. 1992. De l’éthique de la discussion. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sartre, J.-P. 1963. L’existentialisme est un humanisme. Paris: Nagel.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bergstrom, L.S. and N. Lynoe. 2008. Enhancing concentration, mood and memory in healthy individuals: an empirical study of attitudes among general practitioners and the general population. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 36: 532–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Graff Low, K. and A.E. Gendaszek. 2002. Illicit use of psychostimulants among college students: a preliminary study. Psychology, Health & Medicine 7: 283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McCabe, S.E., J.R. Knight, C.J. Teter, et al. 2005. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addiction 100: 96–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Neuroethics Research UnitInstitut de recherches cliniques de MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Programmes de bioéthiqueUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Director, Neuroethics Research UnitInstitut de recherches cliniques de MontréalMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Department of Medicine and Department of Social and Preventive MedicineUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery & Biomedical Ethics UnitMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  6. 6.MontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations