Cognitive Enhancement vs. Plagiarism: a Quantitative Study on the Attitudes of an Italian Sample
- 78 Downloads
Irrespective of the presence of formal norms, behaviours such as plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification are commonly regarded as unethical and unfair. Almost unanimously, they are considered forms of academic misconduct. Is this the case also for newer behaviours that technology is making possible and are now entering the academic scenario?
In the current paper we focus on cognitive enhancement (CE), the use of drugs to enhance cognitive skills of an otherwise healthy individual. At present, there are no formal rules forbidding its use in the academic setting. However, it is not clear whether there is a general public sentiment that CE should be considered as a modern form of academic misconduct.
By means of the Contrastive Vignette Technique, we collected quantitative data from 284 online surveys to directly compare the attitude of the general public towards CE and plagiarism across different ethically relevant aspects. Our aim was to understand whether the use of prescription drugs to enhance a healthy person’s cognitive skills is perceived similarly to a more common form of cheating, specifically plagiarism.
Results show that our participants do not endorse CE. At the same time, however, their opinion on the ethical issues related to its use is not negative: rather, their attitude is more positive towards CE compared to plagiarism. This seems to pose against the idea that, at present, the use of cognitive enhancers in academic environments is regarded as a form of cheating.
KeywordsAcademic misconduct Plagiarism Cognitive enhancement Cheating Public attitudes
The Authors would like to thank Rocco Micciolo for his statistical advice and Francesco Pavani for his comments on the manuscript. Many thanks also to Iole Blom for suggesting and providing stylistic improvements to the final version of the paper.
- 1.Gross, Charles. 2016. Scientific misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology 67: 693–711. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Wells, J.A. 2008. Final report: Observing and reporting suspected misconduct in biomedical research. The Office of Research Integrity: Rockville.Google Scholar
- 4.ICAI – Statistics. 2017. http://www.academicintegrity.org/icai/integrity-3.php. Accessed 18 Dec.
- 5.Marques, Dora Nazaré, and António Filipe MacEdo. 2016. Perceptions of acceptable conducts by university students. Journal of Optometry 9. Spanish General Council of Optometry: 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2015.02.001.
- 6.Rabi, Suzanne M., Lynn R. Patton, Nancy Fjortoft, and David P. Zgarrick. 2006. Characteristics, prevalence, attitudes, and perceptions of academic dishonesty among pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 70. American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy: 73. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj700473.
- 7.Bostrom, Nick, and Anders Sandberg. 2009. Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 15. Springer Netherlands: 311–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9142-5.
- 10.Elliott, R., Barbara J. Sahakian, K. Matthews, A. Bannerjea, J. Rimmer, and Trevor W. Robbins. 1997. Effects of methylphenidate on spatial working memory and planning in healthy young adults. Psychopharmacology 131. Springer-Verlag: 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002130050284.
- 11.Mehta, M.A., A.M. Owen, Barbara J. Sahakian, N. Mavaddat, J.D. Pickard, and Trevor W. Robbins. 2000. Methylphenidate enhances working memory by modulating discrete frontal and parietal lobe regions in the human brain. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 20: RC65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Farah, Martha J., Judy Illes, Robert Cook-Deegan, Howard Gardner, Eric Kandel, Patricia King, Eric Parens, Barbara J. Sahakian, and Paul Root Wolpe. 2004. Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 5: 421–425. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Cohen Kadosh, Roi, Neil Levy, Jacinta O’Shea, Nicholas Shea, and Julian Savulescu. 2012. The neuroethics of non-invasive brain stimulation. Current Biology 22. Elsevier: R108–R111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.01.013.
- 22.Whetstine, Leslie M. 2015. Cognitive enhancement: Treating or cheating? Seminars in Pediatric Neurology 22. Bioethics: 172–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spen.2015.05.003.
- 24.President’s Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. New York: New York, Regan Books.Google Scholar
- 25.Duke University Student Conduct. https://studentaffairs.duke.edu/conduct/z-policies/academic-dishonesty. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
- 28.McCabe, Donald L., Linda Klebe Treviño, and Kenneth D Butterfield. 1999. Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: A qualitative investigation. The Journal of Higher Education 70. Ohio State University Press: 211–234. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649128.
- 30.Teixeira, Aurora A.C., and Maria Fatima Rocha. 2010. Cheating by economics and business undergraduate students: An exploratory international assessment. Higher Education 59: 663–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9274-1.
- 31.Patel-Bhakta, Hemali G., Kathleen B. Muzzin, Janice P. DeWald, Patricia R. Campbell, and Peter H. Buschang. 2014. Attitudes towards students who plagiarize: A dental hygiene faculty perspective. Journal of Dental Education 78: 131–145.Google Scholar
- 32.Sandberg, Anders. 2008. Brain boosting and cheating in exams: Four responses. Practical Ethics. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2008/05/brain-boosting-and-cheating-in-exams-four-responses/. Accessed 11 Dec 2017.
- 40.Maher, Brendan. 2008. Poll results: Look who’s doping. Nature 452. Nature Publishing Group: 674–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/452674a.
- 41.Teter, Christian J, Anthony E Falone, James A Cranford, Carol J Boyd, and Sean Esteban McCabe. 2010. Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants and depressed mood among college students: Frequency and routes of administration. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 38. NIH Public Access: 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.01.005.
- 42.Majori, S., D. Gazzani, S. Pilati, J. Paiano, A. Sannino, S. Ferrari, and E. Checchin. 2017. Brain doping: Stimulants use and misuse among a sample of Italian college students. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene 58: E130–E140.Google Scholar
- 43.Castaldi, Silvana, Umberto Gelatti, Grazia Orizio, Uwe Hartung, Ana Maria Moreno-Londono, Marta Nobile, and Peter J. Schulz. 2012. Use of cognitive enhancement medication among northern Italian university students. Journal of Addiction Medicine 6: 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0b013e3182479584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Franke, Andreas G., Caroline Bonertz, Michaela Christmann, Stefan Engeser, and Klaus Lieb. 2012. Attitudes toward cognitive enhancement in users and nonusers of stimulants for cognitive enhancement: A pilot study. AJOB Primary Research 3: 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2011.608411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Burstin, Kenneth, Eugene B. Doughtie, and Avi Raphaeli. 1980. Contrastive vignette technique: An indirect methodology designed to address reactive social attitude Measurement1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 10. Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00699.x.
- 48.Alexander, Cheryl S., and Henry Jay Becker. 1978. The use of vignettes in survey research. The Public Opinion Quarterly 42. Oxford University Press: 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/268432.