Giving prescription drugs to healthy young people for so-called cognitive enhancement (CE) (e.g., of concentration or memory) is being discussed increasingly by scholars and the public. This includes debates about whether, given its potential side effects, CE should be restricted and whether peer pressure infringes upon autonomous decisionmaking. To date, however, virtually no empirical studies of the public’s perception regarding CE in healthy young people exist.
We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a web-based survey of 1427 persons from 60 countries, conducted by the magazine Nature, in which the data had only been analyzed descriptively. To gain a better understanding of influences on attitudes about CE of young children, we explored factors (e.g., types of drug users, positive or negative experiences with prior CE-drugs) potentially associated with restrictions and peer pressure.
The majority of respondents (85.3%) favored restricting CE-drug use for healthy young people under age 16. We found that respondents who had experienced side effects when using CE-drugs themselves were more likely to favor restrictions. One third of the respondents (33.8%) would feel pressure to give their children CE-drugs if their children’s classmates were taking such drugs. Respondents who were willing to use CE-drugs for themselves felt more pressure to give such drugs to their children if others did so.
In addition to a more far-reaching use of the data, which can increase our knowledge of public perceptions of CE-drug use by young people, we also discuss multiple methodological caveats about the data and directions for future research.
Cognitive enhancement Peer pressure Drug regulation Pediatric cognitive enhancement Public perceptions
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The research was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, via The Enhancing Life Project. We thank Brendan Maher for providing us with the survey data from the Nature poll and helpful information about the survey. We also thank the participants of the interdisciplinary research week Pediatric Neuro-Enhancement held in Osnabrück in 2016 as well as Simon Lesage Rousseau for their comments. Thanks to Cynthia Hall for editorial assistance.
Conflict of Interest: None.
Ball N, Wolbring G (2014) Cognitive enhancement: perceptions among parents of children with disabilities. Neuroethics 7:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bostrom N, Sandberg A (2009) Cognitive enhancement: methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Sci Eng Ethics 15:311–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bussing R, Koro-Ljungberg M, Noguchi K et al (2012) Willingness to use ADHD treatments: a mixed methods study of perceptions by adolescents, parents, health professionals and teachers. Soc Sci Med 74:92–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Cabrera L, Fitz N, Reiner P (2015) Reasons for comfort and discomfort with pharmacological enhancement of cognitive, affective, and social domains. Neuroethics 8:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslen H, Earp BD, Cohen Kadosh R et al (2014b) Brain stimulation for treatment and enhancement in children: an ethical analysis. Front Hum Neurosci 8:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzinger T (2012) Zehn Jahre Neuroethik des pharmazeutischen kognitiven Enhancements–Aktuelle Probleme und Handlungsrichtlinien für die Praxis. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 80:36–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Normann C, Berger M (2008) Neuroenhancement: status quo and perspectives. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 258:110–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Ragan C, Bard I, Singh I (2013) What should we do about student use of cognitive enhancers? An analysis of current evidence. Neuropharmacology 64:588–595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Repantis D, Schlattmann P, Laisney O et al (2010) Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: a systematic review. Pharmacol Res 62:187–206CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Sattler S (2016) Cognitive enhancement in Germany: prevalence, attitudes, terms, legal status, and the ethics debate. In: Jotterand F, Dubljević V (eds) Cognitive enhancement: ethical and policy implications in international perspectives. OUP, Oxford, pp 159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sattler S, Schunck R (2016) Associations between the big five personality traits and the non-medical use of prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement. Front Psychol 6:1971CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Sattler S, Singh I (2016) Cognitive enhancement in healthy children will not close the achievement gap in education. Am J Bioeth 16:39–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Sattler S, Forlini C, Racine É et al (2013) Impact of contextual factors and substance characteristics on perspectives toward cognitive enhancement. PLoS One 8:e71452CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Sattler S, Mehlkop G, Graeff P et al (2014) Evaluating the drivers of and obstacles to the willingness to use cognitive enhancement drugs: the influence of drug characteristics, social environment, and personal characteristics. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 9:8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Singh I, Kelleher KJ (2010) Neuroenhancement in young people: proposal for research, policy, and clinical management. AJOB Neurosci 1:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson C (2016) Self-Pathologizing and the perception of necessity: two major risks of providing stimulants to educationally underprivileged students. Am J Bioeth 16:54–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Walcher-Andris E (2006) Ethische Aspekte des pharmakologischen “cognition enhancement” am Beispiel des Gebrauchs von Psychostimulanzien durch Kinder und Jugendliche. Ethik Med 18:27–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Wiegel C, Sattler S, Göritz A et al (2016) Work-related stress and cognitive enhancement among university teachers. Anxiety Stress Coping 29:100–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Wilens T, Adler L, Adams J et al (2008) Misuse and diversion of stimulants prescribed for ADHD: a systematic review of the literature. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 47:21–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Wolff W, Brand R (2013) Subjective stressors in school and their relation to neuroenhancement: a behavioral perspective on students’ everyday life “doping”. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 8:23CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Wolff W, Baumgarten F, Brand R (2013) Reduced self-control leads to disregard of an unfamiliar behavioral option: an experimental approach to the study of neuroenhancement. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 8:41CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar