Neuroenhancement in the Classroom

Thanks to Bob for bringing this piece from CNN on Neuroenhancement to my attention.  Here are two of the more interesting bits from the article:

DeSantis' research found that 30% of students at the university have illegally used a stimulant, like the ADHD drugs Adderall or Ritalin. The numbers increase with upperclassmen. Half of all juniors and seniors have used the drugs, the study found, and 80% of upperclassmen in fraternities and sororities have taken them.

And here:

Students apparently don't see it that way. Another telling statistic from DeSantis' research at the University of Kentucky is how dangerous the students think these cognitive enhancing stimulants are. They say they see Adderall as slightly more dangerous than the soft drink Mountain Dew and nowhere near as dangerous as drinking beer and smoking.

So, there are two related issues at work here:  On the one hand, the use and potential abuse of stimulants as neuroenhancers appears to be widespread.  On the other hand, this situation is presumably partly being fueled by misinformation.

One of the students interviewed for the article identified Adderal as the cause of his improved academic performance:

He aced the test and got an A in the class. It's something Gabay has seen happen over and over since he started taking study drugs. He says he used to get Cs, but now with the help of Adderall, it's B's and A's.

Given how much can be at stake when it comes to your college grades, it's understandable that students would look for an edge.  However, it is taking "study drugs" morally appropriate or is it tantamount to cheating?  What do you think?

Comments

[Ryan]

The bit about upperclassmen and those in Greek life brings up an interesting point--maybe the desire for 'better brains' isn't really for the betterment of a brain at all. It seems to call into question whether improvement is the goal or whether those who are surrounded by a drinking and partying environment are more likely to use these drugs to get assignments done more quickly when they actually sit down to do them. Obviously not every member of Greek life lives a party-type life, but that certainly is what is associated with it. If they help you stay focused and recall things better, then it seems plausable that students would be taking them to make the workload more managable so they can still have a social life.

[Thomas Nadelhoffer]

Ryan,

I think that's an astute observation. Do you think that complicates how we ought to morally assess the use of so-called study drugs among college students? Imagine two students who use the same drug. One student uses the drug to compensate for the fact that she parties frequently, misses class because she's hung over, etc. The other student doesn't drink at all and she always attends class. She just takes the study drugs to gain a competitive edge over her class mates. Should this difference influence our judgment of their respective use (or abuse) of study drugs? I am inclined to view the former case even less favorably but I worry the intuition isn't grounded in any salient moral distinction. If we conclude it's cheating in the first case, we should think the same thing in the second case even more so since the second student actually gains a competitive advantage.

[Ryan]

It seems to get into a sticky and unclear debate. For GRE's, LSAT's, etc. many students get tutors or take classes to 'get the competitive edge' as you said. Those seem perfectly fine and reasonable even though they are getting an advantage that others may not be able to for whatever reason (often financial limitations). I feel that the first student should be looked at a bit more critically because she seeks a competitive edge, or just to catch up to classmates, since she didn't put in the work the first time around by going to class or doing the work. The second student did everything she was supposed to do and now seeks a little boost. On the other hand, both cases do seem to be equally cheating, if we were to classify them that way. But I think there is a distinction between something like a tutor or prep class for an exam and these drugs, but other than the legality issue, an my own gut feeling, I can't really seem to put my finger on that difference.

[Thomas Nadelhoffer]

Ryan, As you will soon see, nearly all of the debates in neuroethics end up being "sticky and unclear"--which I hope will make for an interesting class! That being said, you're certainly right to highlight the social justice/financial inequality issues lurking in the background when it comes to the debate about study drugs.

You're also right to highlight the difficulty of pinpointing a bright line difference between test preps and tutors and neuroenhancers. To see why, imagine the following scenario:

Enrolling for a two month long test prep course for Exam X costs $500. On average, students who take the course improve their scores by 25%. Now imagine that a two month supply of some study drug costs $500 on the black market. On average, students who take the drug improve their test scores by 25%.

Given this scenario, it's hard to see why we should call taking the study drug cheating while taking the course is simply viewed as acceptable. Of course, one potentially salient difference is that taking the test prep course requires effort--e.g., attending class, taking notes, studying, etc.--whereas taking the study drug involves very little effort. Do you think this difference could be driving our competing intuitions?

[Maia]

The effort required to complete a test prep course to prepare for an exam seems, at first, to be much greater than that required to take neuroenhancers. However, I think this relies on the assumption that the task of learning material is more when completed during test prep courses when compared to learning materials alone, under the influence of a neuroenhancer. I think it is also assumed that people taking neuroenhancers are not doing as much work. Those using neuroenhancers are still doing the same amount of work as their peers, and sometimes much more! One might argue that the work under the influence of the drug is easier, but I think you could make that same claim about attending a test prep course. Students can be taught test tricks, have access to professionals that know the test, be given practice tests, and be forced to keep to a rigid schedule. Is focusing your study using a schedule designed by a tutor more acceptable than having your studies focused by a drug? Both make the work easier and are not made accessible for everyone. That might be reason enough to think that both neuroenhancers and test prep courses are forms of cheating. However, I think it comes down to what is socially acceptable in our society. Neuroenhancers are still unacceptable, but maybe not for long.

[Thomas Nadelhoffer]

Maia,

I take it the main thrust of what you say is that our competing moral intuitions in response to someone's taking a test prep course and someone's taking a neuroenhancer can't be explained in terms of effort since we can simply construct the scenario in a way such that the effort is constant between the two individuals and yet we are nevertheless inclined to view the the student who takes neuroenhancers less favorably than the student who takes the test prep course. This suggests that the issue's not one of effort, but rather something else. However, what might it be? You suggest social acceptability, but this won't do since what we really want to know is why the one is taken to be less acceptable than the other! I, for one, think it has something to do with the fact that people are using "medicine" (supposedly designed to allay an illness/learning disability) to reap non-therapeutic benefits. When people use caffeine or take test prep courses, on the other hand, they are using these study aids as "prescribed," so to speak. But more on this later...there's obviously a lot more to be said on this front!