The debate over academic doping

In Sunday's NYT, Benedict Carey looks at the discussion that has followed that Nature commentary about professors who use cognitive enhancers. Here's a snip:

In his book “Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution,” Francis Fukuyama raises the broader issue of performance enhancement: “The original purpose of medicine is to heal the sick, not turn healthy people into gods.” He and others point out that increased use of such drugs could raise the standard of what is considered “normal” performance and widen the gap between those who have access to the medications and those who don’t — and even erode the relationship between struggle and the building of character.

“Even though stimulants and other cognitive enhancers are intended for legitimate clinical use, history predicts that greater availability will lead to an increase in diversion, misuse and abuse,” wrote Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and James Swanson of the University of California at Irvine, in a letter to Nature. “Among high school students, abuse of prescription medications is second only to cannabis use.”

But others insist that the ethics are not so clear, and that academic performance is different in important ways from baseball, or cycling.

“I think the analogy with sports doping is really misleading, because in sports it’s all about competition, only about who’s the best runner or home run hitter,” said Martha Farah, director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania. “In academics, whether you’re a student or a researcher, there is an element of competition, but it’s secondary. The main purpose is to try to learn things, to get experience, to write papers, to do experiments. So in that case if you can do it better because you’ve got some drug on board, that would on the face of things seem like a plus.”

She and other midcareer scientists interviewed said that, as far as they knew, very few of their colleagues used brain-boosting drugs regularly. Many have used Provigil for jet lag, or even to stay vertical for late events. But most agreed that the next generation of scientists, now in graduate school and college, were more likely to use the drugs as study aids and bring along those habits as they moved up the ladder.


Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Is your professor juicing?

comments

I think there is a basic problem even with the idea of "cognitive enhancers" as a phrase. It is misleading as there is nothing really out there that raised cognitive abilities per se about the norm (c.f. attentional, alertness factors).

I wouldn't think academic doping helps in the long term. It could help you be more alert but it doesn't really improve your actual intelligence levels does it? I'd like to see more research on it.

I believe that it is very much about competition in academics as well, especially in the high-school setting where the race for securing admission to a tertiary education programs is considerable. Some Universities scale grades according to a normal distribution, and a student's grade in a particular subject will therefore depend on his/her position relative to his/her classmates. Students on enhancers could potentially outperform other students and artificially skew the normal distribution, and subsequent scaling could effectively render non-enhanced students disadvantaged.

contribute a comment

Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.

what is this?

A 'Nature Top 50' science blog by the editors, staff and friends of The American Journal of Bioethics. Science writes: "To follow the latest twists in ... science stories with social impact, dive into this Web log"

The original story behind this blog

What people are saying about blog.bioethics.net

recently on blog.bioethics.net

Is Hope a Culprit in Cancer Clinical Trials?

A recent study conducted by Emory University School of Medicine found that therapeutic misconception is alive and well in Phase I cancer research. According to... (more)

Gingrich on IVF: Bad for Families, Bad for Bioethics

Scientists, reproductive specialists and andrologists had better prepare. If Newt Gingrich has his way (and wins the Presidency), he will have a whole new world... (more)

Canadians have Bieber Fever...For Organ Donation

Yes, it's true. Bieber Fever has spread far and wide. But it isn't just tweens who are following the pop star, Justin Bieber's, every move.... (more)

Caplan: Say No to Sterilization, Forced Abortion

Art Caplan discusses a troubling case regarding a 32-year-old pregnant woman known as "Mary Moe" who is pregnant for the third time and who suffers... (more)

Rallying Around Amelia: A Debate on Disability

The blogosphere and the airwaves are filled with indignation regarding what has happened to Amelia Rivera, a three year old who has a rare genetic... (more)

this blog's feed

  • Subscribe
    • XML
    • Google Reader or Homepage
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • Add to My AOL
    • Convert RSS to PDF
    • Add to Technorati Favorites!
    • Add to your phone
    • Get RSS Buttons

info

archives

tags