The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

Are ‘Smart Drugs’ Unethical?

26 Comments

August 12, 2008 by Kathy McManus

When an athlete uses performance enhancement drugs, he or she is likely to be called unethical and dishonest.

When a student or professor uses brain enhancement drugs, he or she is likely to be called smart and focused.

Is chemically boosting your brain for an unfair advantage over competitors the same as chemically boosting your body for an edge to beat others? That’s the question at the center of a new debate about drugs and cheating.

Originally prescribed for people with medical conditions like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy, brain enhancement drugs such as Ritalin and Provigil are increasingly being used by students preparing for a test and academics and other professionals gearing up for that big presentation.

Users of the drugs say they are able to focus more intensely, work faster, and be more creative.

So what’s the matter with grey matter boosting? Plenty, say critics of the practice. “The original purpose of medicine is to heal the sick, not turn healthy people into gods,” says biotech author Francis Fukuyama, cautioning that the increasing use of brain-boosting drugs could unfairly create a new category of haves and have-nots. He and other critics question whether the continued use of the drugs for the purpose of mental advantage will change the connection between human struggle and human character-building.

Others see less profound implications, as well as a distinction between brain doping and body doping. “I think the analogy with sports doping is really misleading,” says neuro-psychologist Martha Farah, “because in sports it’s all about competition…who’s the best runner or home run hitter.” For students or academics, Dr. Farah says, “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.”

Doctors note that the drugs can be addictive and can produce side effects including restlessness and irritability.

But a participant in a radio talk show questioned all the hubbub: “Who hasn’t had coffee or cola before an exam or important meeting? The main issue should be whether the substance is safe. If people can do a better job by eating a good breakfast or taking a drug, who should complain?”

Tell us what you think: Should chemical brain doping be considered unethical, just as body doping is? Is it fair for some students to gain an advantage over others by taking brain-boosters before a test like the SAT?

26 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• August 12, 2008 by Pasquale Bottiglieri

  Several years ago, I worked as an intern addictions counselor. As a part of that assignment, I had to prepare discussion outlines for group and individual sessions with resident patients. I developed a model for the learning process based in my then current experience as a systems analyst/software engineer using the Input--> Processing--> Output sequence as a basis. I said that we all take in experience, think about it, react to it and then, very frequently, take in the results of our reaction as our next input; a circular process in many cases. I then added that addicts introduce a filter into that process, ie: the drugs they take and that filter impacts their reasoning in a very definite way. I believe that model is a good one for that situation and might have some bearing on the use of brain enhancing compounds. I do not wish to imply a parallel with addiction but simply to focus on what I believe might be a filtering effect. On the other hand, I believe that similar claims of mental enhancement were made by Timothy Leary (I hope I have the name correct) for LSD). Ethically, if a non addictive brain enhancer is introduced into and accepted by the already competitive and affluence based educational process, how is it to be administered, especially in the case of aspiring students who can't afford it. Years ago, I played for a great, competitive high school football team as a third stringer. I had one, and only one, opportunity to be on the field when one of the starters injured his knee and I was given the assignment to be ready to play. On game day, he played the entire game and, when I asked him years later how he did it,he responded that he had relied on a pain killer.

  Reply

• August 16, 2008 by Paul Bartlett

  A couple of questions to stir some thoughts: HOW much improvement is there in their performance? (do they go from average to Einstein in 60 seconds) What TYPES of abilities are affected? (ie can the user control the focus of their attention, can they think outside the box or just along specific lines?) At what point do side effects kick in? (1 month of use, 1 week , 1 pill?) In regards to question 2, it's all well and good reading dense theoretical text for 6 hours straight for a university exam, but if your capacity for abstract thought hasn't been improved it's not going to help you argue philosophy (for example). i.e .,Britney Spears with a head full of astro-physics does not equal Stephen Hawking. But then, if there's an unexploded bomb down the street, I think it's good that the bomb disposal squad be very, very focused. In essence, I think the question of ethics comes into play only when a person's ability is being measured - exams, pitching for an account, the employment process, a quiz show; these situations are essentially saying "all things being equal, who is better?" Outside of those situations, should we care if a cure for cancer was gained while the scientists were on Ritalin? Every day, we celebrate knowledge and art that was created while under some influence/ altered state; 'I Am the Walrus' by the Beatles, 'The Scream' by Edvard Munch, 'On the Road' by Jack Kerouac... However, I admit there's another (indirect) ethical consideration in regards to how people might begin to see the attainment of knowledge; taking acid doesn't automatically make you creative and taking brain enhancers won't automatically make anyone the next Sartre or Hawking. Note: I'm aware that Munch wasn't on drugs, he was at a mental institution when he painted The Scream, that's my point; altered states can also lead to greater creativity in some circumstances.

  Reply

• August 19, 2008 by grandma rita

  The question should be - is the drug SAFE not is it fair to take. We are becoming a nation that pops pills for everything. Kids are coming to school high just for the heck of it! Good grief, let's stop medicating our children. In my day, when a child was "overactive" we put him into sports, and got them involved in activities not popped a pill in his mouth to calm him down.

  Reply

• August 19, 2008 by Julian Amici

  The whole reason taking performance enhancers is considered unethical in sports is because of the dangerous side effects. It's unethical because players shouldn't have to take dangerous supplements or undergo dangerous procedures to be able to actively compete against players who are willing to undergo that kind of physical strain and danger. That being said, using performance enhancers that affect the brain can also lead to some serious problems, including addiction. I don't think that people should have to take certain drugs to feel like they are doing well in school when the bar is raised. Not that I don't think the bar should be raised, but that's another discussion. Basically, I think that the brain is pretty mysterious as it is. Using drugs outside their recommended use can be very dangerous, and no one should feel forced to take drugs to be able to compete in the classroom (and some people DO take the classroom as a competition). The whole thing of it is that it's immoral to take a dangerous substance as a way of getting ahead of the game. That forces others who want to compete to subject themselves to the same treatment, even if they're uncomfortable with it or don't want to take the risks.

  Reply

• August 19, 2008 by Underwhelmed

  Improving performance, by any means, is ethical as part of our individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Will we regulate study, will we outlaw practice, both of which are ways of enhancing performance, and in order to ensure everyone, even incompetents, have an equality of opportunity? Obviously, this would be unacceptable in a society which claims to value freedom. Questions of health risks, including addiction, are a private matter. Issues that arise from doping in competitions are a matter to be decided by the private individual or organizations that sponsor such activities. As private citizens/organizations, they can decide which competitors qualify.

  Reply

  • August 20, 2008 by Julian Amici

    Ah, you said it yourself, it is up to the organization to allow or disallow the use of chemical enhancement, which is why every sporting league in the country has banned their use as a prerequisite for participation. I see no reason that those private organizations could not do the same for such mental pursuits, or the Department of Education, for that matter. The difference between study/practice and 'doping' is that practice and study are natural, permanent increases to ability with no drawbacks (other than the fact that they take time). Chemical enhancement can (and usually does) lead to abuse, dependency, and harmful side effects which commonly do occur with continual use. With practice, injury is the exception. With chemicals, it's the rule. For an organization to allow such use within their ranks forces everyone within those ranks to subject themselves to the same treatment if they wish to be able to compete. That is unethical on the organization's part.

    Reply

    • August 21, 2008 by Underwhelmed

      Mr. Amici: The question at hand is whether or not doping, in particular brain doping, is ethical. If your ethical system, like mine, places a high value on self-reliance, personal responsibility, and freedom, then you agree with me that we are free to act in away we choose so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others. It necessarily follows that doping, as a private matter, is up to the individual. If one finds value in the outcome and accepts the risks, grim as you may think they are, then it is that individual's right to brain dope. Where does the decision to brain dope affect others? Competitions where doping is allowed is one area, however, since no one is forced to compete in privately run events then there is no violation of rights and the events must be deemed ethical. What about competitions sponsored by the state? For example, is it ethical for the government to allow or encourage brain doping for state competitive scholarship money? No it is not ethical, not because of the brain doping, but because it is wrong for a government to confiscate the wealth of some for the benefit of others. In a truly free society, which the United States is not, the government's primary function would be to protect the rights of individuals. State sponsored scholarships violate individual rights. If you accept my reasoning, government sponsored competitions are a moot point when it comes to the ethics of brain doping because they are unethical per se. I won't argue with you regarding the risks of doping. I'll concede it is risky, but when the risk involved is accounted for and the individual is entirely responsible for the outcome, then a person is within in his rights to dope. One more thing. I would like to know how you would define “natural” such that it distinguishes the affect of doping from those of study and practice. The knowledge and skill introduced to a body by study and practice are as foreign to its naturally occurring state as any drug is.

    • May 13, 2010 by Bartleby the Scrivener

      To Julian Amici:

      I don't know if your chosen name is real or ironic, because there is a fictional character with that name uses extreme performance enhancing drugs that end his life very, very early.

      Ethically, should a person be able to use drugs to enhance their performance? I fail to see this as a question of ethics. Of course a person should be *allowed* to enhance their performance, even if it is to their long term detriment. People do such quite regularly, whether it is missing sleep to cram for exams, using excessive amounts of caffeine (which robs one's bones of calcium), or dehydrating themselves to 'make weight' for a coming sporting event.

      Should a person hurt themselves in the pursuit of greater performance? I think not, but it should be a matter of wisdom and not legislation.

      -Bartleby the Scrivener

• August 20, 2008 by Thomas hutegger

  If you drive your car full throttle all the time you won't get nearly as many miles over the lifetime of the car, as if you drive it with reason. Same goes for our body. If we choose to "adjust" our body's performance - muscles or gray matter - we're most likely reducing the life-time mileage we can achieve... The question to me is less of should we allow it or not. It really is, why do we feel we need to do this? My take on it is, that we are still approaching our life and everything in it as animal. In nature everything is a bout competition, scarcety is the motivator and selector. We humans are different. Yes, we are animals too, but we can go beyond it. Competition is the "natural" way - just like urinating whenever the bladder is full is the natural way. We learn, that it is possible and beneficial to wait until we are in the right place to relieve ourselves. The same applies to competition, the "natural" force to get things done. We can and should replace it by a more suitable, more humane, more "spiritual" motivator. I think, cooperation would be a good candidate for that. We all have talents, and we can contribute with these talents and abilities. We do not need these drugs. We do not need to compete. We need to cooperate, and we need to try to be the best that we can be. Not in comparison to anybody else, but in comparison to my own best potential. That, BTW, is much harder to do: to be my best! I can easily make you believe I did the best. But I know, whether it is really so or not. I can be "better" than somebody else - but am I the best I can be? To summarize: I think the root of the problem lies in our spiritual immaturity, which has prevented us from shedding the motivation through competition concept of the animal world. Focusing on what I can contribute, and attempting to be the best I can be would make things like drug abuse (and many other ailments of society and individuals) a non-issue...

  Reply

• August 21, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

  Ethical or otherwise, I think that Thomas made his point in the last paragraph. If "we choose" to make it ethical to take drug enhancements for competition or accelerated brain power, we are not using our natural resources. There should be...no reason for us to even consider using drugs for competition or for higher thinking. If we accept taking drugs as a normal practice, where will we stop? Once we become accustomed to the edge we would get from these drugs, the less we would exert our natural ability and energy, and the addiction issues that already exist in the world will just be compounded to a level so beyond control. Even under controlled conditions, I think it is not feasible. What a shame it would be not to see the emerging beauty of a prodigy, or the next Pulitzer prize winning author finish the greatest novel, knowing that they were not themselves. They were just under the influence of "medication." Hasn't everything already become too easy for us? With technology advancing so quickly, it seems that we won't need to think too much longer, computers will do it for us. I know that is an exaggeration...but so is the idea that it would be ethical to alter the body of an athlete or the mind of a genius. If we get up everyday believing that we have nothing to strive for, why would we continue to get up?

  Reply

• August 23, 2008 by Anne K

  I don't know who first said these drugs are performance enhancing, but they are wrong! I have SWSD (Shift Work Sleep Disorder), and take Provigil when I have to work the day shift. I have a reverse circadian, so I naturally get sleepy when the sun comes up and wake when the sun sets or is near setting. When I work during the day it seems like I have narcolepsy to others, but I feel sleepy all the time and know that I'm about to fall asleep but can't do anything to stop it. For my safety and employment, I have to take the Provigil to stay awake while doing things like driving or going to meetings during the day. It does not make me smarter or faster or anything like that, just keeps me awake. I can understand students taking this medication during midterms and finals and term paper times or doctors that stay awake for 36 hours taking it for safety's sake. There are a large number of students and young doctors that end up in car accidents or other kinds of accidents at these times and it is not only a risk to them, but to everyone around them. Unless we change our teaching methods to stop pushing students so hard at specific times of year and not having interns and residents working double, triple and longer shifts or paging doctors in the middle of the night, we need to do everything possible to keep the students and those around them safe, even if that includes providing medication they might not otherwise need.

  Reply

• August 24, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

  The original article is about "brain doping" and it refers to brain enhancing drug giving one an edge over their competition, or to help students study for longer periods of time, or to increase intelligence. What you are taking is for a medical condition, which is a totally different issue. I definitely do not think that this would be a good practice for students or athletes, ethical or otherwise. It is bad enough knowing that there are stay at home moms taking their children's ADHD meds to get through the day with. My children had tough school schedules with sports and after school activities and I managed to get through the day, even while working a full time job, as a single parent. I'm sorry, but there is no reason to medicate a perfectly healthy individual to get more out of them whether it is athletic or intellectual. Of course, this is just my opinion. Yes, it is unethical and unnecessary.

  Reply

  • August 24, 2008 by Underwhelmed

    Ms. Cunniff: I agree with you the topic is about ethics, but you do not make clear the ethical principles you are relying on to support your position that brain doping is always unethical. Your arguments, considering both of your comments in this blog, seem to emphasize the health risks involved in doping. Because something poses a health risk, is no reason to declare it unethical. Automobiles kill a number of people each year. Would you declare automobiles unethical due to health risks? Perhaps you would amend your argument to say that only things that include a very high health risk are unethical. How would health risk be measured; how high is too high; who would make the determination? As you can see, health risk as a moral principle is hard to defend. The real way to determine whether the health risk of an action is too high is based upon the individual and the circumstances. If you have terminal cancer and only 30 days to live, taking a drug that has a 75% chance of killing you, but an only a 5% chance of curing you, is an acceptable risk for some people. Health risk as a moral principle does not work, because acceptable risk is individually determined, it is not a universally applicable moral principle. In your first post, you state, “What a shame it would be not to see...the next Pulitzer Prize winning author finish the greatest novel, knowing that they were not themselves. They were just under the influence of 'medication'.” You make this argument as if the medication somehow wrote the book, as if it put words in the head of the author that were not there. There is no medication that will write for you. You might argue that the words the author writes are somehow not authentic, but I do not know how you could prove that. Despite any authenticity issues, what about this situation makes it immoral to brain dope? Finally, in your latest comment, you provide an example from your own life as a reason not to dope. From this example you conclude there is no reason for a healthy person to dope. The fact that you did not require doping in your situation in no way demonstrates a moral principle. Are you, Annmarie Canniff, the measure of moral virtue? I agree with you that this is a matter of ethics, but I am asking you to examine your position and explicitly state the ethical principles you are relying upon to support it.

    Reply

• August 24, 2008 by Rachel Wilkinson

  Performance enhancing drugs of any kind are create an uneven playing field, especially in education and athletics. Can you imagine what kind of world we would live in if we were expect to drug our minds and bodies just to operate on the same levels as our peers? As a student, I know that school is not a competition for superiority, but a competition against oneself, to do one's personal best. Performance enhancing drugs take away the ability to measure one's own improvement.

  Reply

• August 24, 2008 by Pasquale Bottiglieri

  Recently, I heard that two men were indicted and I think convicted in Alaska, their homeland, for hunting and killing a whale which I further understand they disposed of as their ancestors had for centuries. In short, if the story is correct, they did what they did to feed themselves, their families and, probably an entire village. They were indicted under law developed to prevent the wholesale harvesting of whale for profit. When an athlete uses drugs simply to enhance performance, in effect to gain an unfair, beyond natural advantage over unsuspecting opponents and/or officials, I see that as unethical. When a student, author, scientist, military decision maker or whatever, uses mind enhancing drugs to increase brain power, I think we are stepping into unethical territory to say the very least. When a person effectively alters the way they think, they alter who they are. Who we are needs to be definable and independent of drugs of any kind. To return to the men, if a person needs to use proscribed and effectively controlled drugs to allow them to live a productive life because of illness, mental or physical, and that happens to produce a higher IQ or improved test performance, I'd say that goes with the turf. Of course, the problem again comes down to avarice and greed and, again, I comment on status and status anxiety, the desire to win at all cost as the basis for a good deal of the unethical behavior we speak about. The difficult part is separating the Inuit in our field of vision from the self serving predators, those who must use proscribed powerful mind affecting drugs to have a life from those who use possibly the same drugs to simply to advance their status in society or, worse, to run away from reality.

  Reply

• August 25, 2008 by t.amerson

  Truth be told, too many teachers, parents, and others in our "not so perfect society", think that in order to maintain a child that is active you have to give them a medication. Now they are saying that these "brain booster" medications are the rage. Thing is that I don't think that these drugs should be taken unless prescribed by a physician. And if you don't "need" them you cannot get them. The responsibility is in the hands of our trusted physicians. Not in the hands of a dealer on the street, or in a corporate office or in a college. These "brain booster" drugs are dangerous and should be treated as such.

  Reply

  • August 25, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

    I totally agree with you. Drugs are used to heal, not deal. Only when an athlete, or a student has been diagnosed by a doctor for a medical or physical condition, should drugs be used. The laws governing competition and education are clear on that.

    Reply

Tell us what you think.