Drug testing could stop 'academic doping'

Students taking important exams could one day find themselves in the same position as professional athletes -- submitting to a drug test before the big event. The practice of students taking cognitive-enhancing drugs, such as methylphenidate, has become so common that those who don't "dope" are at an unfair advantage, argues a psychologist writing in the new issue of Journal of Medical Ethics.

Chemically enhanced academic performance is cheating, says Vince Cakic, of the department of psychology at the University of Sydney, Australia. Already, he notes, medications meant to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are used by college students to improve their test scores. And many other cognitive-enhancing medications, which he calls nootropics, are being developed for diseases such as Alzheimer's. While the ADHD drugs improve performance only modestly, future drugs for dementia may make a big difference in an individual's capacity to study and test scores. "The possibility of purchasing 'smartness in a bottle' is likely to have broad appeal to students with normal or above average cognitive functioning to begin with," he wrote

Rules prohibiting the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports fail unless athletes are subjected to routine urine tests, Cakic says. The same strategy would likely be necessary to prevent cheating in academics. According to his paper, the use of methylphenidate and amphetamines is as high as 25% on some U.S. college campuses. The most academically competitive schools are thought to have the highest usage rates of these drugs. The more students who take the drugs, the more non-cheating student are put at a disadvantage and thus may feel compelled to cheat, too.

"It is apparent that the failures and inconsistencies inherent in anti-doping policy in sport will be mirrored in academia unless a reasonable and realistic approach to the issue of nootropics is adopted," Cakic wrote.

Cheating is not the only worry for college administrators. The rampant use of nootropics may lead to serious health problems in some students who take them without a doctor's approval.

". . . there is a greater need to examine the safety and efficacy of putative nootropics in the healthy rather than only in clinical populations," he wrote. "However, the widespread non-medical use of methylphenidate suggests that students will use nootropics regardless of their safety and legality."

-- Shari Roan

Photo credit: Keith Beaty / Toronto Star / ZUMA Press

Comments

[Cassox]

This is the most ridiculously stupid argument I've heard in a long time. The point of education is NOT competition. Who would you rather have operate on you? An Md who took cognitive enhancers and knows his field well, or someone who didn't and doesn't?

Education is nothing like sports; the comparison is false. People should do everything in their power to better themselves including taking substances like piracetam and methylphenidate. The risk profiles of these substances is not much different than caffeine or aspirin. On the other hand, steroids have a slue of dangerous and undesirable effects.

Being better is NOT cheating. Cheating indicates competition against other students. If one wants to require no nootropics during entrance exams, this makes sense. It would be unfair for a person who is willing to take an enhancer to gain admission over another student who isn't, but come on people, when education is taking place is doesn't matter who is the top student. What matters is that everyone in a class achieves the minimal expectation of understanding. Nootropics can raise that minimal expectation. You would have to be an idiot to think that some arbitrary concept like competitive fairness in what should be a non-competitive field trumps the actual outcome: has education occurred?

I have a solution. Vince Cakic should take ritalin for a few days. Then perhaps, he will be capable of understanding how foolishly short-sided his argument is. H+ all the way.

[Brian]

Cassox, I'm sorry but you're way off the mark here...

You say you'd rather have a doctor who is juiced on cognitive enhancers... well guess what? If I had to pick, I'd rather have a firefighter or policeman juiced on anabolic steroids. You can't demonize one, without the other.

Likewise your statement that education is NOT a competition is the most ridiculous falsification of reality I think I have ever heard. We all compete for that A on the final exam -- or to get that acceptance letter from the premier school of our choice. Let's not kid ourselves here, EVERYTHING is a competition. We compete for high test scores so that we have a high GPA. A high GPA looks good on a resume and we get a better job. A better job equates to more money - which being American, is mostly what we seek. Again, everything is a competition -- otherwise why is there an interview process for a job? You are COMPETING for the spot against your peers.

And finally, you come across touting this whole H+ branding as a good thing. You say, "H+ all the way"... well, coming back to my steroid argument, why wouldn't you want the ultimate H+, one with brain AND braun. If I had to guess it's because you don't like steroid users because you believe everything you read or hear on tv. On the other hand you have totally bought into H+ being a good thing when it is limited to just the brain. Let's be honest, the axe your trying to grind is probably in corporate America, and not on the football field. Therefore, it sadly makes sense that you support one and not the other.

Regardless of what you think, there is absolutely no substitute for hard work. That said, I strongly agree that there needs to be testing just like in professional sports. It's just that simple.

[Cassox]

I'm not against the use of steroids; however, in professional sports it is cheating. There are monetary gains, and people are competing on an assumed equal playing field. While I agree it's a nice idea to give steroids to cops and firefighters, in reality such drugs have a much higher risk profile over time. If you can give me an example of a steroid with as little risk as Ritalin, I would take it myself.

Competing to get an "A" is not a competition against others. Your GPA has nothing to do with anyone else, unless your counting on a big curve. Also, who puts their GPA in a job resume? The majority of professions have no association between GPA and income. A student nurse is in school to get registered. A student doctor is trying to get his MD. Where exactly can one even go to find out what scores they got? You can't. Competition is irrelevant except perhaps in "getting in" to a better school.

The reality is that sports are irrelevant. Its a useless past time. Everything in sports is arbitrary, and thus if you want to make a rule saying NFL players can't drink milk, go for it. Cognition and education on the other hand holds the fate of the entire world and everyone on it. Stopping humans from bettering themselves due to the fear that someone might have an advantage is ridiculous in that, when someone becomes smarter, everyone wins. We shouldn't persecute people who take it. We should make it available to those don't take it.

[Neon Vincent]

"The practice of students taking cognitive-enhancing drugs, such as methylphenidate, has become so common that those who don't "dope" are at an unfair advantage, argues a psychologist writing in the new issue of Journal of Medical Ethics."

From context, I think Ms. Roan meant 'unfair disadvantage.' Otherwise, an interesting and provocative article.

[Robert]

College can be very expensive, why shouldn't the use pills to help them memorize everything they can? Also, it's an unfair advantage to who? So because they want to have a better recollection of the material their learning,which they are paying Lord knows how much, they have to be considered cheating. I don't think there is anything wrong with memory enhancement pills, but know I am interested in the efficacy of using such medication.