ArticlePDF Available

Cognitive Enhancement in Healthy Children Will Not Close the Achievement Gap in Education

Authors:

Abstract

If the 62 world´s richest people own as much as the half of the global poorest (Hardoon et al.,2016), this is more than worrying and socially unacceptable, especially given that many of this poorest half are children. Increasing educational access and achievement of these children (but also of the poor in general) – that are often powerless to defend themselves and to fight for their rights, might be one important leverage to increase their long-term opportunities. Education is known to influence health outcomes, job market entry, control over life, etc. as Keisha Ray (2016) argues convincingly. Education might be especially important for the multiply disadvantaged, e.g. children from several ethnic minorities. Thus,we strongly agree with Ray that society has a moral obligation to deliberate about all potential means to improve the conditions of disadvantaged individuals (with/without diseases) for the sake of justice.
!
1
Cognitive Enhancement in Healthy Children Will Not Close the Achievement Gap in
Education
ACCEPTED VERSION
Published in:
The American Journal of Bioethics, 16(6): 39–56, 2016
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1526-5161 print / 1536-0075 online
DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2016.1170240
Sebastian Sattler1,*, Ilina Singh2
a Institute for Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Cologne, Greinstrasse 2, 50939
Cologne, Germany, sattler@wiso.uni-koeln.de
b Department of Psychiatry and Oxford Uehiro Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK,!
ilina.singh@psych.ox.ac.uk
* Corresponding author: +49(0)221-470-6846
Acknowledgements
SS’s research was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, via The
Enhancing Life Project.
Conflict of Interest
None
!
2
Cognitive Enhancement in Healthy Children Will Not Close the Achievement Gap in
Education
If the 62 world´s richest people own as much as the half of the global poorest (Hardoon et al.,
2016), this is more than worrying and socially unacceptable, especially given that many of
this poorest half are children. Increasing educational access and achievement of these
children (but also of the poor in general) – that are often powerless to defend themselves and
to fight for their rights, might be one important leverage to increase their long-term
opportunities. Education is known to influence health outcomes, job market entry, control
over life, etc. as Keisha Ray (2016) argues convincingly. Education might be especially
important for the multiply disadvantaged, e.g. children from several ethnic minorities. Thus,
we strongly agree with Ray that society has a moral obligation to deliberate about all
potential means to improve the conditions of disadvantaged individuals (with/without
diseases) for the sake of justice.
Despite these agreements, however, we find ourselves rather baffled by the central proposal
in this article. A basic source of confusion is the article’s conceptual carelessness: Ray
intermingles poverty, social disadvantage, genetic disadvantage, socio-economic
disadvantage, poor parenting, bad teaching, and poor schooling, allowing the reader no
precise grip on the individual or social factors that the proposed intervention of cognitive
enhancement (CE) is meant to address. In this commentary we use the non-specific phrase
“poor and disadvantaged children” to denote the highly generalized target of “opportunity
maintenance.”
Problems with “opportunity maintenance”
!
3
Ray argues that socially disadvantaged children without diseases should be given CE-drugs in
order to have better opportunities in life. She terms this ‘opportunity maintenance’. The term
is unclear and potentially offensive. It is apparently an effort to avoid the treatment-
enhancement distinction and thereby the accusation that this is a proposal to treat healthy
children. But the term and the concept fail on several levels. First, the concept does not avoid
the assumption that treatment is required; it just shifts the assumption from a medical reason
to a social reason, categorizing (all?) disadvantaged (how?) children as “not normal in
socially relevant ways” (p. 15, our emphasis). Ray argues that the term avoids “assigning
pathologies” (p. 17), even while labelling poor and disadvantaged children as (socially)
abnormal. This move perpetuates stigmatization of the poor and disadvantaged as an
undifferentiated group, and rounds them up for institutionally sanctioned “opportunity
maintenance” using drugs. One might predict that opportunity maintenance would in fact
maintain (lack of) opportunity by reinforcing social exclusion and diminishing human
dignity.
Ray suggests that opportunity maintenance supports a ‘social model’ of CE. This
construction recalls the social model of disability (Shakespeare, 2013), with the major
difference that the social model of disability does not identify the individual as the key target
of intervention to promote social equality and justice. Surely targeting the individual in this
way is a slippery slope to more draconian biomedical “tools” to ensure that individual
children defeat the ‘bad hand’ they were dealt in birth.
Stimulant drugs are not a solution to social disadvantage and inequity
Ray argues that stimulants are a non-optimal solution to the problems of social, educational,
parental, socio-economic and genetic disadvantage; but they are a better solution than
maintaining the current unjust situation. In Ray’s view, “we as society [have] decided that we
!
4
are unwilling to pursue” (p. 11) major policy changes to correct these disadvantages. We
disagree that CE-drugs offer a substantive solution to any of these problems.
It may be banal, but we want to underline the fact that the evidence for CE in healthy people
using CE-drugs is slim (Ragan et al., 2013). As Ray points out, ‘smart drugs,’ used by
students as study aids, have few proven cognitive enhancing capabilities, even if university
students report benefits. We would add that there have been no clinical trials of stimulant
drugs in healthy children for enhancement purposes. Risk-benefit analysis of cognitive
enhancement using these drugs must take into account that the efficacy, safety and side-effect
profile in this population lacks an evidence-base. Moreover, university students are young
adults, not school children, and smart drugs show no educational benefit when measured in
academic outcomes, despite what university students say (Arria and DuPont,
2010).,Nevertheless, Ray’s argument is based on the assumption that stimulants will allow
“biologically normal” school children to squeeze some benefits out of a bad education.
Perhaps the aim of the article is to argue a philosophical point, but the argument comes at the
expense of poor and disadvantaged children. Ray does not elaborate real solutions for a
crucial set of practical issues: First and foremost: How will stimulants (which have
questionable enhancing effects on cognition) enable improved educational progress or
achievement (Ray treats these distinct factors as though they are the same thing) when the
quality of education is still bad? Another concern is how students would be identified to
prescribers for the opportunity maintenance scheme without threats to confidentiality, privacy
and trust?
The lack of attention to the practical and health dimensions of stimulant drug use is ironic in
an article that promotes equality of opportunity and child wellbeing. Since Ray cites one
!
5
sustainable development goal in her article (education), it is worth pointing out some others:
early child development, race, social exclusion (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs).
It makes little practical sense to pull out one social determinant and to ignore the rest. In
addition, to being at increased risk of poor educational resources, poor children already
receive less than adequate health care, which endangers early child development.
Who is the target of opportunity maintenance?
The racial dimensions of opportunity maintenance are played down in this article, when they
need scrutiny and illumination. Ray notes that disadvantaged children in the U.S. include a
disproportionate number of “marginalized populations of lower socio-economic status” (p. 9).
To put it more precisely, poor children in the U.S. are disproportionately Black and Hispanic,
with Black children at greatest risk of poverty. Between 1974 and 2014, 30% to 47% of
American Black children lived below the poverty line (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2015).
Presumably, then, children from ethnic minority backgrounds would also make up a
disproportionate number of children requiring opportunity maintenance. But Black
Americans in particular have a difficult historical relationship with psychiatry. Poor access to
mental health care, lack of cultural sensitivity among care providers, and unethical use of
psychiatric diagnosis and drugs during the civil rights movement have motivated mistrust in
the profession and its treatments (Singh et al., 2013). With these realities in mind, an
unexamined expectation that these groups should accept psychotropic drug-based opportunity
maintenance for their children could be construed as deeply insensitive. It makes little sense
to argue that drug administration to healthy poor children is a moral obligation in the name of
educational equity and social justice, when the practice itself potentially promotes social and
racial exclusion and stigma.
!
6
Cognitive enhancement may make a bad educational situation worse
For an article focused on the problem of social disadvantage, the analysis is curiously
disinterested in social dimensions of CE-drugs within schools; e.g. contagion effects,
diversion, competition, and so forth (e.g., Forlini and Racine, 2009; Sattler et al., 2013;
Sattler et al., 2014). The provision of CE-drugs to a group of healthy children (whilst it is still
illegal for other children without a prescription) could easily lead to a kind of negative
competition, in which parents with sufficient economic resources perceive drug provision to
poor and disadvantaged children as a threat to their own children’s opportunities, with the
consequence that advantaged parents put more energy into upholding their children´s
privilege (with and without stimulants). Thus educational settings could become
battlegrounds for who does or does not meet criteria for sanctioned psychotropic CE. Societal
attention to the structural inequalities that caused the problem in the first place would give
way to lawsuits. Increased stimulant-demand would benefit pharmaceutical companies. In
this way, the advantaged would benefit from the ills of the disadvantaged, and still nothing
would change for the better in the education of poor and disadvantaged children.
Furthermore, the use of CE-drugs to curb inequality in education could have the opposite
effect of increasing inequality. If, parents become more sanguine about challenging
inequalities, having been lulled by the promise of a quick leveling fix, then stimulant use
might go from being a means of coping with a bad situation (a short-term reaction) to
enabling adaptation to those conditions (a long-term reaction). Ray herself has little faith that
we will “take the necessary action to remedy…negative aspects of our educational system.”
(p. 22).
!
7
Surely we are not yet so cynical that we would tackle educational inequities by targeting a
group of healthy disadvantaged children for drug treatment, rather than enacting policies and
practices that build competencies in teaching and schooling across social sectors. Good
teachers and good schools can affect many poor and disadvantaged children for many years,
while pills mainly affect one child at a time. Thus, by any analysis, drugs are a comparatively
less efficient and sustainable tool to increase equity in education. We are not convinced that
stimulants for healthy but socially disadvantaged children would be “a better practical and
just solution in our current unjust situation” (p. 3).
Conclusion
Stimulants are unlikely to close the achievement gap in education, both because stimulants
are largely ineffective in the healthy population and because that achievement gap is made up
of myriad other factors that have nothing to do with an individual child’s ability or desire to
focus and attend in class. The ethics of this proposal are questionable at best, given that it
involves targeting, stigmatization and alienation of marginalized groups, and contains an
implicit moral argument that ‘they’ ought to modify themselves using biological tools in
order to maximize their chances for social mobility. A healthy child in disadvantaged
circumstances should never be asked to shoulder the burden of societal failure and
dysfunction, while we look on.
References
Arria A and DuPont R. (2010) Nonmedical Prescription Stimulant Use among College
Students: Why We Need To Do Something and What We Need To Do. Journal of
Addictive Diseases 29: 417-426.
DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith JC, et al. (2015) Current Population Reports, P60-252,
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014. Current Population Reports. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
!
8
Forlini C and Racine E. (2009) Autonomy and coercion in academic “cognitive
enhancement” using methylphenidate: perspectives of key stakeholders. Neuroethics 2:
163-177.
Hardoon D, Fuentes-Nieva R and Ayele S. (2016) An Economy for the 1%: How privilege
and power in the economy drive extreme inequality and how this can be stopped.
Ragan C, Bard I and Singh I. (2013) What should we do about student use of cognitive
enhancers? An analysis of current evidence. Neuropharmacology 64: 588-595.
Ray K. (2016) Not Just 'Study Drugs' for the Rich: Stimulants as Moral Tools for Creating
Opportunities for Socially Disadvantaged Students. American Journal of Bioethics (in
press).
Sattler S, Forlini C, Racine E, et al. (2013) Impact of contextual factors and substance
characteristics on perspectives toward cognitive enhancement. PLoS ONE 8: e71452.
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. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention,
and Policy 9: 8.
Shakespeare T. (2013) Disability rights and wrongs revisited: Routledge.
Singh I, Filipe AM, Bard I, et al. (2013) Globalization and cognitive enhancement: emerging
social and ethical challenges for ADHD clinicians. Current psychiatry reports 15: 1-9.
... When the discussion turns to CE by healthy young people, many scholars -including some who endorse CE in healthy adults -agree that CE is not justifiable for this specific group, at least not generally (e.g., Metzinger, 2012;Maslen et al., 2014b;Sattler and Singh, 2016;Gaucher et al., 2013). This is mainly due to social and developmental issues as well as problems of professional integrity (e.g. ...
... Other scholars have presented counter arguments in favor of some kind of CE of young people, claiming that many of their colleagues are too cautious about CE of young people (Hagger and Hagger-Johnson, 2011;Flanigan, 2013;Ray, 2016).They argue, for example, that CE could serve as a medical means to compensate for social disadvantages such as poor (e.g., understaffed, overcrowded) school environments (Flanigan, 2013;Ray, 2016). Such arguments have been subject to heavy criticism because the usage of CE might be ineffective and unsustainable for that aim (Sattler and Singh, 2016;Ketchum and Repantis, 2016). It is also unclear who would pay for the medications and how they would be distributed (Warren, 2016;Sattler and Singh, 2016). ...
... Such arguments have been subject to heavy criticism because the usage of CE might be ineffective and unsustainable for that aim (Sattler and Singh, 2016;Ketchum and Repantis, 2016). It is also unclear who would pay for the medications and how they would be distributed (Warren, 2016;Sattler and Singh, 2016). Furthermore, CE of young people can increase the medicalization of society by turning "a social problem (academic inequality) into a medical problem (children´s brain chemistry)" and misses scrutinizing the causes of social disadvantages (Ketchum and Repantis, 2016: 47;cf. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
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.
... Dresler and Repantis [26] note that while many researchers aim to understand cognitive abilities through studying BCE, most of the theoretical discussion stems from the "counterfactual idea of a highly effective drug that makes its consumer super smart," which confirms that this fallacy is present in the literature. In a rebuttal to arguments that use BCE as solutions to solve issues of social disadvantage and inequity in education, Sattler and Singh [27] assert that it is unclear how BCE could legitimately aid a student if the quality of the education he receives is still poor. This highlights the logical disconnect between enhancing cognitive abilities and enhancing cognition overall, and the authors note that the effects of a good education are much longer-lasting than a pill and affect a greater number of students [27]. ...
... In a rebuttal to arguments that use BCE as solutions to solve issues of social disadvantage and inequity in education, Sattler and Singh [27] assert that it is unclear how BCE could legitimately aid a student if the quality of the education he receives is still poor. This highlights the logical disconnect between enhancing cognitive abilities and enhancing cognition overall, and the authors note that the effects of a good education are much longer-lasting than a pill and affect a greater number of students [27]. In practice, researchers can avoid the fallacy by focusing on methods that produce long-lasting cognitive effects and by pointing their interest toward improving the education system to instill generalizable skills of critical thinking and problem solving, which we will discuss in the section on public education reform. ...
Article
Full-text available
Research into cognitive enhancement is highly controversial, and arguments for and against it have failed to identify the logical fallacy underlying this debate: the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is a lesser-known fallacy of ambiguity, but it has been explored and applied extensively to other fields, including economics. The fallacy of composition, which occurs when the characteristics of the parts of the whole are incorrectly extended to apply to the whole itself, and the conclusion is false, should be addressed in the debate on cognitive enhancement and within education. Within cognitive enhancement, the premise that individual distinct cognitive processes can be enhanced by cognitive enhancers leads to the conclusion that they must enhance cognition overall, and this idea is pervasive in the literature. If the goal of cognitive enhancement is to enhance cognition or learning, and not merely individual cognitive processes, then this is a clear example of the fallacy of composition. The ambiguity of “cognitive,” “cognition,” and “enhancement” only perpetuates this fallacy and creates more confusion surrounding the purposes and goals of enhancement. Identifying this fallacy does not threaten the existing body of research; however, it provides a novel framework to explore new avenues for research, education, and enhancement, particularly through education reform initiatives. Education enhances and facilitates learning, and improvements to education could be considered cognitive enhancements. Furthermore, the same fallacy is ubiquitous in education; educators commit it by “teaching to the test” and prioritizing memorization over generalizable skills such as critical thinking and problem solving. We will explore these new avenues for research and highlight principles of learning success from other disciplines to create a clearer understanding of the means and ends of cognitive enhancement. Recognizing the pervasiveness of composition fallacy in cognitive enhancement and education will lead to greater clarity of normative positions and insights into student learning that steer away from fallacious reasoning.
... Sociologists, pediatricians, and ethicists are concerned that engaging in such practices may cause contagion effects (i.e., turning non-users into users), diminish freedom of choice, undermine authenticity and thus the child's personality, violate children's rights (plus propel competition in school), and undermine fair performance assessments between users and non-users (e.g., Gaucher et al., 2013;Sattler & Singh, 2016). Young people could be especially vulnerable to direct and indirect coercion by parents and peers. ...
... Few participants voiced concerns about the little-investigated non-medical side effects (Ball & Wolbring, 2014;Sattler & Singh, 2016) such as the stigmatization and social exclusion of children who use CE-drugs by their peers. CEdrug-using children might be seen as being in need of the drugs and too weak to be able to compete, or as engaging in an unfair practice. ...
Article
Full-text available
First evidence shows that some parents engage in the health-endangering practice of (mis-)using prescription drugs to boost their children's school performance. But little is known about parental perspectives on this phenomenon. This study aims to better understand parents' perspectives on the non-medical use of prescription drugs to improve healthy children's cognitive functioning. We conducted twelve semi-structured face-to-face interviews with a diverse sample of parents in Germany, and applied qualitative content analysis to explore their perspectives on instrumentalizing prescription drugs for improving the performance of healthy children, including their underlying knowledge (gaps), moral evaluations, evaluations of accompanied risks and benefits, opinions on potential motivators, and wishes regarding policy-making. The results show that parents typically believed themselves knowledgeable about such prescription drug (mis-)use, although they were not aware of anyone in their social environment taking them for enhancement. Parents generally considered such behavior to be morally reprehensible, cheating, and similar to doping in sports, and they typically claimed that no situation or occasion could motivate them to administer prescription drugs to their healthy children. Health risks (including side effects or addiction) were a typical expectation of drug use. That doctors should give such drugs to healthy young people was seen as unjustifiable. The results suggest that morality and risk-benefit evaluations of parents play a major role in their decision-making concerning this potentially risky instrumentalization of non-medical drugs. These insights are of distinct importance, especially for future research and further discussions on this topic, such as an evidence-based public dialog and ethics debates. Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41465-022-00243-w.
... The overarching ideas and discourses currently held regarding developing countries stills needs change. Cognitive Enhancement experts have also (Sattler and Singh 2016) highlighted this need through an example of the provision of cognitive enhancements (CE) to children within schools: ...
Article
Full-text available
Bioethicists and philosophers dominate the on-going debate on human enhancement. They have debated the definition of human enhancement as well as the potential impacts of human enhancement technologies (such as pharmaceutical enhancements or pre-natal selection). These discussions have percolated, through bioethics bodies and bioethics recommendations, policy makers and have eventually been translated into policy. While some suggestions have been based largely in Western liberal democracies, others have deliberated the geopolitical consequences of human enhancement technologies. This paper argues that the present debate currently lacks perspectives from developing countries. It begins by introducing the current debate on human enhancement and recognizes Allen Buchanan’s well-raised concerns on how these technologies may potentially cause new injustices for low- and middle-income countries (‘developing countries’). It then provides two arguments calling for further research into human enhancement from the perspective of developing countries. First, this paper will argue that the current frames with which enhancement technologies are viewed are inherently neoliberal and require change. The second argument shows how the potential impacts of human enhancement technologies in developing countries have not been fully realized by analyzing how human enhancement technologies will impact Thailand, a developing country.
... From a more holistic social and psychological standpoint, the outcomes of each intervention expand far beyond the single cognitive function tested to include individual and societal short-and long-term outcomes (e.g., changes in self-confidence and self-efficacy, stigma toward users, raised societal expectations for human memory and performance, indirect coercion to use drugs to not fall behind, or even burnout after long periods of high performance), that could be unintended or unanticipated (Vincent & Jane, 2018). For example, when cognitive enhancement pills are used in a real-life setting, rather than in a controlled research environment, the user may be stigmatized as "weak," "stupid," or "dangerous," thus social interactions and relationships may be affected (Sattler & Singh, 2016;Bavelier et al., 2019), whereas it is rather unlikely that the real-life user of mnemonic methods will be stigmatized in this manner. Refusing the use of enhancement technologies in the case of, for example, a pilot on a difficult flight or of a surgeon doing a complicated surgery may result in other forms of stigmatization, such as blame for the outcomes (of the flight or the surgery) or coercion to use cognitive enhancement, as the availability of the technology may create expectations for its use, especially in high-stake situations (Sample et al., 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Stimulant drugs, transcranial magnetic stimulation, brain-computer interfaces, and even genetic modifications are all discussed as forms of potential cognitive enhancement. Cognitive enhancement can be conceived as a benefit-seeking strategy used by healthy individuals to enhance cognitive abilities such as learning, memory, attention, or vigilance. This phenomenon is hotly debated in the public, professional, and scientific literature. Many of the statements favoring cognitive enhancement (e.g., related to greater productivity and autonomy) or opposing it (e.g., related to health-risks and social expectations) rely on claims about human welfare and human flourishing. But with real-world evidence from the social and psychological sciences often missing to support (or invalidate) these claims, the debate about cognitive enhancement is stalled. In this paper, we describe a set of crucial debated questions about psychological and social aspects of cognitive enhancement (e.g., intrinsic motivation, well-being) and explain why they are of fundamental importance to address in the cognitive enhancement debate and in future research. We propose studies targeting social and psychological outcomes associated with cognitive enhancers (e.g., stigmatization, burnout, mental well-being, work motivation). We also voice a call for scientific evidence, inclusive of but not limited to biological health outcomes, to thoroughly assess the impact of enhancement. This evidence is needed to engage in empirically informed policymaking, as well as to promote the mental and physical health of users and non-users of enhancement.
... compensate for bad schooling, might appear an extreme and exceptional case (Schwarz 9 October 2012), but this approach has recently been endorsed by some academics as an option meriting serious consideration (Ray 2016). Although this same idea has been rejected by other scholars (Sattler and Singh 2016), it demonstrates that the generality of symptoms and the resulting difficulty of correctly diagnosing psychiatric conditions, combined with a lack of understanding of their underlying causes, pose special challenges to ethics. These will now be briefly outlined, followed by a case study to emphasize their practical relevance. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Within the broad field of human enhancement, pediatric cognitive neuro-enhancement appears to arouse particular interest. The increasing importance of cognitive capacities in our contemporary and cultural context appears to be the main reason for the focus on cognition as the preferred trait of enhancement, while the choice of pharmacological means is based on factors of feasibility, accessibility, and cost. While the ethical issues arising in the adult context have already been extensively covered in the literature, pediatric neuro-enhancement brings with it additional ethical challenges requiring further attention. Although there are numerous important ethical considerations, the focus of this chapter is on the pursuit of normalcy as the goal in pediatric neuro-enhancement. Parental attempts to shape children are not new, and the resources available for them to do so include widespread and mostly uncontroversial tools, such as education. The increasing use of psychotropic drugs, however, reveals the significant impact of the concept of normalcy, which has resulted in a trend to medicalize what used to be considered “normal” (childhood) behavior. In this context, special challenges are posed by psychiatric disorders, where the familiar treatment-enhancement distinction continues to be relied upon to justify interventions in children. Drawing on the examples of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it will be argued that children are already being enhanced within psychiatric practice and that this is incompatible with an understanding of disability under a mixed model.
Article
Full-text available
The mechanisms affecting parents’ misuse of prescription stimulant drugs to boost healthy children’s school performance are hardly unknown. Using four web-based factorial vignette surveys (2×2 between-subjects design experiment), we investigated the willingness of U.S. parents with school-aged children to medicate a fictitious 13-year-old child whose grades had declined. We examined mechanisms of informational and normative social influence on their decision-making: others’ behavior ( N Experiment 1 = 359), others’ definitions ( N Experiment 2 = 326), social control ( N Experiment 3 = 325), and others’ experience ( N Experiment 4 = 313). In addition, we explored the moderating role of influential sources (close friends vs. social media). Parents were more willing to engage in said behavior when others reported engagement in this behavior or positive drug experiences, especially if both influences were transmitted via social media. Others’ definitions and social control had no effect. Thus, social media might be a channel for the prevention of pharmacological cognitive enhancement.
Chapter
Playing outdoors offers rich play opportunities and has unique characteristics less apparent in indoor play, including taking physical risks. Risky play occurs when children intentionally seek exhilarating and scary physical play situations that allow them to gain mastery over their fears. Opportunities for outdoor risky play have been severely curtailed in recent generations. As research mounts on the importance of risky play for children’s health, development and well-being, there is increasing recognition regarding the need for action to create supportive environments for play. This chapter reviews the literature on the importance of risky play. It then presents the three key ingredients for outdoor risky play supportive environments – time, space, and freedom – and suggests practice and policy necessary to implement sustained and meaningful change.
Chapter
Pediatric pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PPCE) refers to children’ and adolescents’ nonmedical use of prescription and recreational drugs for enhanced performance at school. Adolescents’ own intentional decision for substance use to compete with fellow students must be distinguished from parental decisions to enhance their children’s performance as an investment in their children’s or in their own future, respectively. While several recent studies have examined the prevalence and the correlates of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among healthy students and employees, only little is known about PPCE among school students. Given that decision-making in adolescence is strongly modulated by emotional and social factors, peer influence, and availability, the theory of self-medication might best explain intentional PPCE in late adolescence. In addition, regular recreational drug use is likely to lower the barriers for PPCE in populations interested in enhancing their performance at school. To ensure equal developmental opportunities for today’s school students, an individual-centered approach should focus on strengthening adolescents’ resources and self-efficacy.
Article
Full-text available
The use of cognitive enhancement (CE) by means of pharmaceutical agents has been the subject of intense debate both among scientists and in the media. This study investigates several drivers of and obstacles to the willingness to use prescription drugs non-medically for augmenting brain capacity. We conducted a web-based study among 2,877 students from randomly selected disciplines at German universities. Using a factorial survey, respondents expressed their willingness to take various hypothetical CE-drugs; the drugs were described by five experimentally varied characteristics and the social environment by three varied characteristics. Personal characteristics and demographic controls were also measured. We found that 65.3% of the respondents staunchly refused to use CE-drugs. The results of a multivariate negative binomial regression indicated that respondents' willingness to use CE-drugs increased if the potential drugs promised a significant augmentation of mental capacity and a high probability of achieving this augmentation. Willingness decreased when there was a high probability of side effects and a high price. Prevalent CE-drug use among peers increased willingness, whereas a social environment that strongly disapproved of these drugs decreased it. Regarding the respondents' characteristics, pronounced academic procrastination, high cognitive test anxiety, low intrinsic motivation, low internalization of social norms against CE-drug use, and past experiences with CE-drugs increased willingness. The potential severity of side effects, social recommendations about using CE-drugs, risk preferences, and competencies had no measured effects upon willingness. These findings contribute to understanding factors that influence the willingness to use CE-drugs. They support the assumption of instrumental drug use and may contribute to the development of prevention, policy, and educational strategies.
Article
Full-text available
Globalization of ADHD and the rise of cognitive enhancement have raised fresh concerns about the validity of ADHD diagnosis and the ethics of stimulant drug treatment. We review the literature on these two emerging phenomena, with a focus on the corresponding social, scientific and ethical debates over the universality of ADHD and the use of stimulant drug treatments in a global population of children and adolescents. Drawing on this literature, we reflect on the importance of ethically informed, ecologically sensitive clinical practices in relation to ADHD diagnosis and treatment.
Article
Full-text available
Enhancing cognitive performance with substances–especially prescription drugs–is a fiercely debated topic among scholars and in the media. The empirical basis for these discussions is limited, given that the actual nature of factors that influence the acceptability of and willingness to use cognitive enhancement substances remains unclear. In an online factorial survey, contextual and substance-specific characteristics of substances that improve academic performance were varied experimentally and presented to respondents. Students in four German universities rated their willingness to use and moral acceptance of different substances for cognitive enhancement. We found that the overall willingness to use performance enhancing substances is low. Most respondents considered the use of these substances as morally unacceptable. Situational influences such as peer pressure, policies concerning substance use, relative performance level of peers, but also characteristics of the substance, such as percep
Article
Full-text available
There is mounting evidence that methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin) is being used by healthy college students to improve concentration, alertness, and academic performance. One of the key concerns associated with such use of pharmaceuticals is the degree of freedom individuals have to engage in or abstain from cognitive enhancement (CE). From a pragmatic perspective, careful examination of the ethics of acts and contexts in which they arise includes considering coercion and social pressures to enhance cognition. We were interested in understanding how university students, parents of university students, and healthcare providers viewed autonomy and coercion in CE using MPH. We found that perspectives converged on the belief that CE is a matter of personal and individual choice. Perspectives also converged on the existence of tremendous social pressures to perform and succeed. Parents emphasized personal responsibility and accountability for CE choices, and expressed feelings of worry, sadness and fear about CE. Students emphasized the importance of personal integrity in CE, expressed tolerance for personal choices of others, and highlighted the challenge that CE poses to maintaining one’s personal integrity. Healthcare providers emphasized the health consequences of CE. These results illustrate: (1) the importance of understanding how context is viewed in relation to perspectives on autonomous choice; (2) the limitations of individualistic libertarian approaches that do not consider social context; and (3) the ethical implications of public health interventions in a value-laden debate where perspectives diverge.
Article
Full-text available
This article summarizes recent research findings on nonmedical use of prescription stimulants and outlines a multi-pronged strategic approach for responding to this unique problem among college students. Students, health professionals, parents, the pharmaceutical industry, and institutions of higher education all play roles in this response. Moreover, the academic community should view the translation of research findings as an important responsibility that can help dispel the myths often perpetuated in the media. The nonmedical use of prescription stimulants is a complex behavior and should be viewed in the larger context of alcohol and drug involvement among young adults. Strategies to reduce nonmedical use of prescription stimulants might have direct application to the abuse of other prescription drugs, including opiates.
Article
An argument in the cognitive enhancement literature is that using stimulants in populations of healthy but socially disadvantaged individuals mistakenly attributes pathology to nonpathological individuals who experience social inequalities. As the argument goes, using stimulants as cognitive-enhancing drugs to solve the social problem of poorly educated students in inadequate schools misattributes the problem as an individual medical problem, when it is really a collective sociopolitical problem. I challenge this argument on the grounds that not all types of enhancement have to be explained in medical terms, but rather at least one conception of enhancement can be explained in social terms—opportunity maintenance. Therefore, I propose that as a moral requirement we ought to explore whether stimulants could be a means of remedying underprivileged children's experiences of social inequalities that are borne from inadequate schools for the sake of increasing their chances for opportunities and well-being.
Article
Over the last forty years, the field of disability studies has emerged from the political activism of disabled people. In this challenging review of the field, leading disability academic and activist Tom Shakespeare argues that disability research needs a firmer conceptual and empirical footing.
An Economy for the 1%: How privilege and power in the economy drive extreme inequality and how this can be stopped
  • D Hardoon
  • Ayele S Fuentes-Nieva R
Hardoon D, Fuentes-Nieva R and Ayele S. (2016) An Economy for the 1%: How privilege and power in the economy drive extreme inequality and how this can be stopped.
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014. Current Population Reports
  • C Denavas-Walt
  • B D Proctor
  • J C Smith
DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith JC, et al. (2015) Current Population Reports, P60-252, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014. Current Population Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.