Education in the Digital Age

8. Cognitive enhancement in children by using prescription drugs

Sebastian Sattler
Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Cologne, Germany

Pragmatic Health Ethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, Canada

Abstract

This chapter explores the use of prescription drugs with the aim of enhancing the cognitive performance in children in the absence of any medical need. This so-called pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement provokes ethical and social concerns. Although not an epidemic, a non-negligible number of children are put at risk of side effects, while other children and parents may feel pressured to take or administer such drugs. After defining this behaviour and discussing its effects, this chapter describes arguments in the ethics debate favouring or opposing this behaviour. It then gives insights into how common this phenomenon is, what parents and children think about it and what affects their decisions to use such drugs. The chapter ends with strategies to prevent risky use and important research gaps.

Introduction

Imagine the parents of a ten-year-old. Unsatisfied with their child’s school grades, they approach a doctor to check if a medical condition causes this poor school performance. The doctor confirms that their child is in perfect health. Unsatisfied, the parents search the Internet and find other parents talking about medicating their healthy kids with the intention of boosting their performance at school. They then decide to find a doctor with a reputation for prescribing drugs that are not medically necessary, and request this for their child. This short narrative describes the phenomenon of “pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement” (PCE) or more colloquially, the use of “study aids,” “smart drugs” or “homework drugs”. This chapter on PCE in children will cover: 1) what PCE is, 2) how it is discussed ethically, 3) what we currently know about its prevalence, 4) factors driving and mitigating its use, 5) strategies to prevent risky use, and 6) what future research should target. By “children”, this chapter refers to individuals aged up to 18, however in the absence of data for some sub‑topics, some data on older individuals are used.

What is pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement and does it work?

Cognitive enhancement, in general, describes a set of practices that aim to increase cognitive functions such as short and long-term memory, concentration, the capacity for decision-making and wakefulness (Bostrom and Sandberg, 2009[1]; Greely et al., 2008[2]; Sahakian et al., 2015[3]; Sattler, 2016[4]). This is often referred to as augmentation beyond “normal”, “natural” or “average” functioning of “healthy” individuals, i.e. an intervention “beyond what is necessary to sustain or restore good health” (Juengst, 1998, p. 29[5]). However, due to changing norms about what is “normal”, “natural”, “average”, “good health” or “healthy”, there are shifting boundaries and grey zones especially in terms of cognitive processes such as attention or learning ability, for example. Such boundaries might also be intentionally shifted by the pharmaceutical industry to extend the circle of users.

Very broadly defined, cognitive enhancement includes practices such as substance use, physical exercise, meditation, genetic modification, mnemonics or brain stimulation (Coates McCall et al., 2019[6]; Dresler et al., 2013[7]). Taking prescription drugs is currently the most frequently discussed form of enhancement (Nagel, 2019[8]; O’Connor and Nagel, 2017[9]; Sahakian et al., 2015[3]; Schelle et al., 2014[10]) and the focus of this chapter. Such PCE includes off-label prescription drug use of mainly modafinil (e.g. Provigil^®), methylphenidate (e.g. Ritalin^®) and amphetamine-dextroamphetamine (e.g. Adderall^®), as well as donepezil (e.g. Aricept^®) and beta-blockers (e.g. Inderal^®). These drugs have been developed and approved to treat conditions like attention-deficit hyperactivity-disorder (ADHD), sleep disorders, dementia or high blood pressure, and not intended specifically for PCE. For example, the use of these drugs in children diagnosed with ADHD is intended to calm them down and help improve concentration.

Due to ethical reasons, studies of the impact of these drugs on “healthy” children do not exist (as far as we know). Studies and subsequent meta-analyses with older populations reveal that such drugs can increase cognitive performance in “healthy” individuals (Battleday and Brem, 2015[11]; Caviola and Faber, 2015[12]; Repantis, Laisney and Heuser, 2010[13]; Smith and Farah, 2011[14]). The strength of the effect is low to moderate and depends on the type of drug, its dosage, characteristics of the user (e.g. responsiveness to the drug), the situation of use (including the task at hand) and the targeted cognitive function. Effects sometimes seem to be only subjectively perceived rather than objectively verifiable, suggesting that placebo effects exist. Thus, user expectations may partially exceed the actual effect. Preliminary research with healthy college students suggests some improvements (e.g. on attention), but also impairments (on working memory) after Adderall^® was administered (Weyandt et al., 2018[15]).

What is the controversy about pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement?

Is PCE morally acceptable? How does it affect personhood? Is PCE different from private tutoring or drinking coffee? Who may benefit legitimately or illegitimately and who may be harmed from this practice? These and other questions are challenging and the use of PCE across the life-cycle offers material for intense ethical discussions. While some arguments favouring or dismissing PCE as acceptable or non‑acceptable are very general, others apply to children in particular. These arguments can be grouped into those focusing on a) how PCE relates to traits or motivations of (non-)users (i.e. the agents), b) whether PCE can be judged as a “right” or “wrong” deed to conduct, and c) whether PCE has “good” or “bad” consequences for (non-)users or others (Dubljević, Sattler and Racine, 2018[16]; Racine, Sattler and Boehlen, Under review[17]). Some arguments relate to more than one of these three groups. This chapter highlights six common arguments for and against the use of PCE in children (see Table 8.1).

Table 8.1. Common arguments for and against PCE in children

	Agent-related	Deed-related	Consequence-related
For PCE	PCE can boost self-confidence; PCE helps reach the next level of humankind.	PCE is equal to other augmentation means and should thus be allowed; The autonomy to decide about PCE should be granted to mature adolescents.	Gains in cognitive functioning; Reduction of social inequality.
Against PCE	PCE interferes with valued personality traits (such as authenticity); PCE reduces the development of meta-skills (such as coping or learning strategies).	PCE is unfair and cheating; PCE is legally prohibited for good reasons.	Poor cost-benefit ratio due to unknown efficacy and risk of adverse side effects; Pressure and coercion to use PCE.

Note: This is the author’s summary of a much larger literature; see, for example, (Graf et al., 2013[18]) for a fuller review.

Agent-related arguments

PCE has been seen as a means to help humans become “better” and overcome currently believed limitations concerning what we are able to memorise, how long we can concentrate, or how efficiently we can make decisions and adapt to challenging environments (Bostrom and Sandberg, 2009[1]). For example, having a good memory might be generally valued and thus positive for users. And indeed, key features of humankind have been changing over the centuries due to better health-care, vaccination or food. One hope is that PCE can amplify human capacities for more autonomous agency and complex judgments and that its intake may even result in changes of character traits that could be beneficial for users, such as improved self-confidence (Flanigan, 2013[19]).

However critics argue that PCE can undermine authenticity and thereby a child´s personality, because for individuals who use PCE, the attribution of what contributed to successes or failures – the pill or the person – might become blurred (Graf et al., 2013[18]). One related argument against PCE is that it will negatively change other elements of a child’s character, since drug using children will be less trained in meta-skills such as overcoming crises. As a result, their self-confidence, sense of agency and autonomy might be reduced, and this can be detrimental for further achievement and development (Racine, Sattler and Boehlen, Under review[17]; Sattler, 2016[4]; Walcher-Andris, 2006[20]).

Deed-related arguments

Some scholars claim that PCE increases cognitive functioning similar to other means such as tutoring or drinking coffee and thus should be allowed (Flanigan, 2013[19]). However, due to the negative consequences related to its use (see below) and more acceptable non-pharmaceutical options, it cannot be considered legally and ethically similar to private tutoring or coffee (Gaucher, Payot and Racine, 2013[21]). This is also why prescription drugs can only be legally obtained with a prescription (although there is variation across countries about what constitutes a prescription drug).

Proponents of PCE argue that with increasing maturity, adolescents should be granted the right to decide for themselves and be considered medically autonomous (Flanigan, 2013[19]). The ability to understand risks and benefits increases with age and maturity, therefore adolescents should be able to decide which risks are acceptable even if they are prone to engaging in risky behaviours. However, while physicians have a duty to acknowledge the autonomy of their patients, they must also intervene if health decisions fall below established thresholds (Forlini, Gauthier and Racine, 2013[22]; Gaucher, Payot and Racine, 2013[21]).

Given the potential of performance improvements with PCE, scholars have critically discussed PCE as being unfair and cheating (Schermer, 2008[23]). Achievements with PCE are seen as different from those involving purely hard work. Additionally, a fair performance assessment might be difficult if some individuals use PCE and others do not, although it has to be acknowledged that children already vary in starting conditions, e.g. due to the human and social capital of their parents (Bostrom and Sandberg, 2009[1]). In this sense “cheating” must be clearly defined. For example, because of concerned students, Duke University in the United States lists “the unauthorised use of prescription medication to enhance academic performance” as one form of academic dishonesty in their university policy (Duke University, 2019, p. 16[24]). Proponents, however, argue that if everybody had legal access to PCE (as some schools offer computers to all students), it can be considered equivalent to other means of performance enhancement (Greely et al., 2008[2]; Kayser, Mauron and Miah, 2005[25]). Some scholars even suggest subsidised access for disadvantaged groups (Bostrom and Sandberg, 2009[1]) but who would pay for this and how this would be organised for PCE is not clear.

Consequence-related arguments

Proponents of PCE in children hope for positive gains in cognitive functioning, enjoyment of work and better well‑being, even if only due to placebo effects (Flanigan, 2013[19]). Such improvements might also be societally relevant since “smarter, wiser or more creative” individuals may help solve pressing societal and economic problems (Bostrom and Sandberg, 2009, p. 328[1]; Beddington et al., 2008[26]). They also argue that disadvantaged healthy children should be given PCE to counter potential inadequate schooling and teaching – especially if society seems unwilling to pursue other required policy changes (Bostrom and Sandberg, 2009[1]; Flanigan, 2013[19]; Ray, 2016[27]). However, turning social inequality into a medical problem, for which the hoped remedy is probably ineffective (see next point) causes further problems such as stigmatisation (Ketchum and Repantis, 2016[28]; Sattler and Singh, 2016[29]; Warren, 2016[30]).

Critics of PCE in children highlight its poor cost-benefit ratio (Graf et al., 2013[18]; Sattler and Singh, 2016[29]). While clinical evidence for positive effects in young healthy people is very limited, PCE can have negative short- and long-term health consequences. Adverse side effects include headaches, insomnia, abnormal heartbeat, high blood pressure or psychosis (Storebø et al., 2015[31]; Volkow et al., 2009[32]; Winder-Rhodes et al., 2010[33]). Such negative effects might be more likely or more severe without medical oversight, e.g. due to overdosing, intranasal administration (which is related to increased risks of abuse), or when use is inadvisable because of other medical conditions (e.g. heart failure or an oversupply of thyroid hormones) (Weyandt et al., 2018[15]). While risking such side effects might be acceptable to treat a disease, the acceptability for PCE in otherwise healthy individuals has been questioned.

Moreover, PCE in children warrants special attention as their developing bodies and brains might be more vulnerable (d’Angelo, Savulich and Sahakian, 2017[34]). Exposure to side effects can impose costs on health systems that society has to shoulder. Due to these negative consequences, physicians’ obligation to refuse inquiries of inappropriate drug use has been highlighted, as have legal sanctions for untrained parents administering PCE drugs to children without supervision. Prevention and monitoring have been suggested (Gaucher, Payot and Racine, 2013[21]; Graf et al., 2013[18]; Maslen et al., 2014[35]).

In this debate, the potential for negative social consequences of individual PCE engagement has been emphasised, namely that other parents and children may experience diminished freedom of choice due to increasing competition (e.g. in schools) as well as indirect coercion and pressures to also engage in PCE in order not to fall behind (Graf et al., 2013[18]; Sattler and Singh, 2016[29]). Such pressures may rise with growing prevalence rates of PCE, and increasing pressure on parents and children to use medication to “keep up”. This can be especially problematic because children´s decision-making capacity is still developing and they are particularly vulnerable to direct and indirect coercion by both parents and peers. Additionally, young people´s assessment of the (health) consequences of PCE might be constrained (Gaucher, Payot and Racine, 2013[21]). Additionally, if everybody starts using enhancement to improve academic performance, no one will have a relative advantage, but everyone has to bear the negative consequences (Jane and Vincent, 2017[36]).

What is known about the prevalence of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement?

Researchers warn that the misuse and abuse of prescription drugs “is one of the fastest growing drug epidemics in the United States, particularly among adolescents” (Conn and Marks, 2014, p. 257[37]). While this warning did not specifically target PCE, scholars believe the prevalence of PCE in children to also be on the rise (O’Connor and Nagel, 2017[9]; Singh and Kelleher, 2010[38]). This section outlines some research examining the prevalence of PCE in children.

These trends are not limited to the United States, but it is difficult to compare prevalence rates across countries in part due to the lack of shared definitions and assessment approaches. In addition, different types of data can be used to estimate how common PCE is among children. These data include a) official data including prescription rates as rough indicators of PCE, b) information about parents (or other legal guardians) endorsing or actively giving prescription drugs to their children with the intention of performance enhancement without medical necessity, and c) self-reports of children who have been asked about their engagement in such behaviour. It has to be noted that not all studies explicitly refer to PCE as a motive for use (further motives are “getting high” for example).

Official data

The global manufacturing, trade, stocks, and consumption of methylphenidate (usually prescribed to treat ADHD) has been rising in the past ten years, according to the International Narcotics Control Board (2019[39]). High levels of consumption have been reported for northern Europe (e.g. Iceland), North America as well as other parts of Europe. The prevalence of ADHD diagnosis in Germany, for example, increased from 21 of 1 000 children in 2004 to 39 of 1 000 in 2013. The total amount of prescribed drugs and the number of daily doses per case has also risen in that time (Langner et al., 2019[40]). Reasons for this increase include a rise in the prevalence of ADHD and a higher awareness of parents and physicians about ADHD. However, over-diagnosis (Bruchmüller, Margraf and Schneider, 2012[41]) including with the purpose of PCE, cannot be ruled out as contributing to these trends (Gaucher, Payot and Racine, 2013[21]; Graf et al., 2013[18]). Even if unintentional, such surges in prescriptions make more drugs available for sharing, trading and exchanging, and thus for potential misuse.

Parents’ self-reported PCE behaviour

The actual prevalence of parents administering prescription drugs to their children in order to enhance their cognitive performance is not well-researched. One survey in the US revealed that only 1% of parents of children aged 13-17 (who have no prescribed stimulants to treat ADHD), assumed that their children use “study aids”, while another 4% were not sure (C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health, 2013[42]). However, parents might not be well informed about their children’s behaviour, particularly in the case of older adolescents. Another experimental study found an occasionally moderate but substantial willingness when parents were asked if they would medicate a healthy child for better school performance (Sattler et al., under review[43]).

Children´s self-reported PCE behaviour

An older meta-analysis estimated the 12-month prevalence rate of non-medical use of prescription drugs in the United States at 5-10% among grade-school students (Wilens et al., 2008[44]). A more recent study, again in the United States, shows that 1 196 000 (4.8%) adolescents between 12 and 17 years are estimated to have misused psychotherapeutics in 2018, of which 369 000 (1.5%) misused stimulants (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2019[45]). When looking at the annual prevalence of the non‑medical use of two important amphetamines used for PCE, Ritalin^® use decreased from 2009 to 2018 in 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students, while Adderall^® use was more stable at higher levels in the same period (Johnston et al., 2019[46]). In 2012, when asked specifically about ever having taken medication to improve focus, memory, or concentration, 1% young people aged 14‑18 surveyed in the United Kingdom reported they had (Clemence et al., 2013[47]). In a more recent Swiss study, 4.3% of surveyed upper secondary school students (18 or younger) reported prescription drug use for PCE (Liakoni et al., 2015[48]). When asked about the age of first use of methylphenidate for PCE, a small sample of 16 grammar school pupils (aged 18-21) in Germany retrospectively answered 16.58 years (Franke et al., 2011[49]). A frequent source of the prescription drugs are friends with prescriptions (e.g. (Garnier-Dykstra et al., 2012[50])).

What is known about attitudes and factors affecting pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement?

To better understand PCE by children, the attitudes and reasoning that drive the choice of whether to use it or not must be explored. Although research in children is in its infancy, research on parents with children older than 18 or on college or university students suggests possible drivers and barriers of PCE use that might also apply to younger people. The following section reflects on factors driving and mitigating PCE in: a) parents (or other legal guardians) as well as b) children and adolescents (Table 8.2).

Table 8.2. Common factors promoting or inhibiting PCE in children

	Parents	Children and adolescents
Promoting factors	Expected benefits for children (e.g. improved self-confidence); expected benefits for parents (e.g. status gain); social pressure from others’ PCE use.	Exaggerated beliefs about benefits; stress; contagion effects through peers.
Inhibiting factors	Negative short- and long-term health-effects; violation of fairness; concerns about intensified competition.	Social support; risk aversion; moral rejection of PCE.

Parents

One important stakeholder group involved in direct and indirect decisions regarding PCE in children is parents (Arria and DuPont, 2010[51]). Parents can initiate PCE use because they want their children to reach performance goals inside or outside of school (Arria and DuPont, 2010[51]; Sattler et al., under review[43]).Motives for this can be, for example, a desire to optimise their children´s future, to financially benefit from better performance in the long run, to gain status for themselves or their children, or to remove or overcome stigmatisation of low performing children. Recent studies on parenting discuss a shift towards intensive parenting and competitive mind-sets of parents (Doepke, Sorrenti and Zilibotti, 2019[52]; Nadesan, 2002[53]; Wall, 2010[54]; Ulferts, 2020[55]). This shift might be also linked to increasing returns of education, the growing importance of cognitive abilities, and growing inequalities (Autor, 2014[56]). Intensive parenting has many faces, including increasing parent child-interactions to support educational success such as homework support or tutoring (Borra and Sevilla, 2019[57]; Gershuny and Harms, 2016[58]; Wells et al., 2016[59]). Engaging in cognitive enhancement might be another, less frequently occurring expression of this, as parents may view it as helpful to achieving these goals ( (Arria and DuPont, 2010[51]) cf. (Sattler et al., under review[43])). One recent study speaks to this by showing that parents in the US with a Machiavellian personality (i.e. individuals who tend to be selfish and extrinsically oriented towards money, success, etc.) tend to be more willing to instrumentalise prescription drugs to give their child an advantage compared to those with a non-Machiavellian personality (Sattler and Linden, under review[60]). The prospect of higher financial gains also increased willingness, especially for Machiavellians.

If some parents engage with this type of behaviour, it can have contagious or coercive effects (Maher, 2008[61]). About one third of respondents in an international but predominantly North American survey (without indication about parenthood) reported they would feel pressure to give prescription drugs to their children for enhancement purposes if classmates were also taking them. Such indirect coercion to engage in this behaviour due to feared disadvantage has been also observed in two qualitative studies in Canada with parents of children aged 3-9 (Ball and Wolbring, 2014[62]) and parents of students aged 25 and under (Forlini and Racine, 2009[63]). In addition, some parents report considering prescription drugs to be possible means to enhance children’s self-confidence, well-being or independence if these drugs were safe and effective (Ball and Wolbring, 2014[62]).

However, in a qualitative study with American college students (aged 18‑26), few students said that their parents would accept if they themselves used prescription drugs in order to get better grades (Cutler, 2014[64]). A minority of parents in a German sample of parents (of children aged 5-18) report that they would only agree to give prescription drugs to children for enhancement under the supervision of a physician, while other parents would call for legal action against physicians if they were to engage in this (Hiltrop and Sattler, under review[65]). Several parents in a Canadian study, however, believed that prescription drug use for enhancement should be an individual choice, but also said that students using such drugs should be responsible for the possible consequences (Forlini and Racine, 2009[63]).

While parents can be promoters of PCE in children, they can also be obstacles because of risk aversion, moral qualms, or because they control resources and access to PCE such as money or making appointments with physicians. The few studies on this topic all indicate that the majority of parents consider PCE in a dismissive way (Ball and Wolbring, 2014[62]; Forlini and Racine, 2009[63]; Hiltrop and Sattler, under review[65]) due for example to the fear of adverse short- and long-term effects such as negative effects on the brain, and unfairness if only some children take such drugs (Forlini and Racine, 2009[63]; Hiltrop and Sattler, under review[65]). They compared it to cheating, doping in sports and a form of self-deception.

However, while a fair assessment of performance might become more difficult if some children take PCE, some parents also said that many factors already make such an assessment difficult, such as transmission of human capital from highly educated parents to their children (Hiltrop and Sattler, under review[65]). Parents were also worried that PCE may intensify the competition in educational settings, undermining free decisions about PCE use because of disadvantages for non-users (Ball and Wolbring, 2014[62]; Forlini and Racine, 2009[63]). In line with these dismissive views is the finding that over 85% of respondents favoured restrictions of PCE of healthy children under the age of 16 (Maher, 2008[61]). Besides teachers and doctors (who should intervene against PCE if it becomes more prevalent), parents also see the school system and politicians as being responsible for taking action and reconfiguring drivers of PCE use such as performance expectations (Hiltrop and Sattler, under review[65]). Next to such political demands, many parents negatively view other parents who give or force their children to take PCE (Ball and Wolbring, 2014[62]; Hiltrop and Sattler, under review[65]).

Children and adolescents

What do children think about PCE? What makes them more likely to engage in it? What holds them back? This has not been well studied, however research with older individuals (such as university students) offers relevant insights and shows the diversity of factors affecting the use of PCE. Here, only a sample of these factors can be described: For example, a study of college students in the United States found that (mis)using prescription drugs was most frequently done due to a desired enhancement of cognitive performance while studying. This motive became more prevalent after the first year in college ( (Garnier-Dykstra et al., 2012[50]) cf. a systematic review by (Faraone et al., 2020[66])). Motives for PCE use were not always to outperform, but also for “catching up” or being on par with others as reported by university students from England (United Kingdom) (Vargo and Petróczi, 2016[67]). This was also reflected in a sample of high school seniors in the United States where a higher grade-point average was more likely observed in non-users compared to users of prescription drugs using them for non-medically for study purposes (combined with other motives) ( (Teter et al., 2020[68]) cf. (Faraone et al., 2020[66])); interestingly this latter group, and those indicating a use for study purposes only, reported a higher percentage of more highly educated parents.

The use of drugs for PCE and the willingness of future use were particularly high if the relevant drugs were perceived or described as beneficial and less risky (Kinman, Armstrong and Hood, 2017[69]; Sattler et al., 2013[70]; Sattler and Wiegel, 2013[71]). Interestingly, 45% of young people (aged 14-18) surveyed in the United Kingdom expected the taking of such medications to be very or fairly effective for improving focus, memory or concentration (Clemence et al., 2013[47]), while German university students estimated potential side-effects to be very high (Sattler and Wiegel, 2013[71]). However, a study with college students in the United States offers no indication that non-medical use of prescription stimulants significantly increased their grade-point average compared to abstainers (Arria et al., 2017[72]). This might indicate that the drug effects are often overestimated and subjectively perceived rather than objectively observable. Students still seem to expect them to help them cope with stress as indicated by studies with (university) students in Germany ( (Sattler, 2019[73]) cf. (Wolff and Brand, 2013[74])). However, experiencing social support partially buffered the effects of stress, reducing likelihood of engaging in PCE. Thus, social support is an important resource and social relations matter. Nevertheless, suspected PCE use among peers and peer approval also seem to increase PCE as indicated by several European studies (Helmer et al., 2016[75]; Maier et al., 2013[76]; Ponnet et al., 2015[77]; Singh, Bard and Jackson, 2014[78]).

Research also indicates that personality and other personal characteristics play a role. For example, college and university students who self-identify as more risk prone, who have test anxiety, or who have a tendency towards procrastination have been found to be more likely to engage in PCE (Ponnet et al., 2015[77]; Sattler and Wiegel, 2013[71]). Moral objections towards PCE, however, hold a majority of them back (Sattler et al., 2013[79]). With regard to gender differences, several studies with university students (Champagne, Gardner and Dommett, 2019[80]; Singh, Bard and Jackson, 2014[78]) found male students to be more likely to use PCE than female students. There remain many candidate factors associated or causally linked with children´s decisions to use or abstain from PCE that need to be understood.

What are potential strategies to decrease risky use of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement?

PCE is an important topic for the health, well-being, development and other facets of children´s lives. It is thus crucial to explore strategies that – depending on policy-makers’ goals –reduce the occurrence of this behaviour, or at least reduce risky uses. Targets of such strategies should be children and their parents, but also physicians and teachers. In the following sections, three potential strategies will be briefly presented.

Correcting exaggerated beliefs about prescription drugs and counselling on non-medical alternative strategies for performance enhancement

If parents would like their children to perform better and/or if children have the same goal, they could be educated: a) about misperceptions regarding drug efficacy given the often limited positive effects of prescription drugs for healthy people and the possible detrimental health effects, b) about their potential overestimated prevalence, which might cause indirect coercion or contagion effects (Faraone et al., 2020[66]; Stock et al., 2013[81]; Weyandt et al., 2018[15]), and c) in applying less risky non-medical options for performance enhancement including sufficient sleep, nutrition, memory techniques, meditation, physical exercise or neurofeedback (a technique that gives real-time feedback of brain activity and thereby intends to help with regulating brain functions) (Dresler et al., 2013[7]; Gruzelier, 2009[82]). All these latter strategies may have multiple positive “collateral” effects on overall health and well-being. These educational strategies might be integrated in curricula thereby also targeting current non-users. In addition, students struggling academically or at-risk for drug misuse (e.g. because of test‑anxiety or engagement in cheating behaviour) should receive resources, support and tailored messages (Sattler and Wiegel, 2013[71]; Weyandt et al., 2018[15]).

Screening and assessment for substance misuse and substance-related problems

Two stakeholder groups that can professionally observe substance misuse and substance-related problems are teachers and physicians. Through teachers’ frequent interaction with students, they may find indications for non-medical uses of prescription drugs including accompanying side effects (e.g. irritability, feeling sad, reduced appetite) and as recourse, they can for example contact parents or school psychologists. Physicians are also important, because they are gate-keepers of the drugs and it has been observed that physicians not only frequently receive prescription requests for PCE, but that some of them also fill these requests (Hotze et al., 2011[83]).Thus, physicians should consider non-medical prescription drug use as a source of symptoms when understanding their medical history. They may inform and ask those who receive prescriptions for medical purposes (e.g. to treat ADHD) about potential pressures to and dangers of sharing their medication (including legal consequences for them and potential fatal consequences for users), inquire about their weekly dosage and left over drugs, ask for other risk factors of drug misuse (e.g. with a profile checklist), and conduct toxicology testing if a substance use disorder is suspected (DeSantis, Anthony and Cohen, 2013[84]; Faraone et al., 2020[66]; McCabe et al., 2019[85]; Weyandt et al., 2018[15]). As a response, physicians may consider changing prescribing practices (for example, by considering non-medical alternatives). Therefore, both teachers and physicians need to be enabled to do so (e.g. with training and resources or through establishing open lines of communication with one another in suspected cases of abuse).

Policies in educational institutions highlighting the unfairness of enhancement drugs and policies restricting access

As mentioned above, Duke University is one example of an institution that lists PCE as one form of academic dishonesty in their university policy. Policies forbidding the use of PCE in schools, colleges and universities may not only change an important determinant of PCE use, namely its moral acceptability, but also directly decrease student willingness to engage in PCE (Sattler et al., 2013[70]). General restrictions that make access to the drugs more difficult might also be effective. According to a survey of university students in Ireland and the United Kingdom, limited access is a frequently cited barrier to taking PCE, despite interest (Singh, Bard and Jackson, 2014[78]). Initiatives aimed at making prescription drugs available without prescription must also take this into account, but they should also acknowledge problems of trading such drugs on the black market, which also comes with its own set of risks.

What are the gaps and future directions for research on pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement in children?

In recent years research on the effects, prevalence, attitudes and reasons concerning the use of prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement has grown steadily. However, this is not the case for related research on children. To better understand this phenomenon, but also to inform the ethical debate about which concerns seem to be empirically substantiated, to tailor prevention strategies, and to advise policy-making, we need to know more about a) the functioning of these drugs in healthy individuals, b) exact prevalence estimates, c) attitudes (which also reflect public preferences) and decision-making of relevant stakeholders, as well as d) the effectiveness of prevention strategies and regulations. In the following, four key priorities for future research are set out.

Furthering knowledge of PCE efficacy and risks

PCE in children seems a fact but there is much that is still unknown. Although research on drug efficacy in healthy children is not possible due to ethical reasons, studies in older populations can be used to shed light on potential impacts on children (even if they are not directly transferable). These studies would benefit from larger samples, an acknowledgement of the variability of effects from person to person, a more systematic documentation of side effects and long-term effects, and further investigations into the functioning of the drugs (including the role of expectancy effects and motivational rather than direct cognitive improvements) (e.g. (d’Angelo, Savulich and Sahakian, 2017[34]; Weyandt et al., 2018[15])). Also, the question of how lab findings translate to improvements outside the lab would be useful. Moreover, prescription drugs might be compared to other enhancement means such as brain stimulation devices (Farah, 2015[86]).

Determining more exact prevalence estimates

Current data do not provide a clear picture of the prevalence of PCE in children across countries, although several scholars forecast prevalence increases in the future (O’Connor and Nagel, 2017[9]; Vargo and Petróczi, 2016[67]). Political regulation and prevention initiatives would not only provide insight about the current situation, they could also monitor macro changes (such as tensions in the educational system) with a) more representative large-scale studies that b) are longitudinal in nature, c) are sufficiently large (or oversample) to investigate vulnerable groups, d) cover different age-groups of children (with instruments tailored for age) as well as their parents, and e) specifically investigate cognitive enhancement as a motive for use (with a shared definition).

Better understanding attitudes and decision-making of relevant stakeholders

We need a deeper understanding of what children and parents believe about PCE, and why and how they make decisions about PCE use as this is essential to develop and adjust empirically informed intervention strategies and policies. This includes (mis-)perceptions about the functioning of the drugs and related risks (psychological, physiological, legal and social), personality traits (e.g. perfectionism or competitiveness), but also the role of the social context (e.g. peer approval or vicarious experience) (Faraone et al., 2020[66]; Hiltrop and Sattler, under review[65]; Schepis et al., 2020[87]). We know little about the role of physicians in PCE in children, but as already highlighted they are another important stakeholder group, such as when parents approach them and ask for prescriptions or advice. Therefore, the relationships within the child-parent-physician triad should also be investigated. Again, filling this research gap requires high quality data.

Evaluating the effectiveness of prevention strategies and regulations

While gathering evidence for designing prevention strategies or revising regulations is one important step, well-designed empirical evaluations of effectiveness is a next logical step after their implementation. At the moment, such evaluations are limited (Faraone et al., 2020[66]). In particular, experimental designs with control groups, either as within- or between-subject designs, may test, for example, substance-related strategies (e.g. informing about dangers of substances), as well as interventions targeting general protective factors (such as improving learning strategies, self-efficacy and health literacy) in at-risk populations. To do so, they can utilise different methods such as social media campaigns, curriculum‑based approaches or peer-based interventions.

Conclusion

Although PCE in children appears limited, aggregating global numbers suggests that several million children use such drugs for enhancement, voluntarily or not. They are therefore at risk of side effects and experiencing long-term consequences for their personality and brain development, while at the same time provoking other ethical and social problems (such as fairness issues when assessing grades).

The majority of experts have concluded that PCE in children is not advisable nor in the best interest of children (e.g. (Gaucher, Payot and Racine, 2013[21])). PCE may reduce children’s right to an open future to let them experiment, experience creativity, and develop a sound personal identity rather than enforcing conformity and productivity. This aligns with a recent claim that we need a debate about the value of perfection and the pursuit of perfection; should humans have the right to enhance, while on the other hand should there be a right to not enhance, which also begs the questions of what we value in childhood and adolescence (Nagel, 2019[8]).

These questions have to be answered also by listening to the voices of children. Interestingly, several studies with parents mirror the concerns ethicists have and only a few seem to be willing to use PCE on their children. Thereby, it is also an open question to understand how societal factors and trends may influence parents and children agreeing to PCE. Factors that may promote agreement can be the increasing returns of education, a growing relevance of cognitive abilities and growing inequalities. The answers to these questions will likely vary around the globe due to heterogeneous developments and cultural settings. To find answers to this question and to the many unknowns regarding PCE in children, we need interdisciplinary efforts by psychologists, sociologists, pharmacologists, paediatricians, teachers, ethicists, etc. and a multi-method approach (Nagel, 2019[8]). In educational settings, it should be considered a) that some children already take PCE (in addition to other forms of enhancement) which might make grading more difficult, b) that conditions in education (in particular performance pressure) contribute to such behaviour, c) that PCE itself can intensify the competition, and d) that teachers can play a key role in detecting and preventing risky substance uses by helping students find less risky alternatives or relevant support.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Francesca Gottschalk, Tracey Burns, Simona Petruzzella, and Kati Hiltrop for valuable feedback on a previous version of this manuscript. This research was supported by a grant [SA 2992/2-1] from the German Science Foundation. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the policies of the funder. The authors did not receive any research support from public or private actors in the pharmaceutical sector.

References

[72] Arria, A. et al. (2017), “Do college students improve their grades by using prescription stimulants nonmedically?”, Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 65, pp. 245-249, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.07.016.

[51] Arria, A. and R. DuPont (2010), “Nonmedical prescription stimulant use among college students: Why we need to do something and what we need to do”, Journal of Addictive Diseases, Vol. 29/4, pp. 417-426, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10550887.2010.509273.

[56] Autor, D. (2014), “Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the “other 99 percent””, Science, Vol. 344/6186, pp. 843-851, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1251868.

[62] Ball, N. and G. Wolbring (2014), “Cognitive enhancement: Perceptions among parents of children with disabilities”, Neuroethics, Vol. 7/3, pp. 345-364, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9201-8.

[11] Battleday, R. and A. Brem (2015), “Modafinil for cognitive neuroenhancement in healthy non-sleep-deprived subjects: A systematic review”, European Neuropsychopharmacology, Vol. 25/11, pp. 1865-1881, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2015.07.028.

[26] Beddington, J. et al. (2008), “The mental wealth of nations”, Nature, Vol. 455/7216, pp. 1057-1060, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/4551057a.

[57] Borra, C. and A. Sevilla (2019), “Competition for university places and parental time investments: evidence from the United Kingdom”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 57/3, pp. 1460-1479, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12761.

[1] Bostrom, N. and A. Sandberg (2009), “Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges”, Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 15/3, pp. 311-341, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9142-5.

[41] Bruchmüller, K., J. Margraf and S. Schneider (2012), “Is ADHD diagnosed in accord with diagnostic criteria? Overdiagnosis and influence of client gender on diagnosis.”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 80/1, pp. 128-138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026582.

[42] C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health (2013), One in Ten Teens Using “Study Drugs,” but Are Parents Paying Attention?, C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital.

[12] Caviola, L. and N. Faber (2015), “Pills or push-ups? Effectiveness and public perception of pharmacological and non-pharmacological cognitive enhancement”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01852.

[80] Champagne, J., B. Gardner and E. Dommett (2019), “Modelling predictors of UK undergraduates’ attitudes towards smart drugs”, Trends in Neuroscience and Education, Vol. 14, pp. 33-39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2019.02.001.

[47] Clemence, M. et al. (2013), Wellcome Trust Monitor Wave 2, Tracking Public Views on Science, Research and Science Education.

[6] Coates McCall, I. et al. (2019), “Owning ethical innovation: Claims about commercial wearable brain technologies”, Neuron, Vol. 102/4, pp. 728-731, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.03.026.

[37] Conn, B. and A. Marks (2014), “Ethnic/racial differences in peer and parent influence on adolescent prescription drug misuse”, Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, Vol. 35/4, pp. 257-265, http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/dbp.0000000000000058.

[64] Cutler, K. (2014), “Prescription stimulants are “a okay”: Applying neutralization theory to college students’ nonmedical prescription stimulant use”, Journal of American College Health, Vol. 62/7, pp. 478-486, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2014.929578.

[34] d’Angelo, L., G. Savulich and B. Sahakian (2017), “Lifestyle use of drugs by healthy people for enhancing cognition, creativity, motivation and pleasure”, British Journal of Pharmacology, Vol. 174/19, pp. 3257-3267, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.13813.

[78] de Wit, H. (ed.) (2014), “Robust resilience and substantial interest: A survey of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among university students in the UK and Ireland”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 9/10, p. e105969, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105969.

[84] DeSantis, A., K. Anthony and E. Cohen (2013), “Illegal college ADHD stimulant distributors: Characteristics and potential areas of intervention”, Substance Use & Misuse, Vol. 48/6, pp. 446-456, http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2013.778281.

[52] Doepke, M., G. Sorrenti and F. Zilibotti (2019), “The economics of parenting”, Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 11/1, pp. 55-84, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030156.

[7] Dresler, M. et al. (2013), “Non-pharmacological cognitive enhancement”, Neuropharmacology, Vol. 64, pp. 529-543, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.07.002.

[16] Dubljević, V., S. Sattler and E. Racine (2018), “Deciphering moral intuition: How agents, deeds, and consequences influence moral judgment”, PLOS ONE 13.

[24] Duke University (2019), Duke Community Standard in Practice: A Guide for Undergraduates. 2019-2020, Duke University, https://registrar.duke.edu/sites/default/files/bulletins/dcs_guide/2019-20/index.html.

[86] Farah, M. (2015), “The unknowns of cognitive enhancement”, Science, Vol. 350/6259, pp. 379-380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5893.

[66] Faraone, S. et al. (2020), “Systematic review: Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants: Risk factors, outcomes, and risk reduction strategies”, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 59/1, pp. 100-112, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.06.012.

[19] Flanigan, J. (2013), “Adderall for all: A defense of pediatric neuroenhancement”, HEC Forum, Vol. 25/4, pp. 325-344, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10730-013-9222-4.

[22] Forlini, C., S. Gauthier and E. Racine (2013), “Should physicians prescribe cognitive enhancers to healthy individuals?”, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 185/12, pp. 1047-1050, http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.121508.

[63] Forlini, C. and E. Racine (2009), Autonomy and Coercion in Academic ‘Cognitive Enhancement’ Using Methylphenidate: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders, Neuroethics 2(3).

[49] Franke, A. et al. (2011), “Non-medical use of prescription stimulants and illicit use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in pupils and students in Germany”, Pharmacopsychiatry, Vol. 44/02, pp. 60-66, http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1268417.

[50] Garnier-Dykstra, L. et al. (2012), “Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants during college: Four-year trends in exposure opportunity, use, motives, and sources”, Journal of American College Health, cf a systematic review by Faraone et al 2020, pp. 226-234, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2011.589876.

[21] Gaucher, N., A. Payot and E. Racine (2013), “Cognitive enhancement in children and adolescents: Is it in their best interests?”, Acta Paediatrica, Vol. 102/12, pp. 1118-1124, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apa.12409.

[58] Gershuny, J. and T. Harms (2016), “Housework now takes much less time: 85 years of US rural women’s time use”, Social Forces, Vol. 95/2, pp. 503-524, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow073.

[18] Graf, W. et al. (2013), “Pediatric neuroenhancement: Ethical, legal, social, and neurodevelopmental implications”, Neurology, Vol. 80/13, pp. 1251-1260, http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e318289703b.

[2] Greely, H. et al. (2008), “Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy”, Nature, Vol. 456/7223, pp. 702-705, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/456702a.

[82] Gruzelier, J. (2009), “A theory of alpha/theta neurofeedback, creative performance enhancement, long distance functional connectivity and psychological integration”, Cognitive Processing, Vol. 10/S1, pp. 101-109, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10339-008-0248-5.

[75] Helmer, S. et al. (2016), “Personal and perceived peer use and attitudes towards the use of nonmedical prescription stimulants to improve academic performance among university students in seven European countries”, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Vol. 168, pp. 128-134, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.08.639.

[65] Hiltrop, K. and S. Sattler (under review), “Parents’ perceptions and ethical assessment of non-medical drug use to enhance performance in healthy children and adolescents: Evidence from qualitative interviews”.

[83] Hotze, T. et al. (2011), “Doctor, would you prescribe a pill to help me … ? A national survey of physicians on using medicine for human enhancement”, The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 11/1, pp. 3-13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2011.534957.

[39] International Narcotics Control Board (2019), Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2019, https://www.incb.org/incb/en/publications/annual-reports/annual-report-2019.html.

[36] Jane, E. and N. Vincent (2017), “Cognitive enhancement: A social experiment with technology”, in I. van de Poel, L. Asveld, A. (ed.), New Perspectives on Technology in Society Experimentation Beyond the Laboratory, Routledge, London.

[46] Johnston, L. et al. (2019), Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use 1975-2018: Overview, Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research. The University of Michigan.

[5] Juengst, E. (1998), “What does enhancement mean?”, in Parens, E. (ed.), Enhancing Human Traits: Ethical and Social Implications.

[25] Kayser, B., A. Mauron and A. Miah (2005), “Viewpoint: Legalisation of performance-enhancing drugs”, The Lancet, Vol. 366, p. S21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67831-2.

[28] Ketchum, F. and D. Repantis (2016), “Securing opportunities for the disadvantaged, or medicalization through the back door?”, The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 16/6, pp. 46-48, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1170237.

[69] Kinman, B., K. Armstrong and K. Hood (2017), “Perceptions of risks and benefits among nonprescription stimulant consumers, diverters, and non-users”, Substance Use & Misuse, Vol. 52/10, pp. 1256-1265, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2016.1273954.

[40] Langner, I. et al. (2019), “Potential explanations for increasing methylphenidate use in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Germany from 2004 to 2013”, Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, Vol. 39/1, pp. 39-45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/jcp.0000000000000980.

[61] Maher, B. (2008), “Poll results: look who’s doping”, Nature, Vol. 452/7188, pp. 674-675, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/452674a.

[35] Maslen, H. et al. (2014), “The regulation of cognitive enhancement devices: Extending the medical model”, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 1/1, pp. 68-93, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lst003.

[85] McCabe, S. et al. (2019), “Sources of nonmedical prescription drug misuse among US high school seniors: Differences in motives and substance use behaviors”, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 58/7, pp. 681-691, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.11.018.

[76] Mendelson, J. (ed.) (2013), “To dope or not to dope: Neuroenhancement with prescription drugs and drugs of abuse among Swiss University Students”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 8/11, p. e77967, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077967.

[53] Nadesan, M. (2002), “Engineering the entrapreneurial infant: Brain science, infant development toys, and governmentality”, Cultural Studies, Vol. 16/3, pp. 401-432, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09502380210128315.

[8] Nagel, S. (2019), Shaping Children: Ethical and Social Questions That Arise When Enhancing the Young, Springer.

[9] O’Connor, C. and S. Nagel (2017), “Neuro-enhancement practices across the lifecourse: Exploring the roles of relationality and individualism”, Frontiers in Sociology, Vol. 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2017.00001.

[77] Ponnet, K. et al. (2015), “Predicting students’ intention to use stimulants for academic performance enhancement”, Substance Use & Misuse, Vol. 50/3, pp. 275-282, http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2014.952446.

[17] Racine, E., S. Sattler and W. Boehlen (Under review), “Cognitive enhancement: Unanswered questions about human psychology and social behavior”, Health.

[27] Ray, K. (2016), “Not just “study drugs” for the rich: Stimulants as moral tools for creating opportunities for socially disadvantaged students”, The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 16/6, pp. 29-38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1170231.

[13] Repantis, D., O. Laisney and I. Heuser (2010), “Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review”, Pharmacological Research, Vol. 61/6, pp. 473-481, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2010.02.009.

[3] Sahakian, B. et al. (2015), “The impact of neuroscience on society: Cognitive enhancement in neuropsychiatric disorders and in healthy people”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0214.

[79] Sattler et al. (2013), “The rationale for consuming cognitive enhancement drugs in university students and teachers”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 8/7.

[73] Sattler, S. (2019), “Nonmedical use of prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement as response to chronic stress especially when social support is lacking”, Stress and Health, Vol. 35/2, pp. 127-137, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.2846.

[4] Sattler, S. (2016), “Cognitive enhancement in Germany: Prevalence, attitudes, terms, legal status, and the ethics debate”, in F. Jotterand and V. Dubljević. (ed.), Cognitive enhancement: Ethical and policy implications in international perspectives, OUP, Oxford.

[70] Sattler, S. et al. (2013), “Impact of contextual factors and substance characteristics on perspectives toward cognitive enhancement”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 8/8, p. e71452, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071452.

[60] Sattler, S. and P. Linden (under review), “Unhealthy parenting strategies: Situational (dis-)incentives, Machiavellian personality, and their interaction on misuse of ADHD medication for healthy children”.

[43] Sattler, S. et al. (under review), “Why parents abuse prescription drugs to enhance the cognitive performance of healthy children: The influence of peers and social media”.

[29] Sattler, S. and I. Singh (2016), “Cognitive enhancement in healthy children will not close the achievement gap in education”, The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 16/6, pp. 39-41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1170240.

[71] Sattler, S. and C. Wiegel (2013), “Cognitive test anxiety and cognitive enhancement: The influence of students’ worries on their use of performance-enhancing drugs”, Substance Use & Misuse, Vol. 48/3, pp. 220-232, http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2012.751426.

[10] Schelle, K. et al. (2014), “Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement: A review”, Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, Vol. 8, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00053.

[87] Schepis, T. et al. (2020), “Prescription drug misuse: Taking a lifespan perspective”, Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment, Vol. 14, p. 117822182090935, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1178221820909352.

[23] Schermer, M. (2008), “On the argument that enhancement is “cheating””, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 34/2, pp. 85-88, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2006.019646.

[38] Singh, I. and K. Kelleher (2010), “Neuroenhancement in young people: Proposal for research, policy, and clinical management”, AJOB Neuroscience, Vol. 1/1, pp. 3-16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740903508591.

[14] Smith, M. and M. Farah (2011), “Are prescription stimulants “smart pills”? The epidemiology and cognitive neuroscience of prescription stimulant use by normal healthy individuals.”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 137/5, pp. 717-741, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023825.

[81] Stock, M. et al. (2013), “The prototype/willingness model, academic versus health-risk information, and risk cognitions associated with nonmedical prescription stimulant use among college students”, British Journal of Health Psychology, Vol. 18/3, pp. 490-507, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8287.2012.02087.x.

[31] Storebø, O. et al. (2015), “Methylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: Cochrane systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials”, BMJ, p. h5203, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5203.

[45] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2019), Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

[68] Teter, C. et al. (2020), “Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants among US high school students to help study: Results from a national survey”, Journal of Pharmacy Practice, cf. Faraone et al 2020, pp. 38-47.

[55] Ulferts, H. (2020), “Why parenting matters for children in the 21st century: An evidence-based framework for understanding parenting and its impact on child development”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 222, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/129a1a59-en.

[67] Vargo, E. and A. Petróczi (2016), “It was me on a good day”: Exploring the smart drug use phenomenon in England”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00779.

[32] Volkow, N. et al. (2009), “Effects of modafinil on dopamine and dopamine transporters in the male human brain”, JAMA, Vol. 301/11, p. 1148, http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.351.

[48] Vrana, K. (ed.) (2015), “The use of prescription drugs, recreational drugs, and “soft enhancers” for cognitive enhancement among Swiss secondary school students”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 10/10, p. e0141289, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141289.

[20] Walcher-Andris, E. (2006), “Ethische Aspekte des pharmakologischen „cognition enhancement“ am Beispiel des Gebrauchs von Psychostimulanzien durch Kinder und Jugendliche”, Ethik in der Medizin, Vol. 18/1, pp. 27-36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00481-006-0411-4.

[54] Wall, G. (2010), “Mothers’ experiences with intensive parenting and brain development discourse”, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 33/3, pp. 253-263, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2010.02.019.

[30] Warren, K. (2016), “Promoting stimulants to increase educational equality: Some concerns”, The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 16/6, pp. 52-54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1170235.

[59] Wells, R. et al. (2016), “Socioeconomic disparities in the use of college admission-enhancing strategies among high school seniors from the 1990s to 2000s”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 118.

[15] Weyandt, L. et al. (2018), “Neurocognitive, autonomic, and mood effects of adderall: A pilot study of healthy college students”, Pharmacy, Vol. 6/3, p. 58, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy6030058.

[44] Wilens, T. et al. (2008), “Misuse and diversion of stimulants prescribed for ADHD: A systematic review of the literature”, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 47/1, pp. 21-31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/chi.0b013e31815a56f1.

[33] Winder-Rhodes, S. et al. (2010), “Effects of modafinil and prazosin on cognitive and physiological functions in healthy volunteers”, Journal of Psychopharmacology, Vol. 24/11, pp. 1649-1657, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269881109105899.

[74] Wolff, W. and R. Brand (2013), “Subjective stressors in school and their relation to neuroenhancement: a behavioral perspective on students’ everyday life “doping””, Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, Vol. 8/1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1747-597x-8-23.