Skip to main content

Public Perceptions of Prescription Drug Use for Cognitive Enhancement in Healthy Children and Adolescents

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Shaping Children

Part of the book series: Advances in Neuroethics ((AIN))

Abstract

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.

We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a web-based survey of 1427 persons from 60 countries, conducted by the magazine Nature, in which the data had only been analyzed descriptively. To gain a better understanding of influences on attitudes about CE of young children, we explored factors (e.g., types of drug users, positive or negative experiences with prior CE-drugs) potentially associated with restrictions and peer pressure.

The majority of respondents (85.3%) favored restricting CE-drug use for healthy young people under age 16. We found that respondents who had experienced side effects when using CE-drugs themselves were more likely to favor restrictions. One third of the respondents (33.8%) would feel pressure to give their children CE-drugs if their children’s classmates were taking such drugs. Respondents who were willing to use CE-drugs for themselves felt more pressure to give such drugs to their children if others did so.

In addition to a more far-reaching use of the data, which can increase our knowledge of public perceptions of CE-drug use by young people, we also discuss multiple methodological caveats about the data and directions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The boundaries between therapy and enhancement seem to be imprecise, however, and might be envisioned as a scale ranging from enhancement to treatment (Graf et al. 2013; Maslen et al. 2014a, b).

  2. 2.

    Similar to Singh and Kelleher (2010), we use the term “young people.” These authors define them as persons under 18 years of age. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), adolescents would include persons from the age of 10 to 19 years. However, as Singh and Kelleher (2010) note, “we have no age-related threshold to guide the use of neuroenhancers” (p. 3), but the legal status of the potential user and his/her developmental status should be considered in decisions regarding CE-use.

  3. 3.

    Almost no studies of parents’ views concerning CE-drug use by their children exist. As a result, we decided to include the results of this and the following study—even though the results sometimes focus primarily on individuals outside of our definition of young people—since we consider these studies very informative for our own.

  4. 4.

    The study received 349 citations and the commentary 305 up to September 27, 2016 (Source: Google-Scholar).

  5. 5.

    Given the very low number of respondents for most countries, the very low number of respondents in continents such as Africa, South America, or Asia, and given that a continent-wise examination ignores the differences within continents, we do not analyse potential differences across countries or continents.

  6. 6.

    ORs exceeding 1 indicate a positive effect of the predictor on the outcome variable, while the other variables in the model are held constant. ORs smaller than 1 indicate a negative effect, while ORs equal to 1 imply no effect.

  7. 7.

    Therefore, we excluded respondents with missing values on explanatory variables. Moreover, we restricted the analyses to respondents without missing values on both outcome variables. Without this restriction, results for the slightly larger samples do not substantively differ from the reported results.

References

  • Ball N, Wolbring G (2014) Cognitive enhancement: perceptions among parents of children with disabilities. Neuroethics 7:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom N, Sandberg A (2009) Cognitive enhancement: methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Sci Eng Ethics 15:311–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bussing R, Koro-Ljungberg M, Noguchi K et al (2012) Willingness to use ADHD treatments: a mixed methods study of perceptions by adolescents, parents, health professionals and teachers. Soc Sci Med 74:92–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera L, Fitz N, Reiner P (2015) Reasons for comfort and discomfort with pharmacological enhancement of cognitive, affective, and social domains. Neuroethics 8:93–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caviola L, Mannino A, Savulescu J et al (2014) Cognitive biases can affect moral intuitions about cognitive enhancement. Front Syst Neurosci 8:195

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler KA (2014) Prescription stimulants are “a okay”: applying neutralization theory to college students’ nonmedical prescription stimulant use. J Am Coll Heal 62:478–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresler M, Sandberg A, Ohla K et al (2013) Non-pharmacological cognitive enhancement. Neuropharmacology 64:529–543

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dubljević V (2013) Cognitive enhancement, rational choice and justification. Neuroethics 6:179–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubljević V, Sattler S, Racine É (2014) Cognitive enhancement and academic misconduct: a study exploring their frequency and relationship. Ethics Behav 24:408–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farah M, Illes J, Cook-Deegan R et al (2004) Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nat Rev Neurosci 5:421–425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitz N, Nadler R, Manogaran P et al (2014) Public attitudes toward cognitive enhancement. Neuroethics 7:173–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanigan J (2013) Adderall for all: a defense of pediatric neuroenhancement. HEC Forum 25:325–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forlini C, Racine E (2009) Autonomy and coercion in academic “cognitive enhancement” using methylphenidate: perspectives of key stakeholders. Neuroethics 2:163–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galert T, Bublitz C, Heuser I et al (2009) Das optimierte Gehirn: Ein Memorandum zu Chancen und Risiken des Neuroenhancements. Gehirn&Geist 11:40–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaucher N, Payot A, Racine E (2013) Cognitive enhancement in children and adolescents: is it in their best interests? Acta Paediatr 102:1118–1124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glannon W (2008) Psychopharmacological enhancement. Neuroethics 1:45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf WD, Nagel SK, Epstein LG et al (2013) Pediatric neuroenhancement ethical, legal, social, and neurodevelopmental implications. Neurology 80:1251–1260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greely H, Sahakian B, Harris J et al (2008) Towards responsible use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456:702–705

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hagger L, Hagger-Johnson G (2011) ‘Super kids’: regulating the use of cognitive and psychological enhancement in children. Law Innov Technol 3:137–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketchum FB, Repantis D (2016) Securing opportunities for the disadvantaged, or medicalization through the back door? Am J Bioeth 16:46–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kroutil L, van Brunt D, Herman-Stahl M et al (2006) Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend 84:135–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lev O (2010) Should children have equal access to neuroenhancements? AJOB Neurosci 1:21–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maher B (2008) Poll results: look who’s doping. Nature 452:674–675

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maslen H, Douglas T, Cohen Kadosh R et al (2014a) The regulation of cognitive enhancement devices: extending the medical model. J Law Biosci 1:68–93

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Maslen H, Earp BD, Cohen Kadosh R et al (2014b) Brain stimulation for treatment and enhancement in children: an ethical analysis. Front Hum Neurosci 8:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzinger T (2012) Zehn Jahre Neuroethik des pharmazeutischen kognitiven Enhancements–Aktuelle Probleme und Handlungsrichtlinien für die Praxis. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 80:36–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Normann C, Berger M (2008) Neuroenhancement: status quo and perspectives. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 258:110–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ragan C, Bard I, Singh I (2013) What should we do about student use of cognitive enhancers? An analysis of current evidence. Neuropharmacology 64:588–595

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ray K (2016) Not just ‘study drugs’ for the rich: stimulants as moral tools for creating opportunities for socially disadvantaged students. Am J Bioeth 16(6):29–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Repantis D, Schlattmann P, Laisney O et al (2010) Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: a systematic review. Pharmacol Res 62:187–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sahakian B, Morein-Zamir S (2007) Professor’s little helper. Nature 450:1157–1159

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler S (2016) Cognitive enhancement in Germany: prevalence, attitudes, terms, legal status, and the ethics debate. In: Jotterand F, Dubljević V (eds) Cognitive enhancement: ethical and policy implications in international perspectives. OUP, Oxford, pp 159–180

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler S, Schunck R (2016) Associations between the big five personality traits and the non-medical use of prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement. Front Psychol 6:1971

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler S, Singh I (2016) Cognitive enhancement in healthy children will not close the achievement gap in education. Am J Bioeth 16:39–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler S, Forlini C, Racine É et al (2013) Impact of contextual factors and substance characteristics on perspectives toward cognitive enhancement. PLoS One 8:e71452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 9:8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schelle KJ, Faulmüller N, Caviola L et al (2014) Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement—a review. Front Syst Neurosci 8:53

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Singh I, Kelleher KJ (2010) Neuroenhancement in young people: proposal for research, policy, and clinical management. AJOB Neurosci 1:3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson C (2016) Self-Pathologizing and the perception of necessity: two major risks of providing stimulants to educationally underprivileged students. Am J Bioeth 16:54–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walcher-Andris E (2006) Ethische Aspekte des pharmakologischen “cognition enhancement” am Beispiel des Gebrauchs von Psychostimulanzien durch Kinder und Jugendliche. Ethik Med 18:27–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warren KB (2016) Promoting stimulants to increase educational equality: some concerns. Am J Bioeth 16:52–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • WHO. Adolescent health. http://www.who.int/topics/adolescent_health/en/

  • Wiegel C, Sattler S, Göritz A et al (2016) Work-related stress and cognitive enhancement among university teachers. Anxiety Stress Coping 29:100–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilens T, Adler L, Adams J et al (2008) Misuse and diversion of stimulants prescribed for ADHD: a systematic review of the literature. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 47:21–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff W, Brand R (2013) Subjective stressors in school and their relation to neuroenhancement: a behavioral perspective on students’ everyday life “doping”. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 8:23

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff W, Baumgarten F, Brand R (2013) Reduced self-control leads to disregard of an unfamiliar behavioral option: an experimental approach to the study of neuroenhancement. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 8:41

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, via The Enhancing Life Project. We thank Brendan Maher for providing us with the survey data from the Nature poll and helpful information about the survey. We also thank the participants of the interdisciplinary research week Pediatric Neuro-Enhancement held in Osnabrück in 2016 as well as Simon Lesage Rousseau for their comments. Thanks to Cynthia Hall for editorial assistance.

Conflict of Interest: None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Sattler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sattler, S., Wörn, J. (2019). Public Perceptions of Prescription Drug Use for Cognitive Enhancement in Healthy Children and Adolescents. In: Nagel, S. (eds) Shaping Children. Advances in Neuroethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10677-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10677-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-10676-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-10677-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics