Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012;7(6):e40047.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040047. Epub 2012 Jun 29.

What users think about the differences between caffeine and illicit/prescription stimulants for cognitive enhancement

Affiliations

What users think about the differences between caffeine and illicit/prescription stimulants for cognitive enhancement

Andreas G Franke et al. PLoS One. 2012.

Abstract

Pharmacological cognitive enhancement (CE) is a topic of increasing public awareness. In the scientific literature on student use of CE as a study aid for academic performance enhancement, there are high prevalence rates regarding the use of caffeinated substances (coffee, caffeinated drinks, caffeine tablets) but remarkably lower prevalence rates regarding the use of illicit/prescription stimulants such as amphetamines or methylphenidate. While the literature considers the reasons and mechanisms for these different prevalence rates from a theoretical standpoint, it lacks empirical data to account for healthy students who use both, caffeine and illicit/prescription stimulants, exclusively for the purpose of CE. Therefore, we extensively interviewed a sample of 18 healthy university students reporting non-medical use of caffeine as well as illicit/prescription stimulants for the purpose of CE in a face-to-face setting about their opinions regarding differences in general and morally-relevant differences between caffeine and stimulant use for CE. 44% of all participants answered that there is a general difference between the use of caffeine and illicit/prescription stimulants for CE, 28% did not differentiate, 28% could not decide. Furthermore, 39% stated that there is a moral difference, 56% answered that there is no moral difference and one participant was not able to comment on moral aspects. Participants came to their judgements by applying three dimensions: medical, ethical and legal. Weighing the medical, ethical and legal aspects corresponded to the students' individual preferences of substances used for CE. However, their views only partly depicted evidence-based medical aspects and the ethical issues involved. This result shows the need for well-directed and differentiated information to prevent the potentially harmful use of illicit or prescription stimulants for CE.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Comment in

  • Stimulant Use by Medical Students.
    Trojanowska M. Trojanowska M. J S C Med Assoc. 2015 Mar-Apr;111(1):32. J S C Med Assoc. 2015. PMID: 27124986 No abstract available.
  • Response from Authors.
    Patel N, Sade RM. Patel N, et al. J S C Med Assoc. 2015 Mar-Apr;111(1):32. J S C Med Assoc. 2015. PMID: 27124987 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Franke AG, Bonertz C, Christmann M, Huss M, Fellgiebel A, et al. Non-Medical Use of Prescription Stimulants and Illicit Use of Stimulants for Cognitive Enhancement in Pupils and Students in Germany. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2011;44:60–66. - PubMed
    1. Franke AG, Lieb K. [Pharmacological neuroenhancement and brain doping: Chances and risks]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010;53:853–859. - PubMed
    1. Sahakian B, Morein-Zamir S. Professor's little helper. Nature. 2007;450:1157–1159. - PubMed
    1. Farah MJ, Illes J, Cook-Deegan R, Gardner H, Kandel E, et al. Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004;5:421–425. - PubMed
    1. Racine E, Forlini C. Expectations regarding cognitive enhancement create substantial challenges. J Med Ethics. 2009;35:469–470. - PubMed

MeSH terms