What users think about the differences between caffeine and illicit/prescription stimulants for cognitive enhancement
- PMID: 22768218
- PMCID: PMC3386931
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040047
What users think about the differences between caffeine and illicit/prescription stimulants for cognitive enhancement
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.
Conflict of interest statement
Comment in
-
Stimulant Use by Medical Students.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.J S C Med Assoc. 2015 Mar-Apr;111(1):32. J S C Med Assoc. 2015. PMID: 27124987 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Substances used and prevalence rates of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among healthy subjects.Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014 Nov;264 Suppl 1:S83-90. doi: 10.1007/s00406-014-0537-1. Epub 2014 Sep 12. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014. PMID: 25214391 Review.
-
Stimulant Use by Medical Students.J S C Med Assoc. 2015 Mar-Apr;111(1):32. J S C Med Assoc. 2015. PMID: 27124986 No abstract available.
-
Use of coffee, caffeinated drinks and caffeine tablets for cognitive enhancement in pupils and students in Germany.Pharmacopsychiatry. 2011 Nov;44(7):331-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1286347. Epub 2011 Oct 12. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2011. PMID: 21993866
-
Life context of pharmacological academic performance enhancement among university students--a qualitative approach.BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Mar 7;15:23. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-23. BMC Med Ethics. 2014. PMID: 24606831 Free PMC article.
-
[Doping for the brain].Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2018 Feb;51(2):143-148. doi: 10.1007/s00391-017-1351-y. Epub 2017 Dec 5. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2018. PMID: 29209802 Review. German.
Cited by
-
The Prevalence of Pharmacological Neuroenhancement Among University Students Before and During the COVID-19-Pandemic: Results of Three Consecutive Cross-Sectional Survey Studies in Germany.Front Public Health. 2022 Mar 24;10:813328. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.813328. eCollection 2022. Front Public Health. 2022. PMID: 35400066 Free PMC article.
-
Brain-computer interfaces, disability, and the stigma of refusal: A factorial vignette study.Public Underst Sci. 2023 May;32(4):522-542. doi: 10.1177/09636625221141663. Epub 2023 Jan 12. Public Underst Sci. 2023. PMID: 36633302 Free PMC article.
-
Amphetamine increases errors during episodic memory retrieval.J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014 Feb;34(1):85-92. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000000039. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014. PMID: 24135845 Free PMC article.
-
To dope or not to dope: neuroenhancement with prescription drugs and drugs of abuse among Swiss university students.PLoS One. 2013 Nov 13;8(11):e77967. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077967. eCollection 2013. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 24236008 Free PMC article.
-
Robust resilience and substantial interest: a survey of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among university students in the UK and Ireland.PLoS One. 2014 Oct 30;9(10):e105969. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105969. eCollection 2014. PLoS One. 2014. PMID: 25356917 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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
-
- Franke AG, Lieb K. [Pharmacological neuroenhancement and brain doping: Chances and risks]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010;53:853–859. - PubMed
-
- Sahakian B, Morein-Zamir S. Professor's little helper. Nature. 2007;450:1157–1159. - PubMed
-
- 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
-
- Racine E, Forlini C. Expectations regarding cognitive enhancement create substantial challenges. J Med Ethics. 2009;35:469–470. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical