Increase in 'academic doping' could spark routine urine tests for exam students

September 30, 2009

The increasing use of smart drugs or "nootropics," to boost academic performance, could mean that exam students will face routine doping tests in future, suggests an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

Despite raising many dilemmas about the legitimacy of chemically enhanced academic performance, these drugs will be near impossible to ban, says Vince Cakic of the Department of Psychology, University of Sydney.

He draws several parallels with doping in competitive sports, where it is suggested that "95%" of elite athletes have used performance enhancing drugs.

"It is apparent that the failures and inconsistencies inherent in anti doping policy in sport will be mirrored in academia unless a reasonable and realistic approach to the issue of nootropics is adopted," he claims.

But what this should be is far from clear, especially given the ready availability of these types drugs for therapeutic use, says Mr Cakic, conjuring up the prospect of urine tests for students.

"As laughable as it may seem, it is possible that scenarios such as this could very well come to fruition in the future. However, given that the benefits of nootropics could also be derived from periods of study at any time leading up to examinations, this would also require drug testing during non-exam periods," he writes.

"If the current situation in competitive sport is anything to go by, any attempt to prohibit the use of nootropics will probably be difficult or inordinately expensive to police effectively," he warns.

Nootropics were designed to help people with cognitive problems, such as dementia and , but students with a looming deadline have several options: modafinil (Provigil), methylphenidate (Ritalin), and amphetamine (Dexedrine).

The non-medical use of methylphenidate and amphetamine is as high as 25% on some US college campuses, particularly in colleges with more competitive admission criteria, says Mr Cakic.

For boosting , there's brahmi, piracetam (Nootropil), donepezil (Aricept) and galantamine (Reminyl). And for a bit more get up and go, there's selegiline (Deprenyl).

The impact of these drugs is as yet "modest," says Mr Cakic, but more potent versions are in the pipeline. "The possibility of purchasing 'smartness in a bottle' is likely to have broad appeal to students" seeking to gain an advantage in an increasingly competitive world, says Mr Cakic.

But the argument that these drugs should be banned for non-medical use because they confer unfair advantage is rather like suggesting private tuition be banned, contends Mr Cakic. These drugs might even level the playing field for those who have been disadvantaged, he suggests.

The long term safety of smart drugs in healthy people is unknown, and this might prove a good, and perhaps the only, reason to attempt to restrict their use. Mr Cakic points to the use of caffeine, which is known to enhance sporting performance. It is a form of 'cheating' that is tolerated, he says, because it is relatively harmless.

Source: BMJ-British Medical Journal

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Overcoming Opioids: When pills are a hospital's last resort

May 2, 2017

A car crash shattered Stuart Anders' thigh, leaving pieces of bone sticking through his skin. Yet Anders begged emergency room doctors not to give him powerful opioid painkillers—he'd been addicted once before and panicked ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2009
Mr. Cakic sports a misguided opinion at best on the use of nootropics. Academia should not be about levelling the playing field between students so that they can compete - it is principally about learning the course content, for which assessment and competition are effective tools. I can understand drug testing for exams, which would skew the assessment's accuracy in determining what has been learnt, but drug testing during study? If a student can learn the coursework more efficienty and more completely with the use of nootropics then their use should be encouraged, not banned.
2 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2009
The problem really lies in the future, not in the present. If we allow nootropics today, we create a future where a student can't survive without them. Additionally, there will be a kind of race, where some take even more of the drugs and others have to follow.

It would be self deception to assume that the bar would not be raised as the average of exam scores rise. With time, the bar will get so high that an undoped student simply can't pass an exam.

The only thing stopping this increase will be the day when students either start dropping dead, or severe side effects become common. At that time the usage will level out.

So, ultimately, this is a moral, or value, question: should you in the future be able to get your Ph.D. the "healthy, green way", or not.

In my opinion, my children have the RIGHT to get a degree without contaminating themselves.
not rated yet Oct 01, 2009
This may be troubling, but is nothing compared to the future. Once poeple can store data internally via biotechnology (a mental hard drive) then a new series of problems will arise. Then genetic enhancement will really un-level the playing field.
After hundreds of millenia, evolution finally marches on.....
not rated yet Oct 01, 2009
So worst case we end up with smarter humans... so what's the problem supposed to be again?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.