Added Stakeholders, Added Value(s) to the Cognitive Enhancement Debate: Are Academic Discourse and Professional Policies Sidestepping Values of Stakeholders?

Abstract

Background: The debate on the nonmedical use of prescription medication for the enhancement of cognitive function (e.g., attention, memory, concentration, vigilance), accompanied by heated public discussions in the media, has spurred the interest of scholars and the public. Methods: In this article, we present qualitative data from a focus-group study with university students, parents, and health care providers. We identified ethical, social, and legal issues related to the nonmedical use of methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement (CE) and closely examined the positions taken on these issues and their supporting arguments. Results: The ethical, social, and legal issues we identified (e.g., authenticity, cheating) were similar to those identified in a previous discourse analysis of the bioethics literature but indicate the existence of moderately and highly contentious issues as well as factors and values underlying these issues. The model we generated from these findings shows how interplay between values (e.g., effort and honesty) and external factors (e.g., regulation and access) may lie at the root of contentious ethical issues in CE. Conclusions: Our discussion points to an unsuspected complexity in understanding the values of stakeholders and an unclear relationship to academic discourse and professional societies. We propose deliberative or other democratic processes as a way to recognize and incorporate the complexity of the CE debate.

Keywords:

• cognitive enhancement
• focus groups
• neuroethics
• pragmatism
• professional guidelines
• stakeholder perspectives

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (E.R.) and the Fonds de recherche en santé du Québec (C.F. and E.R.). Thanks to Dr. Emily Bell, Dr. Nicole Palmour, the three anonymous reviewers, and the editors for helpful comments on previous versions of this article. Thanks to William Affleck for research assistance.

Notes

Estimates of the proportion of university students using stimulants to enhance academic performance range from 1.3% to 11% (Franke et al. 2011; Racine and Forlini 2010; Wilens et al. 2008).

The data presented in this article are part of a larger study of which the methodology and other nonoverlapping data have been previously published (Forlini and Racine 2009a; Forlini and Racine in press).

Subsequent mentions of “ethical issues” in the text should be taken to encompass ethical, social, and legal issues.