A nation’s economic success and competitive advantage are increasingly connected to the effective use of knowledge. The term “knowledge economy” has been widely used to describe this idea. Since 2008, the World Bank has ranked nations in terms of their preparedness to compete in the knowledge economy. The UAE is the highest ranked in the Arab world and it is 42nd globally. A key pillar of the knowledge economy is, of course, education.
Anxiety about being competitive in the knowledge economy has led to an overemphasis on academic performance. This can, sometimes, drive many students to despair. In some countries, it can drive them to drugs. Not escapist ones like opiates, but so- called smart drugs that sharpen attention, promote wakefulness and focus the mind. Therefore, the most widely used tablet in higher education might not be an iPad. We have entered the era of DIY neuropharmacology, where the use of cognitive-performance enhancers is becoming as acceptable as vitamin pills.
The currently popular smart drugs – adderall, ritalin, modafinil – were originally developed to treat neuropsychiatric conditions such asnarcolepsy, Alzheimer’s disease and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Their use by people who are not experiencing these conditions follows a pretty simple logic. If these medications can help distracted, sleepy, forgetful people function normally, then they can give healthy ones a boost by making them more focused, wakeful and with a better memory. This is cleverness in a blister pack.
Neuropsychological research supports the idea that these drugs can enhance the cognitive function of healthy individuals. Unsurprisingly, their use by students has become widespread in some countries but this raises important ethical questions.
At the Seoul Olympics in 1988, 100 -metre sprinter Ben Johnson was unceremoniously stripped of his gold medal and the world record. What was his crime? He tested positive for the performance enhancing substance Stanozolol, an anabolic steroid. Should today’s student scoring 1600 on her Graduate Record Exam, the standardised US graduate school admissions test, and subsequently testing positive for a known cognitive enhancer, be similarly stripped of their achievement?
At the inquiry sparked by the Ben Johnson doping scandal, his coach argued that Johnson had to use steroids to remain on equal terms with other top athletes known to be benefiting from performance-enhancing substances.
So what is the hardworking student to do when they see themselves displaced from the top of the class by students known to use cognitive enhancers? Do they gracefully fade to mediocrity or do they, like Johnson, join the party? One US survey suggested that 16 per cent of college students currently use smart drugs and a media report from the UK claimed that the practice was “rife” in British universities. Barbara Sahakian, a professor of clinical neuropsychology at Cambridge University, has been particularly vocal in expressing her concerns about the rise in smart drug use. She advocates steps to tackle the issue now.
But are random drug tests for students really an option? Furthermore, any country that takes unilateral action against the use of cognitive-enhancers reduces its chances of becoming a power-player in the knowledge economy. On the other hand, the long-term risks associated with using cognitive enhancers are unknown right now. And from an ethical standpoint: isn’t it cheating?
The current debate only focuses on today’s smart drugs. But what about the next generation of drugs, which could potentially give individuals a huge boost in cognitive performance? Would access to such drugs be cost neutral and equitable? I don’t think so. Here though, I suspect, the only smart drug widely used is 1,3,7-Trimethylpurine-2,6-dione, better known as caffeine. But for how long will this remain the case?
Justin Thomas is an associate professor of psychology at Zayed University and author of Psychological Well-Being in the Gulf States
On Twitter: @DrJustinThomas
