This article examines the ambiguous relationship between treating illness and enhancing normalcy through the use of “cognitive enhancement” drugs. Although the literature on pharmacological neuro-enhancement generally differentiates between the “licit/therapeutic” and “illicit/enhancement” use of substances, in-depth interviews with 35 university students in the Netherlands and Lithuania—both with and without formal medical diagnoses of (mainly) Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder—reveal the fluidity of these categories. Our study of the perceptions and experiences of people who use such drugs further suggests a much broader range of substances, motives, and sought-after effects than are commonly acknowledged in the “cognitive enhancement” literature. We need a more inclusive and context-sensitive approach to study pharmacological neuro-enhancement, for instance, by approaching both licit and illicit drugs as tools or instruments.
AbrahamJ. (2010). Pharmaceuticalization of society in context: Theoretical, empirical and health dimensions. Sociology, 44, 603–622.
2.
AikinsR. (2011). Academic performance enhancement: A qualitative study of the perceptions and habits of prescription stimulant-using college students. Journal of College Student Development, 52, 560–576.
3.
ArriaA.Garnier-DykstraL.CaldeiraK.VincentK.O’GradyK.WishE. (2011). Persistent nonmedical use of prescription stimulants among college students: Possible association with ADHD symptoms. Journal of Attention Disorders, 15, 347–356.
4.
ArriaA.WilcoxH.CaldeiraK.VincentK.Garnier-DykstraL.O’GradyK. (2013). Dispelling the myth of “smart drugs”: Cannabis and alcohol use problems predict nonmedical use of prescription stimulants for studying. Addictive Behaviours, 38, 1643–1650.
5.
ArriaA.WishE. (2006). Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants among students. Pediatric Annals, 35, 565–571.
6.
BenschopA.NabbenT.KorfD. (2011). Trends and patterns in licit and illicit drug use in nightlife and among secondary school pupils in Amsterdam. Bonger International Bulletin, 2, 1–6.
BröerC.HansenC.KissmannU. T.Rubinstein MalamudL.MoermanG.SchmidtL.…ZuckerwiseG. (2016). Open online research: Developing software and method for collaborative interpretation. [71 paragraphs]Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17, Art 2. Retrieved fromhttp://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs160327
9.
BublitzJ.-C. (2016). Drugs, enhancements, and rights: Ten points for lawmakers to consider. In JotterandF.DubljevićV. (Eds.), Cognitive enhancement: Ethical and policy implications in international perspective (pp. 309–328). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
10.
BullardA. R. (2018). Neither licit nor illicit: A discursive analysis of cognition enhancers. Contemporary Drug Problems, 45, 262–282.
11.
CakicV. (2009). Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: Ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 611–615.
12.
ChadwickR. (2008). Therapy, enhancement and improvement. In GordijnB.ChadwickR. (Eds.), Medical enhancement and posthumanity (pp. 25–38). Berlin, Germany: Springer Science + Business Media.
13.
ChatwinC.MeashamF.O´BrienK.SumnallH. (2017). Editorial. New drugs, new directions? Research priorities for new psychoactive substances and human enhancement drugs. International Journal of Drug Policy, 40, 1–5.
14.
ConradP.PotterD. (2000). From hyperactive children to ADHD adults: Observations on the expansion of medical categories. Social Problems, 47, 559–582.
15.
CoveneyC. (2010). Awakening expectations: Exploring social and ethical issues surrounding the medical and non-medical uses of cognition enhancing drugs in the UK. (PhD thesis). University of Nottingham.
16.
CoveneyC.GabeJ.WilliamsS. (2011). The sociology of cognitive enhancement: Medicalisation and beyond. Health Sociology Review, 20, 381–393.
17.
DanielsN. (2000). Normal functioning and the treatment-enhancement distinction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 9, 309–322.
18.
De JonghR.BoltI.SchermerM.BerendO. (2008). Botox for the brain: Enhancement of cognition, mood and pro-social behavior and blunting of unwanted memories. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 760–776.
19.
DeSantisA.HaneA. C. (2010). “Adderall is definitely not a drug”: Justifications for the illegal use of ADHD stimulants. Substance Use & Misuse, 45, 31–46.
20.
DeSantisA.NoarS.WebbE. (2009). Nonmedical ADHD stimulant use in fraternities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70, 952–954.
21.
ElliotC. (2003). Better than well. American medicine meets the American dream. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
22.
ElseyJ. (2017). Psychedelic drug use in healthy individuals: A review of benefits, costs, and implications for drug policy. Drug Science, Policy and Law, 3. doi:10.1177/2050324517723232
FarahM.IllesJ.Cook-DeeganR.GardnerH.KandelE.KingP.WolpeP. R. (2004). Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do?Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 421–425.
25.
FoxN.WardK. (2008). Pharma in the bedroom…and the kitchen…. The pharmaceuticalisation of daily life. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30, 856–868.
26.
FrankeA.RoserP.LiebK.VollmannJ.SchildmannJ. (2016). Cannabis for cognitive enhancement as a new coping strategy? Results from a survey of students at four universities in Germany. Substance Use & Misuse, 51, 1856–1862.
27.
GabeJ.CoveneyC.WilliamsS. (2016). Prescriptions and proscriptions: Moralising sleep mechanisms. Sociology of Health and Illness, 38, 627–644.
28.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, Canada: Aldine Transaction.
GreelyH.SahakianB.HarrisJ.KesslerR. C.GazzanigaM.CampbellP.FarahM. J. (2008). Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature, 456, 702–705.
31.
GreenR.MooreD. (2009). “Kiddie drugs” and controlled pleasure: Recreational use of dexamphetamine in a social network of young Australians. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20, 402–408.
32.
GreeneJ. A.SismondoS. (2015). Introduction. In SismondoS.GreeneJ. A. (Eds.), The pharmaceutical studies reader (pp. 1–16). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
33.
HallW.StrangJ. (2017). Challenges in regulating the use of stimulant drugs for cognitive enhancement in normal individuals. In ter MeulenR.MohammedA.HallW. (Eds.), Rethinking cognitive enhancement (pp. 292–301). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
34.
HardonA.SanabriaE. (2017). Fluid drugs: Revisiting the anthropology of pharmaceuticals. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46, 117–132.
35.
HealyD. (2012). Pharmageddon. Berkeley: University of California Press.
36.
HeinzA.MüllerS. (2017). Exaggerating the benefits and downplaying the risks in the bioethical debate on cognitive neuroenhancement. In ter MeulenR.MohammedA.HallW. (Eds.), Rethinking cognitive enhancement (pp. 69–86). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
37.
HildtE.LiebK.FrankeA. (2014). Life context of pharmacological academic performance enhancement among university students: A qualitative approach. BMC Medical Ethics, 15, 23.
38.
HinshawS.SchefflerR. (2014). The ADHD explosion: Myths, medication, money, and today’s push for performance. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
39.
HupliA. (2018). Medical cannabis for adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Sociological patient case report of cannabinoid therapeutics. Finland. Medical Cannabis & Cannabinoids, 1, 112–118doi:10.1159/000495307
40.
HupliA.BerningA.ZhuparrisA.FadimanJ. (2019). Descriptive assemblage of psychedelic microdosing: Netnographic study of Youtube™ videos and on-going research projects. Performance Enhancement & Health, 6, 129–138. doi:10.1016/j.peh.2019.01.001
41.
HupliA.DidziokaiteG.YdemaM. (2016). Towards the smart use of smart drugs: Perceptions and experiences of university students in the Netherlands and Lithuania. Contemporary Drug Problems, 43, 242–257.
42.
IlievaI.FarahM. (2013a). Cognitive enhancement with amphetamine: History repeats itself. American Journal of Bioethics, Neuroscience, 4, 24–25.
43.
IlievaI.FarahM. (2013b). Enhancement stimulants: Perceived motivational and cognitive advantages. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 1–6.
JotterandF.DubljevićV. (Eds.). (2016). Cognitive enhancement: Ethical and policy implications in international perspectives. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
46.
KeganR. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
KramerP. (1993). Listening to Prozac: A psychiatrist explores antidepressant drugs and the remaking of the self. London, England: Penguin.
48.
KrøllL. T. (2019). Students’ non-medical use of pharmaceuticals to manage time in everyday life crises. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 26, 339–346. doi:10.1080/09687637.2019.1585760
LendeD.LeonardT.SterkC. E.ElifsonK. (2007). Functional methamphetamine use: The insider’s perspective. Addiction Research & Theory, 15, 465–477.
51.
LengvenyteA.StrumilaR.GrikinieneJ. (2016). Use of cognitive enhancers among medical students in Lithuania. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 33, 173–188.
52.
LintonK. (2012). Scholastic steroids: Is generation Rx cognitively cheating?Pepperdine Law Review, 39, 989–1050.
53.
Lithuanian Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2015). Hiperkineziniai sutrikimai (aktyvumo ir de_mesio sutrikimas, hiperkinezinis elgesio sutrikimas) vaik˛u amzˇiuje: Diagnostika ir gydymas (TLK-10 kodai F90.0; F90.1). Retrieved February 7, 2018, fromhttp://lvppd.lt/metodikos/
54.
LuckeJ.BellS.PartridgeB.HallW. (2011). Deflating the neuroenhancement bubble. American Journal of Bioethics, Neuroscience, 2, 38–43.
55.
MaierL. J.FerrisJ.WinstockA. (2018). Pharmacological cognitive enhancement among non-ADHD individuals: A cross-sectional study in 15 countries. International Journal of Drug Policy, 58, 104–112.
56.
MaierL. J.HaugS.SchaubM. (2015). The importance of stress, self-efficacy, and self-medication for pharmacological neuroenhancement among employees and students. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 156, 221–227.
57.
MaierL. J.LiechtiM.HerzigF.SchaubM. (2013). To dope or not to dope: Neuroenhancement with prescription drugs and drugs of abuse among Swiss university students. PLoS One, 8, e77967.
58.
MaierL. J.SchaubM. (2015). The use of prescription drugs and drugs of abuse for neuroenhancement in Europe: Not widespread but a reality. European Psychologist, 1, 1–12.
59.
MartinP.PickersgillM.CoveneyC.WilliamsS. (2011). Pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement: Interrogating the ethics, addressingthe issues. In FenterF. (Ed.), Augmented cognition. Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL Press.
60.
MaslenH.FaulmüllerN.SavulescuJ. (2014). Pharmacological cognitive enhancement: How neuroscientific research could advance ethical debate. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 1–12.
61.
McKeownA. (2017). Enhancement and therapy: Is it possible to draw a line? In ter MeulenR.MohammedA.HallW. (Eds.), Rethinking cognitive enhancement (pp. 193–212). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
62.
MorrisonM. (2015). STS and enhancement technologies: A programme for future research. Science & Technology Studies, 28, 3–28.
63.
MüllerC.SchumannG. (2011). Drugs as instruments: A new framework for non-addictive psychoactive drug use. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 293–331.
64.
NabbenT.LuijkS. J.KorfD. J. (2018). Antenne 2017. Trends in alcohol, tabak en drugs bij jonge Amsterdammers. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rozenberg.
65.
OutramS. (2010). The use of methylphenidate among students: The future of enhancement?Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 198–202.
66.
OutramS. (2011). Ethical considerations in the framing of the cognitive enhancement debate. Neuroethics, 5, 173–184.
67.
PartridgeB. (2017). Students and “smart drugs”: Empirical research can shed light on enhancement enthusiasm. In ter MeulenR.MohammedA.HallW. (Eds.), Rethinking cognitive enhancement (pp. 274–281). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
68.
PetersenM. A.NørgaardL. S.TraulsenJ. (2015a). Going to the doctor with enhancement in mind: An ethnographic study of university students’ use of prescription stimulants and their moral ambivalence. Drugs, Education, Prevention and Policy, 22, 201–207.
69.
PetersenM. A.NørgaardL. S.TraulsenJ. (2015b). Pursuing pleasures of productivity: University students’ use of prescription stimulants for enhancement and the moral uncertainty of making work fun. Culture, Medicine, Psychiatry, 39, 665–679.
70.
PickersgillM.HogleL. (2015). Enhancement, ethics and society: Towards an empirical research agenda for the medical humanities and social sciences. Medical Humanities, 41, 136–142.
71.
RaganI. C.BardI.SinghI. (2013). What should we do about student use of cognitive enhancers? An analysis of current evidence. Neuropharmacology, 64, 588–595.
72.
RepantisD.SchlattmannP.LaisneyO.HeuserI. (2010). Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research, 62, 187–206.
73.
RobitailleC.CollinJ. (2016). Prescription psychostimulant use among young adults: A narrative review of qualitative studies. Substance Use & Misuse, 51, 357–369.
74.
RoseN. (2007a). Beyond medicalisation. The Lancet, 369, 700–702.
75.
RoseN. (2007). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
76.
RoseS. (2002). “Smart drugs”: Do they work? Are they ethical? Will they be legal?Nature Review Neuroscience, 3, 975–979.
77.
SavulescuJ.SandbergA.KahaneG. (2011). Well-being and enhancement. In SavulescuJ.Ter MeulenR.KahaneG. (Eds.), Enhancing human capacities (pp. 1–18). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
78.
SchelleK.OlthofB.ReintjesW.BundtC.Gusman-VermeerJ.Van MilA. (2015). A survey of substance use for cognitive enhancement by university students in the Netherlands. Frontiers of Systems Neuroscience, 9, 1–11.
79.
SchermerM. (2007). The dynamics of the treatment-enhancement distinction: ADHD as a case study. Philosophica, 79, 25–37.
80.
SchermerM. (2016). Cognitive enhancement in the Netherlands: Practices, public opinion, and ethics. In JotterandF.DubljevićV. (Eds.), Cognitive enhancement: Ethical and policy implications in international perspectives (pp. 181–195). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
81.
SilvaK.KecojevicA.LankenauS. E. (2013). Perceived drug use functions and risk reduction practices among high-risk nonmedical users of prescription drugs. Journal of Drug Issues, 43, 483–496.
82.
SinghI.BardI.JacksonJ. (2014). Robust resilience and substantial interest: A survey of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among university students in the UK and Ireland. PLoS One, 9, e105969.
83.
SismondoS.GreeneJ. A. (Eds.). (2015). The pharmaceutical studies reader. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
84.
SmithM. E.FarahM. J. (2011). Are prescription stimulants “smart pills”? The epidemiology and cognitive neuroscience of prescription stimulant use by normal healthy individuals. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 717–741.
VargoE.PetrócziA. (2016). “It was me on a good day”: Exploring the smart drug use phenomenon in England. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 779. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00779
87.
VreckoS. (2013). Just how cognitive is “cognitive enhancement”? On the significance of emotions in university students’ experiences with study drugs. American Journal of Bioethics, Neuroscience, 4, 4–12.
88.
VreckoS. (2015). Everyday drug diversions: A qualitative study of the illicit exchange and non-medical use of prescription stimulants on a university campus. Social Science & Medicine, 131, 297–304.
89.
WebsterA.DouglasC.LewisG. (2009). Making sense of medicines: “Lay pharmacology” and narratives of safety and efficacy. Science as Culture, 18, 233–247.
90.
WilliamsS.MartinP.GabeJ. (2011). The pharmaceuticalisation of society? A framework for analysis. Sociology of Health & Illness, 335, 710–725.
