Neuroenhancement among Swiss Students – A Comparison of Users and Non-Users

Abstract

Introduction:

This survey aims to contribute to the current discussion about neuroenhancement by comparing cognitive enhancer(s) (CE) users with CE non-users with a focus on their characteristics and attitudes.

Methods:

An online survey was sent out to all undergraduate and graduate students of the University of Zürich who allow such e-mails (n=8 642), accompanied by advertisement for the survey in lectures. 1 765 students completed the survey, which was about healthy people’s use of Ritalin, Adderall and/or Modasomil to increase concentration and/or alertness. A complementary paper-and-pencil survey (n=97 students, response rate: 95.1%) was also carried out in order to compare data.

Results:

Non-therapeutic CE users (6.2%) were more often male, considered religion to be of less importance and had more experience with drugs. CE had been taken for study purposes by 4.7% of all students. CE users had tried Ritalin most often, which about half of them received from friends and colleagues. The CE users had more reasons for and fewer concerns about taking CE than non-users. The most common reasons for both groups were “the effects of learning quicker” and “for finishing more work in less time”. The most common concerns for both groups were “the worries about possible side effects” and “the goal of CE to achieve more”, and “an unnatural interference of such products with our bodies” (CE-users) or “the gut feeling of not using such products” (CE non-users).

Discussion:

The comparison of CE users with CE non-users reveals insights about their attitudes, which will add to the understanding of why students take or could imagine taking such products.

Key words

cognitive enhancement - ethics - questionnaire - students - Switzerland

• References

• 1 Greely H, Sahakian B, Harris J et al. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 2008; 456: 702-705
• 2 Ragan CI, Bard I, Singh I. What should we do about student use of cognitive enhancers? An analysis of current evidence. Neuropharmacology 2013; 64: 588-895
• 3 Forlini C, Hall W, Maxwell B et al. Navigating the enhancement landscape. EMBO Rep 2013; 14: 123-128
• 4 Sahakian B, Morein-Zamir S. Professor’s little helper. Nature 2007; 450: 1157-1159
• 5 Maher B. Poll results: look who’s doping. Nature 2008; 452: 674-675
• 6 Meiners F. DAK-Gesundheitsreport. Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenasse. 2009 [cited 14 February 2013]. Available from http://www.presse.dak.de/ps.nsf/Show/A9C1DFD99A0104BAC1257551005472DE/$File/DAK_Gesundheitsreport_2009.pdf
• 7 McCabe SE, Knight JR, Teter CJ et al. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addict Abingdon Engl 2005; 100: 96-106
• 8 Franke AG, Bonertz C, Christmann M 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
• 9 Middendorff E, Poskowsky J, Isserstedt W. Formen der Stresskompensation und Leistungssteigerung bei Studierenden. HISBUS-Befragung. HIS: Forum Hochschule; 2012
• 10 Dietz P, Striegel H, Franke AG et al. Randomized response estimates for the 12-month prevalence of cognitive-enhancing drug use in university students. Pharmacotherapy 2013; 33: 44-50
• 11 Emanuel RM, Frellsen SL, Kashima KJ et al. Cognitive enhancement drug use among future physicians: findings from a multi-institutional census of medical students. J Gen Intern Med 2013; 28: 1028-1034
• 12 Bergström LS, Lynöe N. Enhancing concentration, mood and memory in healthy individuals: an empirical study of attitudes among general practitioners and the general population. Scand J Public Health 2008; 36: 532-537
• 13 Banjo OC, Nadler R, Reiner PB. Physician attitudes towards pharmacological cognitive enhancement: safety concerns are paramount. Priller J. editor. Plos One. 2010. 5. e14322
• 14 Hotze TD, Shah K, Anderson EE et al. “Doctor, would you prescribe a pill to help me …?” A national survey of physicians on using medicine for human enhancement. Am J Bioeth 2011; 11: 3-13
• 15 Ott R, Lenk C, Miller N et al. Neuroenhancement – perspectives of Swiss psychiatrists and general practitioners. Swiss Med Wkly 2012 142. w13707-
• 16 Eckhard A, Bachmann A, Marti M et al. Human enhancement. Studie des Zentrums für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzungen. Zürich: vdf Hoschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich; 2011
• 17 Akademien der Wissenschaften Schweiz. . Medizin für Gesunde? Analysen und Empfehlungen zum Umgang mit Human Enhancement. Bern: Akademien der Wissenschaften Schweiz; 2012
• 18 Biedermann F. Die Haltung der Deutschschweizer Bevölkerung zum Pharmazeutischen Cognitive Enhancement. Dissertation. Basel: Eigenverlag; 2011
• 19 Lieb K. Hirndoping: warum wir nicht alles schlucken solllten. Mannheim: Artemis & Winkler; 2010
• 20 Partridge BJ, Bell SK, Lucke JC et al. Smart drugs “as common as coffee”: media hype about neuroenhancement. Ross JS . (ed.). Plos One. 2011. 6. e28416
• 21 Hoeglinger M, Jann B, Diekmann A. Sensitive questions in online surveys: an experimental comparison of the RRT and the crosswise model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York 2013
• 22 Sax LJ, Gilmartin SK, Bryant AN. Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Res High Educ 2003; 44: 409-432