Message Board

NPR article on college students' use of drugs such as Adderall as a study aid.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100254163

Quick video on ethics and philosophy, with a neurobiology twist at the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOfKyjyWiU0/

Should Adderall be allowed as a study aid? How is it different from using herbal supplements like Ginkgo Biloba?

What would YOU do in the trolley dilemma? Why?

For the trolley dilemma, I would realistically do nothing, but not because of an ethical decision, just because I would be freaking out and wouldn't know what to do. By the time I made a decision, it would likely be too late. However, now that I know about the situation, if I ever encounter it, I would likely be able to make a decision according to some sort of ethical theory. I would likely make the utilitarian decision to have the trolley kill only the one person, as opposed to the multiple on the other part of the track.
As far as drugs to help in studying, I consider it to be cheating. The student is no longer taking the exam without outside aids, and I think it would be the same as having the answers written on the bottom of their shoe- they haven't taken the time to learn the information on their own. Additionally, I tend to have a paternalistic mindset, in that the potential harm that could come from taking "study drugs" should continue to be a reason to keep them as prescription only. (to put it into perspective, though, I also think that cigarettes should be illegal).
I think that this differs from something like ginko biloba because I don't think that ginko makes a substantial difference on the levels that it is normally consumed (and I certainly haven't seen any change in myself). I am sure that some people have found a way to abuse ginko, which I also would consider to cheating as well, if they could actually do it effectively.

One argument for the other way would be that those students who take "study drugs" would learn it more effectively, get better scores, and then get a better job, where they could continue to take the medications, to continue to do better, as opposed to those who don't take the drug (so it would accurately reflect the abilities that they would continue to have). However, most people would say that they only use it as a means to an end... graduation or a grade, and that they would then discontinue. This would mean that students are not accurately reflecting their abilities compared to other students, as their resume should, and would therefore be purposely deceiving a potential employer, which would be unquestionably unethical.

I think one has to be very careful about "institutionalizing" a permissive attitude towards pharmaceuticals. Student's should not feel pressure from their peers or their professors to take drugs to short cut the attentional processes that facilitate learning. All drugs are not the same caffeine, amphetamine and THC are not the same some drugs are highly addictive others aren't. Also these smart drugs really aren't enhancers in the way that most students take them. They increase a person's subjective sense of confidence in the material but that doesn't translate to recall. They also interfere with sleep and sleep consolidation is much more important that staying awake to cram information. So in the end smart drugs delivered outside monitoring by health care professional are a myth that just creates more drug seeking addicts and a black market.

In general, I think Universities have put too much focus on Exams as a means of probing learning and gauging student competence. I think if we remove the culture of the exam as it exists now it would remove the incentive to cram, cheat and take drugs to stay awake. We would also remove the market for obtaining a "Learning disability" stamp to gain a competitive advantage on tests. Our pedagogies have to be able to accomodate the population of admitted students without making the "TEST" the means for normalization in my opinion.

Well now, lets start with the easy topic.
For the Trolley dilemma, I would pull the level and through that logic, probably push the person. However, if the scenario had been presented in reverse, Id probably let all 4 die in both scenarios as well. The reasoning for this is reason itself. I am sure I am not the only person who defines things not only by feeling but by past experience. If you are prepared to take the life of one to save many, then regardless of how it is done, you would do it. I think in the manner of the level then the push, I have already accounted for the taking of one life, all that changes is the situation. However, in reverse (push then lever) I would start with the dilemma of pushing a person into harms way, thus making the decision becomes harder as your actively involved. The moral answer is do not push, and thus it would skew my response to the level because I was not prepared to take a life then, why, in the same situation but slightly different scenario, would I now. Though, personally, without restrictions and all variables being considered (I am a known, the 5 people are unknowns), I would probably sacrifice the few to save the many with the level, and jump in front of the trolley in the push scenario, however that changes the aspect of the moral dilemma.

In regards to "study drugs", I am a skewed party. I was diagnosed with ADHD probably as far back as grade school. I was prescribed Ritalin. I think my perspective is the same as people from cultures were drinking or sex are not so socially and culturally taboo (yes we joke about them here, but they are still widely shunned from society unless its to market products). If your exposed to it early, you take on the knowledge and understanding of it and treat it responsibly. For a while I took it twice a day. Then, sometime in grade school, I stopped taking it. I felt like I could do without it and I did well for a while. At the time the subjects were easy and thus, grades were high. While I may have never been a straight A student, I didn't go back to the drug until college. I went back to it (I use Concerta, a form or Ritalin, but be aware that Ritalin and Adderall are different drugs) because I felt that I needed the aid to get better grades and thus graduate. There is a realization that I have some neurological disorder and that, if I cannot control it myself, I should use outside means. It does help me focus a lot. As I once described to a friend, "It turns off the part of my brain that says 'there is too much work, don't do it' and turns on the side that says 'yes, there is a lot of work, get it done little by little till its all done'". Now when I use it, its along the lines of making it through a long day of class or long days of study. I don't use it as a daily drug because some days, I really don't need it for my 1 hour of class.

I understand why students use them but I would not condone it. If this was a fully useful drug, with no side effects, then it would be over-the-counter. But it is regulated and should only be used by the people it is regulated to. Likewise, having another drug added to the cadre of illegally traded drugs in college is a problem. There is no sure way of cracking down on those who use it because they usually buy one pill at a time and thus the only person with a large quantity of pills is the dealer. I also think that the prescriptions are too large (even mine). Most other people with ADD or ADHD do not use their full prescription because it is not a disorder that impares you all day every day. They are used when needed and thus large prescriptions are unwarranted. This is the responsibility of the doctor or pharmacist to determine how much to distribute.


I agree with Dr. Cooper's response, If the main contribution for a class grade was not the class tests themselves, then any illegal test aide (cheat sheet, attempting to get the answers, drugs, etc.) would be obsolete. At the moment, students use drugs in the amphetamine group because using them for 3 weeks out of a semester and getting an A is better than studying every week to get the same or lesser grade. With regard to this, I agree with Karl, in that grades received after using a study aide are not building good study habits for life. Though they do reflect how that person will do work in their career. It's just that the individual will always get their work done just as the deadline arrives. However, In regards to a different part of Karl's response, I think alluding them to cheat sheets is kind of extreme. While the drug does make you alert and focused, it doesn't magically grant you the answers. All the reading and study must be done, there is just better allocation of time. However, this only holds true for those who use it ahead of time. If the student crams right before the test then they probably won't retain a lot of the information afterward.

I feel the term smart drugs may be misleading. The smart drug 'class' actually includes a whole range of different compounds. This makes sense as nootropic, by definition is: of, relating to, or promoting the enhancement of cognition and memory and the facilitation of learning. These drugs are currently being investigated in clinical trials as a possible way to treat dementia and Alzheimer's. If these drugs are able to assist with functions of cognition and memory, or if they are used to treat those with certain deficits then I think they carry value. A major concern it seems is as though it is cheating to use drugs as a study aid, i don't necessarily agree. I have yet to find articles discussing that these drugs actually make you 'smarter' (difficult to quantify) but in fact assist studying in a secondary manner. Some of the stimulants help more with attention and focus, allowing for more efficient study time that the student is still responsible for. certain supplements have been identified to improve brain function as well such as omega-3 fatty acids and the B-Complexes, so these would also be considered to be study aids (of which I am currently taking). Granted there are various side effects to these drugs with some more harmful then others, but by following proper medical direction these risks can be minimized. When students take these drugs illegally they are at the highest risk because of their inability to set their own dose. If doctors were able to write prescriptions for cognitive deficits the underground use of these drugs and the accompanied risk may very well be avoided.

Where should it be decided then what is permitted as a study aid (vitamins) and what is not? At the prescription level perhaps. But lets consider individuals with depression who take prescriptions to treat their diagnosis; they may be taking something that could be considered a cognitive enhancer because of the fact they are operating with an improved mood and therefore perform better on tasks of memory and learning. I don't think we would consider this to be wrong. I feel that if certain drugs are found to be safe, effective and offer a benefit to people then they should be allowed to be used and moderated. In response to the culture of the exam proposed by Dr. Cooper I think a market just as robust would exist for cognitive enhancers. People are driven to learn and discover, they are also driven to perform. There will also always be some kind of testing, as this is the only way (that I can think of) to gauge the level of knowledge someone has on a subject. If grades were based on projects and papers the use of smart drugs may be used even more as people procrastinate on these types of assignments as well. We should also look at professionals outside of academia are finding 'smart drugs' to be helpful whether its a pilot that wants to be alert as possible during a long flight, or a marketing director that uses numerous supplements to keep her edge in a competitive business setting. To reiterate if a substance has potential for helping people then it should be investigated.

The trolley problem is a tough one. I've heard it in a similar but not completely identical way. You are at a hospital and there are five people in need of organs. You are given the option of letting them live or letting them die. If you do nothing the five ill patients die; but if you kill the healthy stranger and harvest his organs to be used in the sick you can save the five lives at the expense of the one.

When worded like this I always pick let the sick die, but in no way has it ever been easy to answer and it is very difficult to reason why. It seems like the correct answer but upon further reflection it seems like saving the five is the correct choice. I'm at a loss.