Write An Argumentative Essay On Nootropics

Acceptance into post graduate schools, specifically law schools and medical schools, has become increasingly competitive; for many students this turning point in their life could either make or break them. In an attempt to get a leg up on their competition, a healthy percentage of students have turned to cognitive enhancing drugs, also known as nootropics, to stand apart from the pack. There is a considerable amount of ethical controversy regarding the use of these supposed performance enhancing drugs in academia, however, are we willing to act on these concerns, and if so, to what extent?

Cakic, V. "Smart Drugs for Cognitive Enhancement: Ethical and Pragmatic
Considerations in the Era of Cosmetic Neurology." Journal of Medical
Ethics

35.10 (2009): 611-15. JSTOR. Web. 19 Sept. 2015.

Formally addressing the elephant in the room, Cakic makes and sustains the correlation between the ethical practices of nootropic usage in academia and doping in athletics throughout the article. However, one unique point Cakic makes is the prospects of controlling usage of drugs. Tying in the current standoff off between prohibition and drug trafficking, Cakic drives the message home that even if there were regulations on student usage of cognitive enhancing drugs, the ability for nootropics to be regulated would mirror modern day contraband. Taking this into account, it could been then argued that if nootropics are treated as illicit drugs then they could be potentially tested for in a similar manor. In addition, Cakic argues that the use of these enhancers could potentially widen the gap between rich and poor. Similar to how only wealthy families could easily afford tutors and private school, only upper class citizens would be able to take advantage of these new found smart drugs. Expanding on this topic, where only upper class can afford these drugs, would it then mean that only the rich could pass entrance exams and rise up further in society? In addition to this argument, Cakic offers several others that are the core disputes for the ethical and moral usage of nootropics. Cakic lays down the ground work for my literature review to expand upon and therefore building on top of what has already been said while adding more conversation to the mix.

Urban, Kimberly R., and Wen-Jun Gao. "Performance Enhancement at the Cost of Potential Brain Plasticity: Neural Ramifications of Nootropic Drugs in the Healthy Developing Brain." Front. Syst. Neurosci. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 8 (2014): n. pag. Web.

Rather than arguing the ethical considerations of nootropics, Kimberly Urban and Wen-Jun Gao consider the short and long-term neural side effects of taking cognitive altering drugs. Focusing on popular ‘main-stream’ drugs Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Provigil (modafinil), Urban and Gao weigh the pros and cons of these drugs with the respect to the ‘at risk’ population of teens and young adults. While in some cases methylphenidate might be used as a handicap for those with prescriptions, the main concern is for those who buy them off the black market and self-administer dosages without the proper pre-diagnostic measurements and consequently drastically alter the chemical composition of their brain. Urban and Gao argue further that these consequences are more severe in healthy brains that do not require supplemental neural chemicals that are lacking in patients with ADHD – the intended consumer. Modafinil (intended for those with narcolepsy, shift-work disorder and obstructive sleep apnea), on the other hand, has a larger intended audience yet not as common and is currently being abused for many of the same reasons with strikingly similar side effects. In addition, Urban and Gao point out that many of the anticipated benefits by those who take these drugs may only apply to those with lower IQs and could have little to no effect on those with higher scores. Under conditions that are most prevalent on college campus’ – young and healthy – Urban and Gao make no objection that abusing these medications could negatively alter future drug dependence in young adults. The main reason for including this article is to direct the subject of nootropics users to young adults and teens. Without direction, the literature review would lose sight of its target and could potentially be aimed at anyone as long as I am questioning the ethical standings of nootropics.

Greely, Henry, Barbara Sahakian, John Harris, Ronald C. Kessler, Michael Gazzaniga, Philip Campbell, and Martha J. Farah. "Towards Responsible Use of Cognitive-enhancing Drugs by the Healthy." Nature 456.7223 (2008): 702-05. Web.

While many try and prevent the study and use of nootropics, Greely et al. advocate for a, “evidence-based approach to the evaluation of the risks and benefits of cognitive enhancement.” Viewing nootropics as the calculator of the future, Greely et al. want to promote, at the minimum, scholarly evidence through experimentation before society labels the notion of enhancements as the bad word that we have come to associate with it today. They argue that many of the logical fallacies used to label nootropics mislead the argument against the drugs without any conclusive evidence to put behind it. In addition, in order to provide new evidence, Greely et al. call for the adaptation of federal law in order to allow for the growth of scientific evidence without the risk factors of potential prosecution due to supposed drug trafficking. There is currently a stigma behind the use of cognitive enhancing drugs that, according to the authors, needs to be broken down for the sake of scientific advancement towards a better future. This article will provide an ever important counter argument to juxtapose the popular claim that nootropics are bad overall. Without an objecting view point, my literature review will become dull and repetitive – repeating the same viewpoints over again.

Babcock, Quinton, and Tom Byrne. "Student Perceptions of Methylphenidate Abuse at a Public Liberal Arts College." Journal of American College Health 49.3 (2000): 143-45. Pubmed.gov. Journal of American College Health, 24 Mar. 2010. Web. 19 Sept. 2015.

Although the data compiled may be fifteen years old, Quinton Babcock and Tom Byrne it could be argued that much of the statistics still hold true today. What is more surprising is that during the year 2000, the rate at which we diagnose ADHD is nothing at which it is today. Keeping this thought in mind, we could assume that the abundancy of nootropics, like Ritalin (methylphenidate), have become more available throughout the years due to misprescription and black market dealers. What makes this data even more relevant is that it was taken on a college campus, the prime location of aspiring scholars attempting to get ahead of the pack. It is interesting to note that Ritalin usage could be more prevalent on this campus than cocaine and amphetamines even though only 1.8% of those surveyed stated that they have a prescription for the drug. Taking this into account, there could be a very large black market for methylphenidate which may be due to popular claims of it being a study aid. The evident abuse adds another level of clarity to the focus of this literature review by adding solid claims to the area of drug abuse among students. Furthermore, because this is essentially an ethical stand point, it is important to have concrete evidence to stand on to avoid making false claims and therefore adding new viewpoints to the already compiled knowledge.

Hermann, Aaron, and Maciej Henneberg. "Anti-Doping Systems in Sports Are Doomed to Fail: A Probability and Cost Analysis." Omics Online. Journal of Sports Medicine & Doping Studies, 07 Nov. 2014. Web. 19 Sept. 2015.

Through careful inspection, Aaron Herman breaks apart the system at which we hold our most prestigious athletes in order to contemplate the effectiveness of doping testing of Olympic athletes.

Ignoring other factors that may set into motion the causes for doping or any educational preventive measures, Herman puts Olympic doping data on the table for careful scrutiny. In many ways, these conclusive statistical findings are crucial in determining the next step after the ethical considerations of nootropics. If we are to deem nootropics unethical we need to examine what other systems have done to prevent similar types of cheating and to what extent their effectiveness is. After reviewing the data, Herman concludes that, “Testing is not economically viable for effective detection.” This statement is consistent with what Cakic and Greely et al. have stated in their articles over the ethical considerations of nootropics. Due to the lack of hard evidence in the area of nootropics, I need to attempt to extrapolate data from elsewhere and apply it to the subject. This will aid in my literature review by adding solid evidence to the otherwise unsupported claims of drug usage in the face of massive hurtles. As seen by these athletes, people are already willing to get an edge on competition by way of pills, injections and supplements; thus setting to rest the counter argument against this

claim.

Park, Eun-Jun, Seungmi Park, and In-Sun Jang. "Academic Cheating among Nursing Students." Nurse Education Today 33.4 (2013): 346-52. ELSEVIER. Web. 19 Sept. 2015.

After investigating 655 undergraduate Korean nursing students, Park et al. examine the ramifications of cheating among nursing students and the reason behind their academic dishonesty. While contemplating the ethical notions of counting nootropics as cheating, it is important to examine current view points on cheating and why it is occurring. As it stands, Park et al. praise Korean students for their strict academic honesty, however, this study reveals that, of those surveyed, 50% cheated on exams and 78% cheated on assignments. It is important to note that these students have already been admitted to nursing school and therefore continue to exercise their ethical standards on patients. The question now is this pertain to nootropics. I plan to use the information from this article as a way of defining why students cheat with one of the underlying factors being, ‘if I don’t cheat I will be at a disadvantage.’ These results are not only congruent with the articles of Babcock, Greely et al. and Cakic but they reflect their predictions of the fundamental reasons behind using nootropics as a cognitive aid. This research will aid in my lit review due to its unbiased views on cheating which will add solid ground to the subjective cognitive enhancers.