An increase in the use of ‘smart drugs’ to boost academic performance could spark routine doping tests for students.

In an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, scientists said the use of smart drugs or ‘nootropics’ could mean exam students are routinely tested.

Vince Cakic of the department of psychology at the University of Sydney, said despite raising dilemmas about the legitimacy of chemically enhanced academic performance, the drugs are also nearly impossible to ban.

Mr Cakic draws several parallels in the report with doping in competitive sport, with claims that 95 per cent of elite athletes have used performance enhancing drugs at some point.

"It is apparent that the failures and inconsistencies inherent in anti doping policy in sport will be mirrored in academia unless a reasonable and realistic approach to the issue of nootropics is adopted," he said.

"If the current situation in competitive sport is anything to go by, any attempt to prohibit the use of nootropics will probably be difficult or inordinately expensive to police effectively," he added.

Nootroics were designed to help people with cognitive problems such as dementia and attention deficit disorder, but are now being used by students non-medically.

The non-medical use of methylphenidate and amphetamine is as high as 25 per cent on some US college campuses, particularly in colleges with more competitive admission criteria, says Mr Cakic.

But the argument that these drugs should be banned for non-medical use because they confer unfair advantage is rather like suggesting that private tuition be banned, concludes Mr Cakic.

He suggests these drugs might even level the playing field for those who have been disadvantaged, but adds that the long term safety of smart drugs in healthy people is unknown, and this might prove a good, and perhaps the only, reason to attempt to restrict their use.

Popularity: 1% [?]