Both the Lancet and the New York Times have reported the use of controlled substances for mental enhancement by academics. See, Butcher J. “Cognitive enhancement raises ethical concerns. Academics urge pre-emptive debate on neurotechnologies.” Lancet 2003 July 12; 362(9378):132-3. and Brain Enhancement Is Wrong, Right?

The New York Times reports, “In a recent commentary in the journal Nature, two Cambridge University researchers reported that about a dozen of their colleagues had admitted to regular use of prescription drugs like Adderall, a stimulant, and Provigil, which promotes wakefulness, to improve their academic performance. The former is approved to treat attention deficit disorder, the latter narcolepsy, and both are considered more effective, and more widely available, than the drugs circulating in dorms a generation ago.”

The articles concludes by suggesting, “The public backlash against brain-enhancement, if it comes, may hit home only after the practice becomes mainstream, Dr. Chatterjee suggested. “You can imagine a scenario in the future, when you’re applying for a job, and the employer says, ‘Sure, you’ve got the talent for this, but we require you to take Adderall.’ Now, maybe you do start to care about the ethical implications.”

By attaching the academic oath to your CV, you are considering the ethical qualm posed by intellectual doping and standing firm to reject it.

The Academy must not wait until intellectual doping is mainstream, we must stand now to reject it.