Many bioethicists are divided over whether the use of such drugs is inherently "wrong." But if we're arguing about whether it is FAIR, it really depends. It's unfair if others don't have the same access to the drug. Imagine a certain cognitive-enhancing drug is prohibitively expensive, then only a handful of people would be able to afford and use it. Those who can't access it would be at a disadvantage. On the other hand, issues of distributive justice have existed long before before the introduction of smart drugs. You could easily draw parallels between smart drugs to other expensive interventions that students take advantage of already (e.g., test prep courses). So if you think the latter isn't objectionable, then maybe you wouldn't think smart drugs are either.

Even if smart drugs were widely available, we might be worried about the individual freedom of choice to engage in this method of cognitive enhancement. If many students were to take smart drugs, then their higher performances would raise societal standards and expectations. Those who might have have wanted to use cognitive enhancers would be "forced" to use the drugs to "keep up" to have a shot at the same opportunities as their peers. This would also be unfair.

I think it partly depends on the situation. Some drugs like caffeine are readily available to everyone, are widely used, and can increase performance on some kinds of tasks. Other drugs are controlled and have specific uses to treat specific problems like clinical depression, multiple sclerosis, ADHD, etc. If individuals have these conditions and are being treated appropriately, I don't feel there is an ethics issue. If students do not have these conditions and are obtaining the drugs illegally or fraudulently by faking illnesses to get a prescription, that is unethical and illegal.

Dear Abay,

I think this is a good question.  First, nothing short of massive social engineering will ever create an "even playing field" for students competing academically.  The greatest source and reason for the perpetuation of unequal advantage among students at all levels is unequal family financial support and other sorts of support grounded in one's family background.  As Plato first pointed out in the Republic, true equality of opportunity would require the abolition of the family.  Few, although not all theorists, are willing to advocate this kind of massive social dislocation.

Second, among the drugs I  assume you have in mind, are amphetamines or amphetamine-like substances.  They carry with their use as many disadvantages as advantages.  There is serious debate about whether the use of such drugs does, in fact, help to produce qualitative better academic work.  In addition, these sorts of drugs do carry with them the real threat of creating dependence for the user.  Also, since these drugs, when used by students, tend to be followed by a period of lethargy and temporary depression, their putative academic advantage seems to be self-limiting.

A more serious moral question of unfair advantage is the use of such drugs by younger, tenure-hungry academics themselves. (This was reported in "The Chronicle of Higher Education some months ago, and I regret not being able to be specific about the issue in which this report appeared.)

In answer to your question, so-called performance enhancing drugs, may or may not actually create an unfair advantage for some students. The evidence of this appears to be unclear.  But, for those of us interested in working towards greater equality of academic opportunity, I would suggest that the more significant problems lie elsewhere, and thus our efforts should probably be directed elsewhere as well.

Thank you again for your thoughtful question,

David

Maybe the real problem is our excessive focus on competition in our educational system. By measuring success as being better than the next guy instead of competence, we set people up to get any advantage that they can.

Dear Dick,   Competence is an important factor in education, but isn't comparative achievement, demonstrated through competition, at least one element we need to consider in judging competence.  

At higher levels of education in many fields of study and practice, competence is no more than the base line.  Many students seek competitive academic experiences and environments, and they also seek the sense of self-satisfaction that, for them, is a result having competed and done well.  Does a society value and seek only to encourage the education of competent medical researchers, teachers, and auto mechanics, or does it hope to encourage the emergence of excellent ones?

Better, best, excellent, are comparative terms and a complete set of educational opportunities, as opposed to mere training, should continue to provide avenues for fair competition.  

At the pre-university level in the US, many students, teachers, and parents have observed that those students most eager to learn and most willing to take on new educational challenges, are the least well served segment of the student population.  

I cannot speak for Canada, but in the US, too many K-12 schools are not even successful in bringing their students to a level of competence in the basic skills of reading, writing, and math, by the time they graduate.

Thank you,

David

David, I agree with you that we need something more than minimal performance. But what I see in many fields is that students compete based on grades and in really important programs, we have entry cut-off points that differentiate on the basis of tiny differences in grades, so that the student with a 3.87 grade point average is accepted and a student with a 3.85 GPA is not. Unfortunately, I don't see any indication that those small differences result in better doctors, teachers, psychologists or engineers. So I would not argue against all competition or against trying to ensure that the best people are rewarded. But if we want the best people doing our surgery or fly our planes, we need some better measures.

Dear Dick,

I do agree that making what can be momentous decisions for students' future program opportunities on what are probably statistically insignificant GPA differences, is neither wise nor fair.  Thank you for your clarification.  I now have a better understanding of the point you were making. I still maintain that fair academic competition has a place in the educational process, but the decision making you describe, based on insignificant GPA differences, is not really competition at all, and certainly not beneficial to students or to the society at large.

Having lived in Europe for 12 years, I saw something similar to what you mention in the German system of public education, although I also understand that changes have been made more recently to modify the "testing as destiny" model which has deep historical roots, to some degree, in all Germanic educational systems.  

Albert Einstein, of course a German himself,  was, early in his career, denied a university position in theoretical physics, and was relegated to the Swiss patent office based on less than stellar performance in several courses at the Zurich Technical University, as well as due to unenthusiastic recommendation letters from several professors there. Not until well after a series of brilliant papers (including special theory of relativity) in 1905, did his scientific career begin to blossom.

Best, David