Smart Drugs At Work: How Job Pressure Could Push Employees To Enhance Their Brains

Bioethics research student Caleb Atere has raised concerns that intense competition in modern workplaces could indirectly pressure employees into using cognitive enhancers, even when employers have not explicitly instructed them to do so.

Atere argued that workers may begin to feel compelled to use substances or technologies designed to improve alertness, concentration and mental performance when they believe their colleagues are gaining an advantage through such methods.

According to Bush Radio Academy, the researcher explained that workplace pressure can make what appears to be a personal decision feel like a professional necessity. In sectors such as healthcare, law and journalism, where long working hours, demanding schedules and strict deadlines are common, employees may fear that refusing cognitive enhancers could leave them struggling to meet performance expectations.

He described the situation as a form of indirect coercion, in which workers are not formally ordered to enhance their cognitive abilities but may feel that declining could put their careers, promotions or income at risk.

Atere noted that workplace habits that initially appear optional can gradually become normal expectations. He cited constant availability through email and the widespread use of caffeine as examples of practices that have become routine in many professional environments.

However, he stressed that cognitive enhancement raises additional concerns because some methods may involve prescription medications, potential medical complications and uncertain long-term effects. These risks, he argued, make it necessary to examine whether employees can genuinely make voluntary decisions when their professional prospects appear to depend on enhanced performance.

The researcher also warned that certain categories of workers could be more vulnerable to such pressure. Employees in junior positions, those with insecure jobs and individuals working in highly competitive industries may feel they have fewer opportunities to reject cognitive enhancers without risking their livelihoods.

Atere further highlighted the possibility of widening inequality, arguing that workers who can afford higher-quality products may gain an advantage, while those with fewer financial resources could resort to cheaper alternatives that may carry greater risks.

To address these concerns, he called for clear workplace policies guaranteeing that employees would not face discrimination or professional penalties for refusing to use cognitive enhancers.

He also urged employers to tackle the underlying causes of workplace fatigue and declining performance, including excessive workloads and inadequate rest, rather than allowing employees to feel that they must rely on substances to cope with demanding conditions.

In addition, Atere advocated access to reliable, independent information about the potential benefits and risks of cognitive enhancement. He said policymakers and professional organisations should also establish appropriate ethical and legal safeguards, particularly in industries where workers’ performance can directly affect public safety and trust.

While supporters of cognitive enhancement maintain that adults should have the freedom to make decisions about improving their mental performance, Atere argued that such freedom becomes questionable when refusing to participate carries possible professional consequences.

He maintained that employers, regulators and society must ensure that cognitive enhancement remains a genuine personal choice rather than an unwritten requirement for retaining employment or advancing a career.

The discussion forms part of a series examining the ethical and policy implications of cognitive enhancement. The next instalment is expected to explore whether students’ use of so-called smart drugs during examinations should be considered a matter of personal choice or an unfair academic advantage.