Introduction: Military and Commercial Context, Study Aim
The sanctioned use of stimulants—including modafinil—has a long history in military settings, though academic work on modafinil in this context is limited (21). In these scenarios, modafinil is taken to counteract the cognitive effects of sleep loss rather than to treat narcolepsy. Commercial interest also exists: in 2018, Red Bull filed a patent for a modafinil analogue (CE-123) aimed at improving motivation, cognitive function, and reference memory (22).

Against this backdrop, the present study examined whether university students regard modafinil-based cognitive enhancement as a form of cheating. Using a scenario-based survey, we first captured students’ initial judgments and then tested how views shifted when respondents considered factors often discussed in the literature: whether modafinil-enhanced performance is an authentic reflection of ability, the risk of coercion, equality of access, and parallels with other enhancers such as caffeine (15). Participants were then asked again whether modafinil use should count as cheating.

Discussion
Most students did not classify non-prescription modafinil online use by healthy, non–sleep-deprived peers as cheating, and this position changed little after they reviewed the framing considerations above. Common justifications referenced legal non-prescription stimulants (e.g., caffeine) and the belief that provigil does not confer new knowledge or skills. A minority did view the practice as cheating and defended that view strongly, while only a small share (about 6–8%) were unsure. Reported personal use without a prescription was 11.5%, aligning with recent UK data (8). Respondents generally rejected the claim that modafinil renders performance inauthentic but agreed that widespread use could pressure others to take it.

Qualitative analysis clarified these patterns. The dominant “attention” theme (focus, concentration, alertness, tiredness) showed that students understood modafinil’s perceived effects. Themes around “intelligence” (knowledge, study, performance, abilities) and “solution” indicated a common view that the drug does not alter underlying ability—an interpretation consistent with literature suggesting modest gains in domains such as processing speed but no reliable, meaningful improvements in memory (25, 26).

Whether such effects translate into better grades under real assessment conditions remains unresolved. A robust answer would require randomized controlled comparisons (modafinil vs placebo vs no-treatment) across varied assignment formats and lengths. An alternative pathway is extended study time via increased wakefulness—akin to military use (21). While likely unsustainable long-term due to accumulating sleep debt, short-term benefits around exam periods are plausible. Definitive conclusions will depend on more ecologically valid designs than those available from current laboratory studies.

Discussion: Legality, Ethics, and Broader Implications

The qualitative results suggest that students’ views on whether modafinil use constitutes cheating often depend on its legal or institutional status rather than on broader moral reasoning. Within the “legality” theme, participants emphasized the role of official rules, noting, for example, that “it is not illegal to buy modafinil without a prescription, so the student acted lawfully.” For these individuals, stricter regulation—such as reclassifying modafinil to make possession without a prescription illegal—could change their perception of fairness and potentially reduce misuse. This may also explain why modafinil is more commonly used among students compared to methylphenidate or amphetamine, both of which are Schedule II substances and therefore prohibited to possess without a prescription in the UK.

Conversely, Red Bull’s efforts to patent a modafinil analogue for cognitive enhancement (22) indicate that if such compounds became legally available, usage could increase substantially. Participants frequently drew parallels between modafinil and legal stimulants like caffeine, tea, and energy drinks, as well as with doping in sports, highlighting how perceptions of legitimacy depend on regulation and social norms.

Two additional themes reflected concerns about potential harms. Some participants mentioned an imbalance between benefits and risks, echoing previous findings (9), and others raised fears of addiction or long-term dependence, though current evidence suggests this risk is low (3). There was also a perception that students using modafinil take health risks that place non-users at a relative disadvantage—an argument consistent with earlier research (27).

Notably, these opinions did not shift after participants were provided with additional context. The second phase of qualitative analysis suggested that views became even more aligned around comparisons with caffeine and the belief that provigil online cannot create new knowledge or skills.

The study used the Prolific online participant platform—a first for this type of research. Strict data quality checks ensured high reliability, with no participants excluded. Although the sample size was moderate, it compares favourably with similar studies on cognitive enhancer use among UK students (28–31).

Certain limitations remain. Factors beyond those explored here may influence whether students view modafinil use as cheating. Modafinil’s inclusion on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s list of banned substances (32) reinforces its controversial status, especially in skill-based competitions such as chess, where modest improvements in performance have been observed—comparable to caffeine—and associated with longer decision times (33). While some argue that modafinil should remain banned to avoid a culture of suspicion (34), earlier surveys show that only a small fraction of chess players report using it or believing it enhances their play (35).

Other studies have suggested that modafinil may yield stronger cognitive effects in individuals with lower baseline IQs (still within the normal range, e.g., 106 vs 115) (36), raising ethical questions about access and equality (37). More recent work indicates that users who take modafinil for cognitive enhancement often score higher on measures of inattention and procrastination, suggesting self-medication for undiagnosed ADHD symptoms. However, modafinil is not currently recommended as a treatment for ADHD in the UK.

Taken together, these findings highlight the complexity of evaluating cognitive enhancers in academic settings. Both quantitative and qualitative research are needed to clarify the ethical dimensions surrounding their use. This is particularly relevant given recent commercial efforts, such as Red Bull’s patent for a provigil analogue (22).

Finally, modafinil’s current legal position is ambiguous. Most other stimulants banned by WADA are classified as Schedule II in the UK and clearly illegal without prescription, while caffeine remains fully legal. Modafinil sits between these extremes—legal to possess but unavailable over the counter. Further input from policymakers, educators, parents, and legislators is needed to determine whether regulations should be relaxed to allow controlled, supported use, or tightened to restrict access and guide students toward appropriate medical or academic support.