Note to high achievers: Before you ask Santa for a stocking full of Adderall, a moment of caution. It may not work.

"Smart drugs" like Adderall and Ritalin are wildly popular on college campuses, particularly in the United States. They're prescribed for attention deficit disorder, but used, increasingly, by people without a diagnosis who are simply looking for a mental boost. And it's not just a college thing anymore—the use of stimulants is on the rise among adult professionals.

But beneath all the noise over whether the use of Adderall constitutes an unfair advantage for college kids and others, like doping in baseball, lies a surprise. Scientists are having a hard time showing that Adderall and Ritalin, when used as "smart pills," actually work.

In study after study examining the effect of the drugs on so-called healthy subjects, the findings have been underwhelming. At best, the drugs show a small effect; more often, researchers come up with negative findings—unable to show a clear-cut, across the board improvement on any of a wide variety of tasks, from those measuring memory, to mental flexibility, to concentration, to impulse control.

In a recent study at Dr. Martha Farah's lab at the University of Pennsylvania, researchers have added a new layer to the "smart pill" conversation. Adderall, they've found, makes you think you're doing better than you actually are.

Tell that to the respondents to a 2007 Nature survey. The magazine, foremost among the blue-chip science journals, conducted an informal poll on its own readership—most of whom are scientists, or scientists in training. Of 1,400 respondents, one in five reported they'd used drugs "to stimulate their focus, concentration or memory," in the absence of a medical diagnosis. A 2008 study by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that 12.3 percent of Americans between 21 and 25 used stimulants for nonmedical purposes.

Those subjects who had been given Adderall were significantly more likely to report that the pill had caused them to do a better job.

Neuroethics, a field concerned with the questions of right and wrong that accompany progress in brain research, has swarmed around the issue of "cognitive enhancement." Adderall is conceived of as "an academic steroid." If some are taking it, will everyone with an interest in gaining an edge feel compelled to follow suit?

"Sometimes I think about how Marion Jones has to return all the prize money she earned while taking steroids, and I wonder whether I should be stripped of all the As I received for papers written on Adderall," Molly Young wrote in a personal essay for n+1.

But the results of the new University of Pennsylvania study, funded by the U.S. Navy and not yet published but presented at the annual Society for Neuroscience conference last month, are consistent with much of the existing research. As a group, no overall statistically significant improvement or impairment was seen as a result of taking Adderall.

The research team tested 47 subjects, all in their 20s, all without a diagnosis of ADHD, on a variety of cognitive functions, from working memory—how much information they could keep in mind and manipulate—to raw intelligence, to memories for specific events and faces. Each subject was tested both while on Adderall and on a placebo; in each condition, the subjects didn't know which kind of pill they were receiving.

The researchers did come up with one significant finding. The last question they asked their subjects was: "How and how much did the pill influence your performance on today's tests?" Those subjects who had been given Adderall were significantly more likely to report that the pill had caused them to do a better job on the tasks they'd been given, even though their performance did not show an improvement over that of those who had taken the placebo.

According to Irena Ilieva, the Ph.D. candidate who led the research team, it's the first time since the 1960s that a study on the effects of amphetamine, a close cousin of Adderall, has asked how subjects perceive the effect of the drug on their performance.

Of course, the finding that Adderall gives a person an inflated sense of productivity and accomplishment is not surprising—the drug unleashes the feel-good neurotransmitter dopamine, triggers the brain's reward system, and can produce a mild sense of euphoria. It feels great, so are we surprised that those who use it believe they've done a fabulous job?

What's interesting about the study's finding is that it dodges the trap that snares much of the research on stimulant medication. One reason it's hard to conclusively decide whether Adderall works as a " smart pill" is because its effects are so diffuse. Are we talking about concentration? Memory? Energy? Motivation? Creativity? All of these factors are related to cognitive enhancement, but they're difficult to disentangle. Researchers have plenty of ways to get at concrete, specific questions like how well subjects learn a list of digits and for how long they remember then. Much harder to measure scientifically is the advantage that one gains in the long term from a chemically induced zest for completing whatever task is at hand. "If you're actually finding that dry history book more interesting, then you will get it read in time for the test," said Farah.

But Farah's new study focuses in on the gap between what the subjects have achieved versus what they think they've achieved. This illusory feeling of benefit is an important finding in its own right. It stands independently from the complicating questions of how, precisely, Adderall lends a hand to those who are taking it nonmedically.

Interestingly, when Farah set out to investigate the effects of smart pills like Adderall, she wasn't wondering if they worked. "I assumed they did," she said. Now, she said, "There's a huge, obvious empirical question here: Are they really helping?"

Casey Schwartz is a graduate of Brown University and has a master's degree in psychodynamic neuroscience from University College London. She has previously written for The New York Sun and ABC News. Currently, she's working on a book about the brain world.

If you love The Daily Beast’s royal coverage, then we hope you’ll enjoy The Royalist, an all-new members-only series for Beast Inside. Become a member to get it in your inbox on Sunday.

There was much scorn poured on Prince William this week after he took to the stage of the British Academy of Film and Theatre Arts (BAFTA), of which he is president, and expressed dismayed amazement at its all-white and overly male short-lists.

Prince William used his speech at the so-called British Oscars to voice his concerns about the lack of diversity among the award winners after all 20 stars nominated for acting awards were white, and the shortlist for best director was all-male.

He said: “In 2020, and not for the first time in the last few years, we find ourselves talking again about the need to do more to ensure diversity in the sector and in the awards process—that simply cannot be right in this day and age.

“BAFTA take this issue seriously, and following this year’s nominations, have launched a full and thorough review of the entire awards process to build on their existing work and ensure that opportunities are available to everyone.”

The Times (of London) headlined a subsequent story about William and the significance of the speech: “Woke William: A Millennial Prince Comes of Age.” Right-wing commentator James Delingpole in Breitbart said William’s speech deserved an award of its own for “glib, canting, thick as pigshit idiocy by a really not that bright heir to the throne,” and the “weapons-grade moronitude which poured forth from his privileged gob.”

There was also a tidal wave of social media opprobrium from the left, which crashed down upon William the next day.

These critics accused William of rank hypocrisy, saying that it was a bit rich for him to be telling the Academy to level up their race relations game, given that the biggest soap opera of all, the British royal family has notably failed, in recent weeks, to hang on to its own only non-white cast member, Meghan Markle.

It’s an entirely legitimate reaction to William’s comments, of course, and there is little doubt that what they perceived as racist attitudes were a factor in Meghan and Harry’s departure from the U.K., and from their day-to-day royal duties.

Most reasonable and disinterested judges, presented with some of the more offensive headlines and chimp jokes of the past few years, would not seriously dispute the recent “crystal clear” assertion of John Bercow, former speaker of the British House of Commons, that Meghan was “the victim of explicit and obnoxious racism.”

Be that as it may, William’s comments on Sunday night were a clear attempt to reclaim his onetime position as an upper-class warrior for diversity, and may be interpreted as a signpost, telegraphing his determination to continue using his position to campaign directly for racial and gender equality, much as Harry and Meghan may consider that their turf.

Roll your eyes if you must, but, once rolled, remember that the roots of William’s activism go back to the ground-breaking example set by his mother, Princess Diana.

She was the first member of the royal family to embrace LGBTQ people as equals—and as dear friends, spanning the very famous (Elton John), to her dear friend Adrian Ward-Jackson, who died with AIDS in 1991, and with whom Diana sat during the final moments of his life.

Indeed, Diana made headlines when she held hands with a dying AIDS patient at the Middlesex Hospital in 1987, and in a 1991 speech she said: “HIV does not make people dangerous to know, so you can shake their hands and give them a hug. Heaven knows they need it.”

Elton, one of Diana’s best friends, said of her AIDS activism: “AIDS was considered to be a gay disease. For someone who was within the Royal Family and who was a woman, and who was straight, to have someone care from the other side, was an incredible gift.”

Diana would take William and Harry to HIV charities and homeless shelters, making them by far the most worldly-wise royal kids in recent memory.

Although gay staff have always kept the palace machine running (long-term gay employees were less likely to have children, and family-appropriate accommodation at the palace is in short supply, whereas single rooms are plentiful), they were often required to keep their sexuality as a kind of open secret.

Incredibly, the Queen did not have an openly gay footman until 2017, and he quit in 2018 amidst accusations of homophobia.

One famous story of the Queen Mother referring to two of her servants as “two old queens” serving “this old queen” is often given as evidence of her marvelous sense of fun and lack of prejudice, but some have found in it evidence of a deeply patronizing streak towards gay people.

As the veteran LGBT activist Peter Tatchell has pointed out, since the queen ascended the throne in 1952, the words “gay” and “lesbian” have never publicly passed her lips. Prince Philip’s history of racist and sexist comments, often presented as hilarious “gaffes” which shed light on his simple humanity, is also well known.

Charles has never been openly racist like his father, although the isolation and privilege in which he was reared meant that friendships were carefully curated for him, with little effort made to bring him into contact with anything vaguely resembling “the other” as a young man.

William and Harry, however, had a completely different experience, thanks of course to the influence of Diana who surrounded herself, simply, with people—including people of color and LGBTQ people.

Diana got involved with countless charities that dealt with ignored, derided and underprivileged sections of society, and was particularly famous for her work with the homeless. She became a patron of the London-based Centrepoint charity for the homeless, a role William took up after her death.

In 2015, William gave a notable interview to British gay magazine Attitude, in which he deplored homophobic bullying and discussed how he would react if his kids came out (he said he’d support them but would be “nervous” about the bullying and abuse they might face).

The Daily Beast contacted several charities William works with but, understandably, they didn’t want to talk about their famous patron. The palace was also reluctant to discuss William’s charitable ambitions, but it seems safe to assume that he won’t be shying away from charities that promote social inclusion anytime soon.

The writer Christopher Andersen, author of the best selling biography Diana’s Boys, about the princes as young men, told The Daily Beast, “Diana adored Harry, but she always saw William as the more sensitive, empathetic, perceptive, and socially-conscious of the two. That burden has always fallen on the Heir. After all, it’s William who will be King and have a real shot at bringing about change.

“William couldn’t have picked a bigger stage than BAFTA to stake his claim on being the royal brother with the social conscience.

“On the other hand, it’s been Harry and not William who has really repeatedly bucked the system, by marrying Meghan Markle and then by striking out on his own in an unprecedented fashion.

“In the future, we can expect to see William and Harry vying for the title of Most Woke Royal.”