Scientists Endorse "Brain Boost" Drugs: Beginning of End of Drug War?
I have long argued, sometimes jokingly, that the solution to many drug policy problems is better drugs. If a drug was developed that did not produce physical dependence, did not create an escalating desire for more that interfered with work or love, reliably produced a high and was not physically harmful to the brain or other organs, it would be difficult to make a case that its use should be criminalized.
Today in the leading scientific journal Nature, researchers argue that drugs that "boost the brain" should similarly be permitted if they are safe and effective. Here's where it gets interesting: many drugs that boost the brain also produce a high.
Amphetamine is a classic example: it can improve performance on certain tests and can certainly allow performance to continue under circumstances where exhaustion would otherwise curtail it. Amphetamine, of course, is still a problematic drug that can be addictive and is toxic to the brain in high doses. [Note: it could also be useful in addiction treatment, however: see my article on this for Time Magazine online here].
Today's Nature editorial, however, also argues against criminalizing youth who are already, in fact, using stimulants like amphetamine and the similar ADHD drug Ritalin for enhancement.
But what if there were a safe drug that could make you both smarter and happier? Some would argue that it would be wrong to allow use of this drug in academia, because it would give its users an unfair advantage.
However, some people are already genetically and environmentally blessed with brains that work more effectively than others. Why is using this drug any different than have those advantages? One doesn't choose one's parents, after all.
If the activity being "enhanced," is say, finding a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, if a safe drug can allow researchers to get there faster, who is hurt? We all benefit if doctors find cures more quickly, if scientists find green energy solutions faster and teachers become more effective at helping kids learn. It's not like a race in which there are only winners and losers--if we improve human cognition overall, we can enrich everyone.
There are arguments to be made against such drugs. One is that they will enhance inequality, because those who can afford them will now have even greater advantages than those who cannot. But this is true for being able to afford other types of enhancement like tutors and computers--and we don't ban those.
A second possible downside is that permitting use of such medications will put intolerable pressure on those who don't wish to take them to do so, just to keep up with everyone else. Again, the same is true for computers and tutors--and again, we permit those.
Of course, real drugs as opposed to hypothetical ones do carry risks, some of which will be unknown when they are introduced. For example, one might imagine a drug that increases certain cognitive skills--but with a simultaneous trade-off in reduced emotional intelligence. Or vice versa. Where the rubber hits the road with cognitive enhancement will be in which types of intelligence we are able to enhance and at what cost. "Safe" after all, is relative--nothing is completely safe.
The debate over cognitive enhancement also sheds light on drug policy with regard to straightforward recreational drugs. If people are allowed to take drugs non-medically for one purpose--cognitive enhancement, which most scientists seem to agree should be permissible--why is non-medical use for pleasure wrong? After all, people have argued for years that recreational drugs like marijuana and psychedelics enhance creativity and can offer insight--aren't those forms of intelligence? Why can we enhance some types and not others?
I'll be quite curious to see the response to Nature's call for this debate. Perhaps we might finally bring some rationality to drug policy.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There is no such phenomenon as 'boosting brainpower' through the use of narcotics, psychostimulants, or other chemical brainstate inducers.
Research clearly demonstrates that the only lasting, healthy elevation in fluid intelligence comes from novel brain training approaches that incite the production of natural proteins which not only feed new dendritic growth but strengthens existing intercellular connectivity.
Better interconnectivity among brain cells, more efficient cell-to-cell signal communication, better mental functioning.
How telling that the brain seems to exact a price against its owner when the owner refuses to rely on his or her own brain to do its job naturally.
T. Lavon Lawrence
Mental Fitness Trainer, Brain Training Author
www.dynami
Drug policy has absolutely nothing to do with science. It's determined solely by the law enforcement lobbies. That's equally true in the Democratic and Republican parties. There is no election and there is no science that will ever change American drug policy, ever.
If you don't think this is true, then first take a look at the voting patterns on marijuana reform in Michigan and Massachusetts, and then look at Obama's drug policy team.
I see a giant sign on the White House that says "Law enforcement lobbies only -- scientists and voters need not apply."
Decriminalisation of drugs should be done away with if for nothing else it is costing us so much to warehouse these people in prisons and correctional facilities that it is just plan crazy. We have the most % of people in these facilities then most of the world put together. Talk about a waste of money and the loss of productivity in this country especially when booze is one of the worst drugs in the world for causing problems in our society but we except those risks.
"This commentary ignores recent studies that show Ritalin to be ineffective in performance enhancement over a three year period and harmful to growth and development in children, yet somehow these drugs are now considered the magic bullet for adults? It should raise alarm bells," states Steve Bordley, President of TrekDesk, a treadmill desk manufacturer. "None of these medications can make the claim that they boost memory and cognitive abilities, increase the amount of small blood vessels in the brain as much as 43%, or reduce the incidence of stroke, dementia or Alzheimer's over the long term. But a daily walking regimen accomplishes this without any potential risks and a long list of additional health benefits as well. You hear very little about this because no one makes any money telling you walking is the answer."
Categorizing these drugs as "smart drugs" seems to be both an oxymoron and a brilliant marketing ploy, exploiting American's drive to be at the top of their game.
For many reasons, I'd like to see a national debate on this issue. All pros and cons laid out in an unbiased fashion from anyone who would like to opine. Nature will offer but one perspective, I'd imagine.
I’m all for decriminalizing drugs and addiction and believe that the “War on Drugs” is criminal and needs to stop immediately. My problem is with the mention of benefits of the so-called “brain boost” drugs without much mention of the horrific side effects.
Don't take my word for this, go out and find out for yourself about this. These are common side effects of these "brain-boosting" drugs, which I guess weren't important enough to mention in the article.
Hallucinations
Stroke
Suicidal thoughts
Seizures
Heart Attack
Psychosis
Violent behavior
Mania
Aggressive and hostile behavior
Blurred Vision
Depression
Liver problems
Toxic Psychosis
Stunted growth
"Zombie" demeanor
Insomnia
Itching
Involuntary tics and twitching
Chest pain
Difficulty breathing or swallowing
Slow or difficult speech
Fast, pounding, or irregular heartbeat
Obsessive behavior
Severe Addiction
Sudden Death
--This is only a fraction of the common side effects of ADHD drugs. There are many, many more horrific ones that are available for you to view here:
http://www
"Full informed consent" means that ALL the side-effects are disclosed, that alternatives to the drugs or procedure are understood, that their is choice in whether or not to participate and that the patient has FULL understanding of what they are about to venture into.
Here are 3 more words, not mentioned in the article, which will hopefully help you realize something about this subject: "Black Box Warnings".
"Don't take my word for this, go out and find out for yourself about this. These are common side effects of these "brain-boosting" drugs, which I guess weren't important enough to mention in the article."
What drugs are you talking about? She was talking about safe drugs not yet developed. "researchers argue that drugs that "boost the brain" should similarly be permitted if they are safe and effective.
Her use of amphetamines as an example was for the upside of the drug, not the drug itself. As in if researchers could find an amphetamine-like drug without the negatives, then we would be on to something.
This reminds me of a Philip K. Dick novel.
No actually, it more reminds me of an Aldous Huxley novel "Brave New World" and the drug "Soma".
My life is much happier since I take speed (Adderall) for depression. It works much better for me than antidepressants and it seems to have no ill health effects. I guess some people start to take more and more of it and get addicted but that has never happened to me (yay). I think a lot of people could benefit from it so I am sorry it is only available by prescription.
had brain surgery three years ago and adderall kept me from suicide. it isn't for everyone but you should not need an Rx.
Rational public dialogue is always good, but this article seems to suggest that drug policy should be or is tied to the toxicity of a subject, and that is a bit of sophistry.
Further, the author seems to be suggesting that there is a legitimate constitutional authority for the government to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest. That is false.
You are correct.
how many people have died from pot overdose? 0
How many have smoked pot and beat their wives?
I'm guessing zero.
I know of nobody who has died of a pot overdose. Though since pot suppresses nausea plenty of people have died of alcohol poisoning when under pots effects. Of course smoking pot places one as serious risk for cancer and other harmful health problems.
Lets not be overly simplistic in our analysis. There are plenty of risks associated with any drug use. Legal or otherwise.
One of the great problems of our time is the excessive use of legal drugs and encouraging more use of the drugs cited in the article just adds to the problem. Too many of them are used to do a quick and easy control of our beheaviors (like by parents wanting their kid to be calm and 'normal') rather than safer alternatives such as our diet, excercise and to reduce our stress levels. This use of such pills could cause a toxic mix in our bodies as other posters noted and who knows what the long term problems will be.
Better living through chemistry
You would think that everyone knows by now that all drugs can create a toxic mix in our bodies. You should know that anyone taking 6 Rx at a time will have some sort of problem and we have some people who are taking 15 to 30 drugs a day and that doesn't stop the medical industry from prescribing more drugs that have all sorts of side effects, they even prescribe another drug to stop the side effects of another drug.
I believe that certain drugs like meth and pot should be legal to many people are criminalize for using these drugs and to create meth is very dangerous and you really don't know what you are getting so if it is legal it would be standardize and safer. Less people in the prison system=saves money, less accidents creating meth=save lives, safer drugs for the consuming public. Gangs profiting from these drugs would stop=less criminal activity=safer society. It is a no brainer, who profits from the war on drugs?
The ultra wealthy already have their legacy kids on these Ivy League preparatory drugs! If anything, they will only serve to create a stronger, more entrenched master race to rule the rest of us. Just like computers or even modern textbooks being unavailable to the poor in school systems ignored by the government, these "Superman" drugs will only be available and affordable to the already empowered.
Sure adderral is great, its got me through my first year of school. Then of course you need some herb to get you to sleep which also helps in the later critiquing and reviewing. But there are millions of people who know and do this already. With 30 million regular marijuana users in our country and over 100 million people who have at least tried it, it becomes obvious to anyone who takes the time to ignore what the fed says about it and learn the real facts about its medicinal and antioxidant properties, the argument for continued criminalization becomes more and more idiotic. Im still worried about who b rock'o is going to pick for his drug czar, when you look at the rest of his cabinet the outlook is grim. Lets just hope he doesn't become a hypocrite and cave to republicans who think its being "soft" on drugs. We need to be smart on drugs.
I live in Holland...
He said before he would precribe anything try a little weed which I did. Felt great within an hour and slept like a baby with no recurring symptoms.
America is set up for Big Pharma who are dead set against MJ being legalized.
I can't believe the amount of TV adverts you have for drugs.....
America is mentally sick which I think is because of their penchant for killing and war.
With all due respect, you're making a generalization about America. There are many of us here who despise war, who did not vote for the present president, and who have suffered through the past eight years of regressive policies vacillating between anger and depression.
How would you feel if I said Holland's population consists of mentally limited tulip farmers? Exactly.
The only generalization that is universally true is that generalizations are ridiculous.
Pardon, but it is universally accepted by the medical community, whether it is formally acknowledged or not, that JustNotTrue is correct about Big Pharma. It's lobby has been the single greatest travesty of the true practice of medicine, but only those with a science background can truly attest to this. Not a generalization, a fact.
Yeah, my German and UK friends think the US is wayyyyyyyy overmedicated and I totally agree with them. The US has the crazy mentality that if you can decide what makes you sick and take a pill for it, you'll be cured. I always laugh at the long list of "side effects" on the drug companies' adverts. It just sounds like you're trading one sickness for something else.
Got E.D.? Take our pill...but may cause liver damage.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
