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
I believe I counted seven authors on the Nature article. Where is the evidence that "most scientists agree" that taking drugs for cognitive enhancement ought to be permissible, as the next-to-last paragraph states? I wholeheartedly agree with other posters that any "enhancement" is only good for the duration of your dosage, making it a crutch that could easily lead to addiction.
Also, there's enough pressure to work harder, longer, faster, without setting the bar at a level only achievable by being hopped up on amphetamines. People might argue that workers would be able to work less because they'd be more productive, but I believe these drugs would become like faxes or mobile technology -- once a time-saver, now a requirement that accelerates that pace of work and makes it harder to live a life separate from it.
Disagree with your first point and agree with your second.
I've been "enhanced" by several drugs that have had very positive and life-long lessons as a result.
The military gives meth to their pilots and ground troops to keep them allert for many more hrs a day.
That drug is already there; makes you both happy and intellectually stimulated, amongst other things : Viagra and Cialis!!
..."Imagine a pill that could make yoU smarter and happier"...there ALREADY IS something avaiable to virtually all that can make one smarter and happier, - not to mention healthier and age more slowly- that you are overlooking. in our oral-passive society, so many overlook that one thing that leads to real transient and longer- term changes in mood and cognitive acuity-.and that one thing is REGULAR CARDIOVASCULAR EXERCISE!...free, legal, reliable, portable and coming in many varieties...so get off the darned couch and out from musing behind the computer screen!
Exercise needs to be banned! Fortunately only a small minority of the US population will be affected.
In my teenage days I was one of those who was too smart for my own good. School came easy and as a consequence of that I got into illicit drugs (just to combat the boredom)... everything from psychedelics to amphetamines to everything in between. Many times I would show up at school "tweeked" out and I can vouch that I breezed through more than a few tests. On one occassion I took an AP Euro History test and finished the multiple hour multiple choice portion in about half an hour (without it I still probably would have finished in only an hour) and I earned a very high score which placed me ahead of the majority of my fellow students. Other times I aced foreign language test on psychedelics. I'm not gloating about my exploits. I just wanted to point out that the claims made here aren't so off base.
On the other hand, all those illicit drugs definitely turned out to be detrimental to my future. Years after I've quit all hard drugs I'm still trying to piece back together my life and relationships. Ultimately, science should continue to examine and reexamine everything under the sun in order to identify potential benefits and risks. If the federal government could just get out of the way of science (by eliminating the idea of Schedule I drugs) and allow there to be comprehensive research than I think we could unlock some useful ways to take advantage of what's out there.
There are many legal natural stimulants that are in popular use. For example, siberian ginseng and bee propolis, in combination, are considered to be stimulants that are used throughout Asia to combat fatigue, and has even been recommended for those on cancer chemo. Not known to be addictive, these and others safe alternatives are easily available in health food stores.
And don't forget caffeine--sweet,sweet caffeine.
Don't take this the wrong way, but given how your life has turned out, perhaps you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.
There are different "smarts". He may have been book smart and emotionally stunted. The benefits of so called smart drugs should still be researched and considered seriously.
Comparing a chemical reaction in the brain to using a computer is like some winger saying Bush kept us safe AFTER 9/11, hooey.
Popping those pills will likely have some effect so long as the pills continue to be popped, but not after. Addiction by necessity.
Convincing people, young and old, that thinking and learning are not bad things should be the goal.
It's true that calculus and physics can seem useless to high schoolers (I still have no need to know the rate a liquid exits a cone), but addition and subtraction, and undertanding what happens when a car going 70 hits a patch of ice on the freeway, are valuable.
More emphasis on the fundamental fundamentals, resulting in comprehension of the subject, could result in a willingness to use the brain and thereby increase learning throughout life.
Brain-enhancing drugs, yes, BigPharma would love this. After watching my son deteriorate from drugs such as RItalin, Dexedrine and Depakote, and watching my life and my brain deteriorate thanks to six years on Paxil, I have a very strong opinion about messing with people's brains, period. I am in a support forum where a lot of young adults are now suffering massively from the drugs they were put on as children (most notably Ritalin, SSRIs, benzos, and other psychotropics). Many of them are now spending their young adult lives trying to connect with who are they supposed to be and working on reversing the brain damage these drugs do -- cognitive problems, damaged nervous systems, damaged sleep patterns, depersonalization, etc. -- the list is pretty extensive. Here is the address of the site if you're interested in researching some of this: PaxilProgress.org.
The "trade-offs," such as you talk about in your article,are truly heartbreaking when you see it and/or experience it in real life. The biggest trade-off is, indeed, the emotional damage. And, lastly, we have the problem with profit-over-safety, the true mantra of BigPharma and something that has been written about widely.
Any thought towards legalization or recommendation of any of the central stimulants ("speed")is beyond belief!..drugs of this class are highly addictive, habituating, and extremely dangerous to both the user and to society...they induce psychosis and are very well known to cause severe cardiac problems, including sudden death...they cause permanent changes in neurotransmitter function and eventually produce a form of kindled limbic epilepsy...
there is an extensive literature both in the field of neuropharmacology as well as criminality that documents the effects of these drugs....
From the crime wave resulting from the dumping of methamphetamine used by the military after WW11 to the murders in the Haight Ashbury in the late '60s, as well as the disastrous sequel to Sweden's experiment with loosening up restrictions on these drugs a couple of generations ago that seems now to be forgotten, it is a certainty that the central stimulants should remain strongly controlled.
Note that drug companies can make enormous profits from these drugs..SKF has in an earlier era been dubbed "the House that speed built"
TRULY--SPEED KILLS ! ! !
Well, think about that with your air force and navy. Fatigue kills too. Isn't the world complicated.
There is one significant problem with the use of these medications. If one were to employ one to boost performance on a test, unless a person would be under it's influence permanently, the result on such a test would represent a spike rather than a true indication of their capabilities !
As a former teacher, I really don't like the idea of encouraging the use of drugs for any reason. Drugs become crutches that when not taken give individuals and excuse for their lack of performance.
No not a fan of the idea.
That is a gross oversimplification. Would you discourage the use of aspirin to relieve a headache? Would you discourage the use of a prescription drug to control blood pressure?
Of course not. The problem here is that the word "drug" has a meaning that excludes "bad" ones from "good" ones. The difference is what is socially acceptable at the time.
For example, cocaine used to be sold over the counter in drug stores and even was mixed into Coca Cola! For a long time, no one thought that it was a "bad" drug. Now, it is.
Same thing with marijuana, which is technically more of an herb than a drug really. Pot is illegal, but alcohol isn't. But what is the distinction based on? Science? Hardly.
We need some rationality and reason, not just propaganda and fear.
Agreed! I also think that human beings are *wired* toward the alteration of consciousness, whether that is a 6 year old kid "twirling" in his yard to get that "drunk" feeling, or someone eating chocolate, or smoking cigarettes, or drinking a nightly cocktail, or smoking a joint or drinking a double mocha coffee. We are a drug taking society - whether that be aspirin, or marijuana, cold medicine or cocaine, valium or viagra, etc. As long as scientists and doctors tell us we need them, and tv and print/magazine/internet ads show us what's out there, people will do drugs. We will probably see an increase in drinking, smoking, anti-depressants, chocolate sales, anti-anxiety meds, etc. as the economy worsens. People will be looking for an escape from their pain - whether physical, emotional or mental.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
