20% of scientists in an informal survey admitted to using ‘cognitive enhancing’ drugs
Here are the results of the poll David mentioned in his post about brain enhancement drugs last month.
We asked specifically about three drugs: methylphenidate (Ritalin), a stimulant normally used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder but well-known on college campuses as a ’study aid’; modafinil (Provigil), prescribed to treat sleep disorders but also used off-label to combat general fatigue or overcome jet lag; and beta blockers, drugs prescribed for cardiac arrhythmia that also have an anti-anxiety effect.Link (via Daily Grail)The most popular of the drugs used by respondents to Nature’s poll seem to have fairly mild neuroenhancing effects, says Chatterjee, who calls the massive media interest in these drugs “neurogossip”. Nevertheless, the numbers suggest a significant amount of drug-taking among academics. As Eisen’s April Fool’s prank [about about a NIH crackdown brain doping] spread from blog to blog, it was hard to tell who was in on the joke and who was taking the announcement at face value. Although tricking people was a goal, Eisen had been aiming for something so ridiculous that most would chuckle. Instead, he worries that he might have hit a nerve: “I think it did make it less funny because it is actually too real.”
the latest
latest episodes
is BoingBoing a drug?
This chart is also proof that more people aged 45-55 lie about their reasons for using drugs ;)
Doping is threatening the integrity of science.
In other news, 78% of professional artists and musicians admitted to using ‘creativity enhancing’ drugs, such as Caffeine, Ethyl Alcohol, and Tetrahydrocannabinol. Another 14% admitted to participating in dangerous behavior like driving fast and sleep deprivation to stimulate creative output. A statistically insignificant number stated they "read books", "write" and "take walks" to try to come up with new ideas.
Um, the best, cheapest, safest neuro-enhancer is already used by approximately ~90% of adult Americans already.
..Marshmallow Peeps?
@5: If you're talking about caffeine, then perhaps it's one of the cheaper and safer ones, but hardly the "best". For starters, people react to drugs differently. For me, caffeine just makes me jittery -- perhaps a bit more alert.
If this means we'll have to wait even one less day for a vaccine for HIV, I say go for it.
I would be hesitant to people using this to improve exam results, but then not take it during their working life. Because that would mean having to wait longer for a vaccine.
Science is competitive, yes, but it's not a competition - 'fairness' is irrelevant, only results matter.
ive been looking for this kind of stuff for ages. If only someone would send me an unsolicited email offering to sell me some. Anyone...?
Coffee is my drug of choice. And Boing Boing is a drug. I now feel sad/uncomfortable when I can't make it here. Some of this stuff is so interesting. And many of the people here seem very nice and very intelligent and I just feel lucky to have finally found it. It is a place with wonderful stuff.
Is the issue of tolerance and dependency being completely overlooked here?
If you use these types of chemicals long-term to enhance your attention or reduce anxiety, it seems inevitable that you gradually adjust to the enhancement and become psychologically - if not physiologically - dependent on it.
I mean, that's what happens with caffeine, right? People who have two cups of coffee in the morning for years might have felt extra-awake at the beginning, but now they can't feel awake at all without it. They're no longer "enhanced", just addicted.
Surely scientists with all their sciency wisdom would be hip to this? I wonder what the results for neuropharmacologists specifically were?
Zikzak, I've gone off of regular coffee and tea at times, but then I always fall back. I just need a kick right about now! Instead I'll go ride my bike. I have addicts in my family and stay away from all of it! With the exception of pain killers and anything I can smoke ;)
Um, couple of different things wrong with this study:
1) It's a survey of readers, not, say, a survey of NAS or NIH scientists.
2) Probably a large number are students. 1 in 5 seems, if anything, too low for students.
3) Most of these are the ADD treatment drugs of Adderall, Dexedrine, and Ritalin, etc.
What possible argument can you make against this? You might make an comparison to performance enhancing drugs in sport. But we're not talking about sport. If a researcher can get a viable cancer treatment in 3 years instead of 5 (or an HIV vaccine, or whatever) by pulling the occasional amphetamine-fueled all night-er, who wants to complain?
Finally, if anybody can tell me why it's ok to give this sort of drug to a hyperactive 9-year-old, and not OK to prescribe these drugs to an adult who has not only more insight into their own condition, but the choice to take the drug or not, I'm listening.