• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Brain-boosting drugs


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 09 November 2007 - 03:11 PM


Brain-boosting drugs spark ethical debate in UK

08 Nov 2007 13:43:36 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Ben Hirschler

LONDON, Nov 8 (Reuters) - A rise in healthy people popping pills to boost performance in exams or work, raises long-term ethical and safety concerns about the effects of such treatments, British doctors said on Thursday.

The British Medical Association (BMA) wants a public debate about the risks and benefits of using drugs to improve memory and concentration, sometimes called "cognitive enhancement".

The ability of prescription drugs and medical procedures to improve intellectual performance is likely to increase significantly in the next 20 to 30 years as technology advances.

"We know that there is likely to be a demand by healthy individuals for this treatment," Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's Medical Ethics Committee said at the launch of a discussion paper on the issue.

"However, given that no drug or invasive medical procedure is risk free, is it ethical to make them available to people who are not ill?"

Surreptitious use of brain-boosting prescription drugs is particularly common in the United States and likely to increase in Britain, the BMA said.

"There is a growing expectation that the use of these so-called cognitive enhancers in the UK is both imminent and inevitable," the BMA said.

Today, the use of pharmaceutical aids to boost performance is mainly confined to certain groups -- notably students cramming for exams. Popular choices include drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, such as Ritalin, or methylphenidate, made by Novartis AG <NOVN.VX> and others. Another favourite is modafinil, the active ingredient in Cephalon Inc's <CEPH.O> narcolepsy medicine Provigil. Such drugs are widely available to buy online.

BOTOX FOR THE BRAIN

In the future scientists may be able to provide more permanent fixes for bad memory or poor concentration through brain stimulation and neurotechnology.

This would involve techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation -- sometimes referred to as "botox for the brain" -- where magnetic pulses are used to stimulate particular brain regions, and deep brain stimulation, where electrodes are inserted into the brain to transmit tiny electrical currents.

These and future medical interventions could benefit individuals and, potentially, wider society, if they increase the competitiveness of the workforce.

But "over-enhancement" of the brain's cognitive functions could have damaging side-effects.

It may, for instance, impair a normal brain's ability to selectively filter out trivial or traumatic information, resulting in the individual being plagued by unwanted or traumatic memories.
(Reporting by Ben Hirschler; Editing by Golnar Motevalli)

#2 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 09 November 2007 - 07:05 PM

But "over-enhancement" of the brain's cognitive functions could have damaging side-effects.

It may, for instance, impair a normal brain's ability to selectively filter out trivial or traumatic information, resulting in the individual being plagued by unwanted or traumatic memories.


Well, I think it would be cool if you could remember everything that happened to you. I wonder how much you could cram into your brain before running out of storage space.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,079 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 09 November 2007 - 08:54 PM

I can see the safety side of the issue but not the ethical side. Humans have always used whatever means available to improve their lot in life, brain enahncers are no different. I find it repugnant that governments would ban safe supplements because the supps might help students cram for an exam. It just seems silly to me.

#4 graatch

  • Guest
  • 390 posts
  • 5
  • Location:the USA

Posted 10 November 2007 - 01:23 AM

Well, I think it would be cool if you could remember everything that happened to you. I wonder how much you could cram into your brain before running out of storage space.


Read:

"Funes The Memorious"
http://evans-experie....com/borges.htm

#5 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 10 November 2007 - 03:43 AM

I can see the safety side of the issue but not the ethical side. Humans have always used whatever means available to improve their lot in life, brain enahncers are no different. I find it repugnant that governments would ban safe supplements because the supps might help students cram for an exam. It just seems silly to me.

From the article, it sounds like the only ethical issue they were raising was related to safety. You don't want everyone popping them if they aren't safe. If they are also concerned about "fairness" where some people are making themselves "smarter" and others can't, or won't, then that's a more nuanced point. The article, brief as it was, didn't suggest that, nor did it say anything about banning substances. The only drugs they mentioned are already controlled in that they are only available (legally) by prescription in the US.

#6 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 November 2007 - 07:17 AM

Yeah, safety is a concern, but it sounds more like the article was concerned about fairness than safety. I think it is unfair to limit anyone's ability based on the preferences of others.

#7 siberia

  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 9

Posted 10 November 2007 - 10:25 PM

But "over-enhancement" of the brain's cognitive functions could have damaging side-effects.

It may, for instance, impair a normal brain's ability to selectively filter out trivial or traumatic information, resulting in the individual being plagued by unwanted or traumatic memories.

I think it is a bit odd to include this part in the article, is there any reason to believe that people would suffer more from traumatic memories, or get more bored from remembering more details, by using these or similar nootropics (to a significant extent)? I would guess no, but am by no means very knowledgeable in this area. Or any other, for that matter.

#8 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 10 November 2007 - 11:55 PM

Read:

"Funes The Memorious"
http://evans-experie....com/borges.htm


Interesting, is that a true story?

#9 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 11 November 2007 - 05:04 AM

Yeah, safety is a concern, but it sounds more like the article was concerned about fairness than safety. I think it is unfair to limit anyone's ability based on the preferences of others.


What part of the article makes you think that it's concerned about fairness? I've read it several times, and I must be missing it.

#10 eldar

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 November 2007 - 09:38 AM


Read:

"Funes The Memorious"
http://evans-experie....com/borges.htm


Interesting, is that a true story?


Unfortunately it seems to be fiction.
http://en.wikipedia....,_the_Memorious

I found it to be interesting nonetheless. There are people who have phenomenal memory in real life too. Although it usually seems to occur in people with autistic characteristics.

#11 graatch

  • Guest
  • 390 posts
  • 5
  • Location:the USA

Posted 11 November 2007 - 11:00 AM

Interesting, is that a true story?


In a way!

Unfortunately it seems to be fiction.


I disagree that there is anything unfortunate about this work of art.

Anyway, fiction often holds the greatest truth, if you require such a justification for beauty and rarity. *shrug*

#12 jubai

  • Guest
  • 130 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 November 2007 - 03:35 PM

The "safety" aspects also seems extremely silly and Big Brother-esque to me.

So what if people are popping 100mg modafinil a day, a supplement used for a long time and proven as safe?

Can we honestly compare the danger of supplements like this one to the thousands of harmful substances that are approved by the government, kill millions and are in contact with us on a daily baisis?

I'll take my modafinil over your government-approved (and encouraged) sugar, refined and processed food, cigarette, alcohol, hundreds of pesticides and insecticides, crapload of heavy metals in the environment, toxic toys, toxic air, polluted water, soil, animals, irradiated food, hundreds of petrol-based rejects and sub-products...

Thanks for your concern, but please deal with the real issues and the real dangers...

#13 blazewind

  • Member
  • 77 posts
  • 7
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 November 2007 - 02:07 AM

IMO smart drugs with few side effects + less intelligent genetics = the same as more intelligent genetics.

#14 khanzas

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 1

Posted 12 November 2007 - 11:00 PM

IMO smart drugs with few side effects + less intelligent genetics = the same as more intelligent genetics.


Interesting. I suppose it's true. Someone who's more dim than I am could perform at the same level if using smart drugs (or I may be the dim one, performing better :D).

Roll on the cybernetic implants tbh.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#15 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 13 November 2007 - 03:43 AM

I'll take my modafinil over your government-approved (and encouraged) sugar, refined and processed food, cigarette, alcohol, hundreds of pesticides and insecticides, crapload of heavy metals in the environment, toxic toys, toxic air, polluted water, soil, animals, irradiated food, hundreds of petrol-based rejects and sub-products...


What have you got against irradiated food?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users