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

Photo
- - - - -

Recent LA Times Article On Brain Doping/Smart Drugs/Enhancement (Dec 2


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Rags847

  • Guest
  • 362 posts
  • 25

Posted 03 February 2008 - 04:51 PM


http://www.latimes.c...=la-home-center

By Karen Kaplan and Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
December 20, 2007 Forget sports doping. The next frontier is brain doping.

Drugs to build up that mental muscle
Unlike the performance enhancers that plague athletic competitions, brain drugs haven't provoked similar outrage. Academics, musicians, even poker champs use pills to sharpen their minds, legally. Labs race to develop even more.

As Major League Baseball struggles to rid itself of performance-enhancing drugs, people in a range of other fields are reaching for a variety of prescription pills to enhance what counts most in modern life.

Despite the potential side effects, academics, classical musicians, corporate executives, students and even professional poker players have embraced the drugs to clarify their minds, improve their concentration or control their emotions.

"There isn't any question about it -- they made me a much better player," said Paul Phillips, 35, who credited the attention deficit drug Adderall and the narcolepsy pill Provigil with helping him earn more than $2.3 million as a poker player.

The medicine cabinet of so-called cognitive enhancers also includes Ritalin, commonly given to schoolchildren for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and beta blockers, such as the heart drug Inderal. Researchers have been investigating the drug Aricept, which is normally used to slow the decline of Alzheimer's patients.

The drugs haven't been tested extensively in healthy people, but their physiological effects in the brain are well understood.

They are all just precursors to the blockbuster drug that labs are racing to develop.

"Whatever company comes out with the first memory pill is going to put Viagra to shame," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe.

Unlike the anabolic steroids, human growth hormone and blood-oxygen boosters that plague athletic competitions, the brain drugs haven't provoked similar outrage. People who take them say the drugs aren't giving them an unfair advantage but merely allow them to make the most of their hard-earned skills.

In the real world, there are no rules to prevent overachievers from using legally prescribed drugs to operate at peak mental performance. What patient wouldn't want their surgeon to be completely focused during a life-or-death procedure?

"If there were drugs for investment bankers, journalists, teachers and scientists that made them more successful, they would use them too," said Charles E. Yesalis, a doping researcher and emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University. "Why does anyone think this would be limited to an athlete?"

The growth of the brain drugs bears a striking resemblance to the post-World War I evolution of plastic surgery -- developed to rehabilitate badly disfigured soldiers but later embraced by healthy people who wanted larger breasts and fewer wrinkles.

The use of cognitive-enhancing drugs has been well documented among high school and college students. A 2005 survey of more than 10,000 college students found 4% to 7% of them tried ADHD drugs at least once to remain focused on exams or pull all-nighters. At some colleges, more than one-quarter of students surveyed said they had sampled the pills.

The ubiquitous mental stimulant is coffee, and a morning jolt is sufficient for many. But as scientists were developing drugs to treat serious brain disorders, they found more potent substances.

Sharon Morein-Zamir, a psychologist at Cambridge University who writes about the ethics of brain enhancement, said her interest in the medications was largely academic. But when someone she knew who had been taking Provigil for a neurological condition offered her some pills, Morein-Zamir's curiosity was piqued.

"I knew the literature and wondered what it felt like," she said.

The drug helped her focus as she worked at her computer for hours straight. But she wondered if it was a placebo effect.

"Maybe I would have gotten it done anyway," said Morein-Zamir, who launched an Internet poll Wednesday to ask scientists about their use of brain-enhancing drugs.

Philips, the poker player, started using Adderall after he was diagnosed with ADHD five years ago and later got a prescription for Provigil to further improve his focus. ADHD drugs work by increasing the level of the brain chemical dopamine, which is thought to improve attention. Provigil's mechanism of action is not well understood, but boosting the effect of dopamine is thought to be part of it.

The drugs improved his concentration during high-stakes tournaments, he said, allowing him to better track all the action at his table.

Posted ImageEmail PicturePeter Macdiarmid / Getty Images.

Unlike the performance enhancers that plague athletic competitions, brain drugs haven't provoked similar outrage. Drugs to build up that mental muscle.

"Poker is the sort of game that a lot of people can play well sporadically, but tournaments are mostly won by people who can play close to their best at all times," he said. "It requires significant mental effort to play in top form for 12 hours a day, five days in a row."

In the world of classical music, beta blockers such as Inderal have become nearly as commonplace as metronomes.

The drugs block adrenaline receptors in the heart and blood vessels, helping to control arrhythmias and high blood pressure. They also block adrenaline receptors in the brain.

"You still have adrenaline flowing in your body, but you don't feel that adrenaline rush so you're not distracted by your own nervousness," said Dr. Bernd F. Remler, a neurologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

That's why Sarah Tuck, a veteran flutist with the San Diego Symphony, takes them to stave off the jitters that musicians refer to as "rubber fingers."

"When your heart is racing and your hands are shaking and you have difficulty breathing, it is difficult to perform," said Tuck, 41, who discovered them when she began performing professionally 15 years ago.

A survey she conducted a decade ago revealed one-quarter of flutists used the pills before some or all of their performances or in high-pressure situations like auditions. She believes use is now more widespread and estimates that three-quarters of musicians she knows use the drugs at least occasionally.

Prescriptions for Inderal and other beta blockers can be readily obtained from physicians. Tuck said some doctors had told her they used the drugs themselves to calm their own nerves before making presentations at medical meetings. Musicians say their drug use is all aboveboard.

"It's not like we're sending our clubhouse attendants to BALCO to get us our Inderal," said double bassist Bruce Ridge, 44, referring to the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative that allegedly provided slugger Barry Bonds and other athletes with performance-enhancing drugs.

But cosmetic neurology, as some call it, has risks. Ritalin, Adderall and other ADHD drugs can cause headaches, insomnia and loss of appetite. Provigil can make users nervous or anxious and bring on headaches, while beta blockers can cause drowsiness, fatigue and wheezing.

One Stanford University study found that low doses of Aricept improved the performance of healthy pilots as they tried to master new skills in a flight stimulator, but the side effects -- dizziness and vomiting -- were less than desirable in a pilot.

No one has conducted thorough studies about how brain-boosting drugs would affect healthy people after weeks or months of use, said Dr. Anjan Chatterjee, a neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Negative consequences may not be limited to people who popped the pills.

Martha J. Farah, a bioethicist who teaches undergraduates at the University of Pennsylvania, said she was beginning to detect resentment toward students who used the drugs from classmates who did not. She has wondered whether improving productivity through artificial means also might undermine the value of hard work.

In an article published today in the journal Nature, Morein-Zamir and University of Cambridge neuroscientist Barbara J. Sahakian say that clear guidelines are needed to decide what's fair. It may be reasonable to ban the drugs in competitive situations, such as taking the SAT. But in other cases, they wrote, people such as airport screeners, air-traffic controllers or combat soldiers might be encouraged to take them.

With a slew of memory enhancers in development, the issues are not academic.

Memory Pharmaceuticals of Montvale, N.J., for example, is eyeing drugs to combat those pesky "senior moments" that are considered a normal part of aging.

"If there were drugs that actually made you smarter, good Lord, I have no doubt that their use would become epidemic," Yesalis said. "Just think what it would do to anybody's career in about any area. There are not too many occupations where it's really good to be dumb."

karen.kaplan@latimes.com

denise.gellene@latimes.com

Edited by Rags847, 03 February 2008 - 04:55 PM.


#2 mystery

  • Guest
  • 117 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 February 2008 - 06:54 AM

The article's main focus is on the use of stimulants for a mental performance boost. I don't think this is anything new. I don't really consider stimulants smart drugs, and don't know if there's any consensus that they boost learning and memory unless the subject is impaired in some way, e.g., fatigued or narcoleptic. Interesting read though. They aren't kidding when they mention that a real memory pill will put viagra to shame!

sponsored ad

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

#3 Rags847

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 362 posts
  • 25

Posted 04 February 2008 - 07:27 AM

The article's main focus is on the use of stimulants for a mental performance boost. I don't think this is anything new. I don't really consider stimulants smart drugs, and don't know if there's any consensus that they boost learning and memory unless the subject is impaired in some way, e.g., fatigued or narcoleptic. Interesting read though. They aren't kidding when they mention that a real memory pill will put viagra to shame!


I agree, totally. I, too, consider Modafinil to be a gentle stimulant and not a thought-creating nootropic or smart drug (such as Piracetam).
The article was really only noteworthy in that the topic of intelligence enhancement appeared in the mainstream press (the LA Times).

#4 StrangeAeons

  • Guest, F@H
  • 732 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 04 February 2008 - 07:44 AM

I wonder why stimulants and beta blockers are so famous, and yet the likes of piracetam remain so obscure. The side effect profile is a heckuva lot slimmer for piracetam; but I've noticed that when trying to explain that a drug exists that actually enhances cognition, people react with a visceral skepticism. I think it will take the mainstream a long time to accept drugs that enhance cognition, instead of allowing full utilization of "endogenous" cognition, whatever that means.

#5 Ghostrider

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

Posted 04 February 2008 - 07:45 AM

In an article published today in the journal Nature, Morein-Zamir and University of Cambridge neuroscientist Barbara J. Sahakian say that clear guidelines are needed to decide what's fair. It may be reasonable to ban the drugs in competitive situations, such as taking the SAT. But in other cases, they wrote, people such as airport screeners, air-traffic controllers or combat soldiers might be encouraged to take them.


Humm, I disagree. Sure, ban drugs in competitive situations such as the SAT, but also make the smarter kids pound a few beers before the test. Yeah, that will level the playing field. That's what happens when a 3 hour test determines 60% of the admission criteria, of course people will take anything they can to boost performance during that short period. I would really be pissed if these substances started getting banned out of "fairness". Maybe Viagra should be banned because some can't afford it.

#6 synapse

  • Guest
  • 329 posts
  • -7
  • Location:Jupiter, FL

Posted 04 February 2008 - 04:51 PM

Sounds like a lot of kids are taking ritalin these days before SATs and in some cases selling their prescription medications to fellow classmates.

Should be interesting to see how this issue plays itself out once and if the mainstream catches on.

#7 Rags847

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 362 posts
  • 25

Posted 04 February 2008 - 05:45 PM

I wonder why stimulants and beta blockers are so famous, and yet the likes of piracetam remain so obscure. The side effect profile is a heckuva lot slimmer for piracetam; but I've noticed that when trying to explain that a drug exists that actually enhances cognition, people react with a visceral skepticism. I think it will take the mainstream a long time to accept drugs that enhance cognition, instead of allowing full utilization of "endogenous" cognition, whatever that means.


It's all marketing and $, baby!
A lot of people who use Ritalin, Adderall, or Modafinil as study aids would try Piracetam and be like, "Yea, those stimulants energized me, but this Piracetam specifically increases my thought-production and processing speed - this is what I was looking for." (Degree of intelligence is usually correlated to processing speed).
But with patent laws apparently making Piracetam less lucritive for parmaceutical companies and the FDA showing little interest in it apparently because of it's low or non-existent toxicity levels, a wonderful alternative remains in the closet.
Why we don't have Red Bull Piracetam Edition is beyond me.

Edited by Rags847, 04 February 2008 - 05:51 PM.


#8 mystery

  • Guest
  • 117 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 February 2008 - 02:23 AM

I wonder why stimulants and beta blockers are so famous, and yet the likes of piracetam remain so obscure. The side effect profile is a heckuva lot slimmer for piracetam; but I've noticed that when trying to explain that a drug exists that actually enhances cognition, people react with a visceral skepticism. I think it will take the mainstream a long time to accept drugs that enhance cognition, instead of allowing full utilization of "endogenous" cognition, whatever that means.


It's all marketing and $, baby!
A lot of people who use Ritalin, Adderall, or Modafinil as study aids would try Piracetam and be like, "Yea, those stimulants energized me, but this Piracetam specifically increases my thought-production and processing speed - this is what I was looking for." (Degree of intelligence is usually correlated to processing speed).
But with patent laws apparently making Piracetam less lucritive for parmaceutical companies and the FDA showing little interest in it apparently because of it's low or non-existent toxicity levels, a wonderful alternative remains in the closet.
Why we don't have Red Bull Piracetam Edition is beyond me.


I'd say you have a great idea. Red Bull's got the name trademarked. Hmm... how about: Cognitive X 9000.

#9 StrangeAeons

  • Guest, F@H
  • 732 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 05 February 2008 - 03:43 AM

Why we don't have Red Bull Piracetam Edition is beyond me.

Apparently you guys haven't tasted piracetam in powder form. It would take an ungodly amount of sugar and flavoring to try and cover up that bitter taste, and you would have to keep the dose modest; another problem with piracetam is that people are real particular about what dosage works for them.

Edited by PetaKiaRose, 05 February 2008 - 03:44 AM.


#10 Rags847

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 362 posts
  • 25

Posted 05 February 2008 - 05:30 AM

Very true. But nonetheless, the point is what is popularly used and prescribed by the medical establishment isn't always the safest and best option.

#11 Ghostrider

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

Posted 06 February 2008 - 06:00 AM

In an article published today in the journal Nature, Morein-Zamir and University of Cambridge neuroscientist Barbara J. Sahakian say that clear guidelines are needed to decide what's fair. It may be reasonable to ban the drugs in competitive situations, such as taking the SAT. But in other cases, they wrote, people such as airport screeners, air-traffic controllers or combat soldiers might be encouraged to take them.


Humm, I disagree. Sure, ban drugs in competitive situations such as the SAT, but also make the smarter kids pound a few beers before the test. Yeah, that will level the playing field. That's what happens when a 3 hour test determines 60% of the admission criteria, of course people will take anything they can to boost performance during that short period. I would really be pissed if these substances started getting banned out of "fairness". Maybe Viagra should be banned because some can't afford it.


I don't think placebo effect can go that far. I can take a Red Bull after not having any caffeine for over a month and the stuff really wakes me up. I would have to image that something prescription strength would be stronger. Besides, those prescription drugs had to prove their effectiveness in double-blind placebo tests.

#12 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,058 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 January 2010 - 08:56 PM

Should Students Be Tested for Brain-Enhancing Drugs?

Just another enhancement article. Not all negative but brings up some of the well-worn criticisms.

With the dangers presented by nootropics, it would seem an easy choice to try to keep them out of the reach of students. Yet keeping people from taking drugs they perceive as smart-pills is easier said than done. A study in Nature found that an average of 7% (with a range up to 25%) of US college students have used a nootropic at some point in their careers. The vast majority of these cases involved illegal use of a controlled substance. A good portion of students thus seem willing to take substantial risks to achieve cognitive enhancement. It wouldn’t be easy to overcome such determination. I guess we could just make incoming freshmen read Flowers for Algernon and hope they become disillusioned with the idea of temporarily enhanced intelligence.

As the NY Times pointed out last year, many professors are themselves using nootropics to help them stay focused during important research. The phenomenon is widespread enough to have inspired a doping-crackdown hoax we discussed earlier. It would seem hypocritical to test students without also testing scientists, teachers, quiz show hosts…the list goes on. Why should students be held to a higher standard than the professionals they are training to become?



sponsored ad

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

#13 spider

  • Guest
  • 181 posts
  • 16

Posted 18 January 2010 - 03:12 AM

As the NY Times pointed out last year, many professors are themselves using nootropics to help them stay focused during important research.


Wow... I wonder what kind of nootropics, probably stimulants like adderall and ritalin.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users