12 replies to this topic

[Felicia Biberica]

I'm a producer with ABC News and I'm working on a story about the debate over so-called cognitive enhancers. I am still looking to profile someone who uses a medication like adderall, or ritalin, or provigil off-label for improved concentration, memory, job performance, etc. This would be an on camera interview (taped - not live) for air on ABC's World News. You can reach me at felicia.biberica@abc.com

[skinniest200]

Since when is it news that stimulants increase performance? To do a story about "cognitive enhancers" and then use common stimulants as the drugs that are mentioned is somewhat misleading, and potentially negative for the cognitive enhancement community/movement. This is especially concerning since the drugs you mentioned are controlled substances, and not likely to be prescribed off-label (except for the provigil), implying some legally questionable actions of the person profiled or their doctor. If your story is genuinely about cognitive enhancement it might be best to look at the use of some other substances, however if it's more about the typical person that uses the drugs you mentioned in an "off-label", performance-enhancing way then a college campus around finals week is perhaps a better place to be looking. I hope you can share some more details about the story you're working on so other members can tell if it's something they want to be a part of.

[Mind]

Skinniest200, perhaps you can enlighten people as to what the "real" or "effective" cognitive enhancers are.

[maxwatt]

I'm a producer with ABC News and I'm working on a story about the debate over so-called cognitive enhancers. I am still looking to profile someone who uses a medication like adderall, or ritalin, or provigil off-label for improved concentration, memory, job performance, etc. This would be an on camera interview (taped - not live) for air on ABC's World News. You can reach me at felicia.biberica@abc.com

What debate, exactly, are you referring to? Is there a proposal to drug-test PhD candidates like athletes are tested? Should a clean drug test accompany every scientist's journal submissions?

In the 16th century there was a debate in the Church whether glasses were acceptable. A strong contingent of the clergy felt it was immoral to enhance one's vision beyond what God provided. Burning at the stake was proposed as punishment for the heresy of wearing reading glasses. I suppose the ability to read enhances one's cognition as do some drugs. The debate died down when the pope had his portrait painted wearing a pair.

[Galantamine]

What debate, exactly, are you referring to? Is there a proposal to drug-test PhD candidates like athletes are tested? Should a clean drug test accompany every scientist's journal submissions?

In the 16th century there was a debate in the Church whether glasses were acceptable. A strong contingent of the clergy felt it was immoral to enhance one's vision beyond what God provided. Burning at the stake was proposed as punishment for the heresy of wearing reading glasses. I suppose the ability to read enhances one's cognition as do some drugs. The debate died down when the pope had his portrait painted wearing a pair.

Nice post!

I honestly think an ABC news article framing a "nootropic debate" will do nothing but harm to the nootropic industry. A very similar peice was published on supplements in 2003-2004 which led to a major crack down including many bans.

[skinniest200]

Skinniest200, perhaps you can enlighten people as to what the "real" or "effective" cognitive enhancers are.

I know the drugs that were mentioned are "real" and "effective" but I doubt they're what the majority of people here would think of when they think of cognitive enhancers or nootropics. Also, it just seems wise to be cautious about somebody linking themselves and others with "off-label" controlled substance use on national television.

[Declmem]

Skinniest200, perhaps you can enlighten people as to what the "real" or "effective" cognitive enhancers are.

I know the drugs that were mentioned are "real" and "effective" but I doubt they're what the majority of people here would think of when they think of cognitive enhancers or nootropics. Also, it just seems wise to be cautious about somebody linking themselves and others with "off-label" controlled substance use on national television.

Agreed. Without further explanation, this story sounds more like more of those superficial Expose stories we see so much of - the ones that create fierce "debates" where none actually exist, usually between two straw men. Is this a genuine attempt to understand what is being covered?

I consider myself a user of nootropics and cognitive enhancers, yet I've never used adderal or ritalin and don't currently use provigil at all.

I'm afraid the vast majority of users here wouldn't be very exciting on camera. We're genuinely trying to enhance our minds, not get a cheap thrill or temporary high with amphetamines.

skinniest200 is right, a college campus would be a better choice for your story. But then, it wouldn't be a story about our brand of cognitive enhancement or nootropics. It would be a story about drug abuse.

Edited by Declmem, 11 September 2009 - 07:54 PM.

[catfanatic1979]

I really hope you ask major retailers if they will some day stock and sell Piracetam and Picamilon. I would love to see Walmart get on the band wagon.

[Ben]

I really hope you ask major retailers if they will some day stock and sell Piracetam and Picamilon. I would love to see Walmart get on the band wagon.

It'd be great if piracetam became something that was given out freely at universities and other tertiary academic institutions. Like:

"Ok guys, I'll give you a sec to take your piracetam before I start this lecture. Oh yes can you take one and pass the rest down. I see some people down here don't have any. Ok, come on guys, I'd like to start soon so we can get out early."

Edited by Ben - Aus, 12 September 2009 - 11:45 AM.

[Ben]

If anyone here does reply to this request I'd ask that you were cautious in your replies. Try to avoid hyperbole and selling nootropes, or any lifestyle you think is connected to them. An ABC news report would be seen by many people and has the opportunity of enhancing the public's knowledge of cognitive enhancers and the people who take them. This of course depends on the editing that is done and the way the story is produced. Be weary that they could be presented in a very negative light and that this could lead to intrusion and a clamp down.

[maxwatt]

If anyone here does reply to this request I'd ask that you were cautious in your replies. Try to avoid hyperbole and selling nootropes, or any lifestyle you think is connected to them. An ABC news report would be seen by many people and has the opportunity of enhancing the public's knowledge of cognitive enhancers and the people who take them. This of course depends on the editing that is done and the way the story is produced. Be weary that they could be presented in a very negative light and that this could lead to intrusion and a clamp down.

If only Paul Erdős were still alive. Perfect subject.

[tunt01]

i hope the news segment includes coffee/caffeine in its discussion of cognitive enhancers

[modelcadet]

I can't help but think this is fishing, a "To Catch an Enhancer" if you will. If you do find people here who have chosen to break the law, please recognize that neither this non-profit nor the majority of nootropic enthusiasts encourage breaking the law. With this said, I think a report on the evolution of the enhancement/treatment debate could be promising for the ABC audience. It would not be the easiest report to produce, but it would certainly be more relevant reporting than the expectations detailed above.

For instance, I work a graveyard shift while I go to school, and I went to a psychiatrist for help. I was a heavy coffee drinker, knowing that my caffeine consumption would eat a huge hole in my brain. After much research online, I went to the psychiatrist to secure a prescription for modafinil, a better tool in my battle with shift work sleep disorder. I came out with a script for methylphenidate, which while not what I needed to sustain the suicidal lifestyle of an impoverished student, was certainly better than chugging countless cups of coffee every night. The primary reason I received methylphenidate, I was told, was for cost reasons: I am uninsured. I know that, with a prescription, I can find cheaper sources for my fills online. The true reason I believe I was given methylphenidate is because my psychiatrist was able to prescribe it for a more 'legitimate' ailment, attention deficit disorder. While it's correct I choose my unhealthy lifestyle, working nights to pay for college, I really don't see where I have that much a choice. I regret not being able to get access to modafinil, which would allow me to get to sleep much when I only have a certain window to do so.

I feel like my case for the regulated substance was legitimate but denied. Beyond my case though, why cannot other claims be legitimate? If we are informed about the benefits and risks of the drugs we wish to take, shouldn't we be able to find the best treatments/enhancements for our purposes? Frankly, while I may be misinformed about certain things I read on the Internet, I have to think I'm better able to look out for my body's needs than the social and economic considerations afforded me by big pharma.