Brain Doping: Greatest Thing Ever, Or Just Foolish?
The New Yorker is carrying a long, in-depth look at neuroenhancing drugs and their users, by Margaret Talbot. The three primary drugs Talbot studies are:
It should first be noted that none of these medications are exactly what you would call a brain enhancing magic wand. They are stimulants, and just like better-known stimulants such as meth and cocaine, they "encourage" hyper-focus and the ability to go long periods of time without sleep.
Talbot describes the affects of Adderal, Ritalin, and Provigil in depth, including information about patient performance during clinical trials. People on these drugs were better able to remember sequences of numbers, and were able to spend more time focusing on a small, boring thing. Scintillating! (I wonder what the clinical trial data would say about meth and cocaine? From what I understand, they have similar effects.)
College students, newspaper writers working under deadlines, and under-pressure corporate workers have been turning to uppers to help their performance for as long as uppers have existed. As Talbot herself notes, many philosophers and writers in earlier centuries turned to drugs like caffeine and nicotine in the same situation.
Users of Adderal, Ritalin, and Provigil all proudly proclaim the lack of side effects. A few users (mostly anonymously, on message boards dedicated to off-label drug usage) have quietly reported having problems with addiction. But all of the other users seem besotted with their shiny new toy.
Personally, I retain a healthy degree of skepticism about miracle drug claims which come from the drug users themselves. I well remember a time in college, when a friend's roommate waxed rhapsodic about this great new high-tech drug that helped him focus enough to get his term papers done in time, and still have energy to go out drinking at night. (The miracle drug in question: this new thing called "meth," which I hadn't heard of at the time. I have heard of it since; oh yes.)
Because these are "off-label" (i.e. unprescribed) uses of the drug, the drug companies are under no pressure to investigate the repercussions. In fact, it behooves them not to, because this would only risk their sales numbers. Even acknowledging off-label uses is dicey for drug companies - "in 2008 Cephalon paid four hundred and twenty-five million dollars and pleaded guilty to a federal criminal charge relating to its promotion of off-label uses for Provigil and two other drugs."
Are these drugs worse than currently-accepted versions like caffeine or cosmetic surgery? It's hard to say, since most of the data is coming from the actual drug users. (Hardly an unbiased source, I think you will agree.) It's romantic to think that a pill can make you smarter, but it seems that the truth is more like the pills make you THINK you're smarter.
