Should we use drugs to enhance cognitive performance?
Maxine Clarke
Monday, 01 December 2008 17:40 UTC
There is a growing trend to take prescription stimulants (Adderall and Ritalin for example) in order to enhance cognitive performance – perhaps in attempt to obtain better grades or increase learning capacity. Nature has been reporting on developments in this controversial area and providing a forum for discussion. In a Commentary article published online today (_Nature doi:10.1038/456702a; 7 December 2008) Henry Greely and co-authors, who include Philip Campbell, Editor in Chief of Nature, say that society must respond to this demand. The authors call for:
- a presumption that adults should be able to use drugs for this purpose
- an evidence-based approach to evaluate the risks and benefits
- legal and ethical policies to ensure fair and equitable use
- a research programme
- broadly available information about risks and benefits
Do you agree with the authors that new methods of improving our brain function should be welcomed, to improve quality of life and extend lifespans? Will safe and effective cognitive enhancers benefit the individual and society? Or should these drugs remain illegal for these purposes?
The Nature Commentary is published online tonight (7 December) and will be in the 11 December 2008 print edition of the journal.
Previous Nature Network discussion responding to the question ‘would you boost your brain power?’
Updated 08 December 2008 08:27 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Fundamentally elitist and racist. Are we going to offer to subsidize all the students in Africa or anywhere else that cannot afford to enhance their cognition with costly drugs?
-
A few commentators above may not have read the Commentary or the brief summary in my post here before commenting, as they ascribe to it arguments that were not made. The authors call for:
a presumption that adults should be able to use drugs for this purpose
an evidence-based approach to evaluate the risks and benefits
legal and ethical policies to ensure fair and equitable use
a research programme
broadly available information about risks and benefitsCertainly one may disagree with all these points, but it is not the case that the authors are calling for these drugs to be made available – in fact they state clearly in their article that they are illegal and that they are not recommending their use. They are recommeneding an evaluation, based on the presumption that “people should be allowed to take them”. This is a controversial suggestion and many will disagree (for some good reasons stated here in this online conversation) – but it is not particularly constructive, in my view, to lambast the authors for even raising the topic and for statements or positions that they do not take.
-
Nature’s News blog The Great Beyond has posted on “the ethics of brain boosting”, rounding up the media coverage (so far) of this Commentary. The post begins:
If you believed some of the more sensationalist headlines, you might think that a commentary paper published in Nature yesterday was urging everyone to go out and source illegal drugs to boost their brain function.
Sample headlines include ‘Let all pop pills for brain, experts urge’ and ‘Uppers for everyone, scientists say’. Admittedly, that is catchier than the title of the article in question: ‘Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy’. Read on for the rest of the post,which includes links to a range of media coverage. -
Well, here’s a big surprise
No wonder science has such a poor public imageDeclaration of competing financial interests
From the following article:Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy
Henry Greely, Barbara Sahakian, John Harris, Ronald C. Kessler, Michael Gazzaniga, Philip Campbell & Martha J. Farah
Declaration: B.S. consults for a number of pharmaceutical companies and Cambridge Cognition, and holds shares in CeNeS. R.C.K. consults for and has received grants from a number of pharmaceutical companies.
-
Indeed, there seems to be a difference in opinion as to the what is discussed here. Even the title of this forum leads to the wrong impression: “Should we use drugs to enhance cognitive performance?”
I think the question the Commentary asks is “Should we do research in to drugs enhancing cognitive performance and THEN discuss about their broader use?”. I think most people don’t get the first part of this question. I have to say, although of course this is all detailed in the text, I think such a premise should have been made much clearer, particularly given such a hot and controversial topic.
One might also argue that raising such an issue is perhaps a bit premature, what is the compelling case here? I guess it is that these drugs do exist and people use them (illegally and wrongly) without prescription. So more research is certainly needed for understanding the risks. But the step from there towards a discussion on broader use seems unnecessary to me, and as you can see from the reactions so far seems rather counterproductive to what is otherwise a justified call for more research into side effects of their use by healthy people.
Obviously, nobody should be surprised by some of the newspaper headlines. The way it is presented just invites these.
Last but not least, my personal opinion is the same as for taking of performance-enhancing drugs by professional athletes: No, as I can’t see a compelling case. Just because you can does not mean you should. The answer may differ once the research called for by the authors is completed, although I doubt that will be the case.
-
Hey Maxine, I just had a friend tell me that he read about ‘using brain-enhancing drugs’ on the internet, clicked the first link, and there was my first comment in this thread, posted when only the placeholder was up – and now sounding rather strange in the current context (even though we posted our detailed comments on the topic later). Is there any way the comments from before the post was updated could be deleted, or am I over-reacting (Clare, Henry?)?
-
Last but not least, my personal opinion is the same as for taking of performance-enhancing drugs by professional athletes: No, as I can’t see a compelling case
The difference I see is that in the case of the athletes, there are no benefits to be obtained from the performance. Competition (supposedly fair) is the whole point of it. Whereas you can argue that an enhancement in cognitive abilities may lead to actual benefits in terms of productivity, for example. Whether the actual drugs currently on the market are capable to deliver this, without undesirable side effects, is another matter.
-
Personally, I have to agree with the ‘cons’ mentioned in the second paragraph of page 703, particularly with reference to the devaluing of human effort. Being able to do things for oneself and work out a natural solution is always going to be the best and most long-lasting, self-sufficient option. Medication clearly has a role to play in a crisis and when someone has a serious and enduring problem, though.
Taking these ‘enhancers’, ideally, may optimise brain function and cognition, but it may also promote laziness and deflect away from the more natural techniques used to enhance cognition, such as mentioned in the article – looking after diet, regularly exercising, sleeping well. Surely, also there is nothing better than knowing you have passed an exam or gained knowledge and completed a course of learning completely under your ‘own steam’, without the ‘assistance’ of a pill? This achievement, in itself, has a beneficial and therapeutic, long-lasting effect, enhancing confidence.
What the aricle says about nutrition being invasive is ridiculous as eating is and always has been a natural process whereas taking medication in the form of pills is not.
Anyway, these are just some of my comments, it may be that these ‘enhancers’ can be of benefit to some people. Clearly, there are a number of possible side-effect risks and they need proper trialling. I can see how they may be used as outlined on page 704.
-
There will always be people who, when presented with new medical advancements, shy away out of fear that such advances are somehow tainted. There’s always the old song and story, “if nature intended it would be so without any help,” or “if its so wonderful there will always be abusers.” Or even, “who needs it?” I’m reminded of a friend who was slowly losing her sight. She went from physician to physician. Specialist to specialist. And finally, when there seemed no place else to turn she went to a homeopathic nutritionist who advised massive doses of vitamin A. Friends and family were shocked! Shocked!!! This person without an MD degree must be a charleton. “No one needs Vitamin A enchancement if they’re getting a well balanced diet,” which she was. If it was the right thing to do all the MDs would have recommended it. And besides, maybe nature knows best and she should just get use to being blind. Ignoring all the nay-sayers my friend took the vitamin A as recommended, and within a month her sight had improved so that she was able to take daytime walks with her dog. Within 3 months she was able to go walking at night. Did my friend NEED the vitamin A enchancement? Yes she did! Even though it seemed very strange and “unnatural” it saved her sight. Scientific advancements such as the proposed and existing cognitive enchancement therapy may seem strange and unnatural to some, I see it as a positive boon to all of humankind! And I’d even be pleased to provide such cognitive enhancement therapy to my dog to help him remember that our living room is not his lavatory!
-
In response to the post above, I had an eye problem as a child and was prescribed massive doses of vitamin A. I did not consider this a “homeopathic” treatment…
But honestly, “cognitive drugs” are in a class with both homeopatics (cognitive drugs require faith) and illegal street drugs (in the sense that cognitive drugs need to be “controlled”). These are topics of endless debate. I suggest our government invest resources in regulating amphetamines and similar compounds more effectively, as this class of drugs is over-abused but possibly useful in small quantities to boost cognitive performance.
Results
-
