Prove Goal: that both sides, natural and artificial, and effective in brain enhancement regardless
of moral and legal viewpoints. Inspire collaboration of experts in all fields to optimize
breakthrough research.
Facts
- Both bring benefits (different impact, different ways, different duration)
- People will not stop using the drugs.
- Both sides want individuals and society to benefit.
- Too much of anything is not good i.e. all things in moderation
1. Why cognitive enhancement?
a. Increase test scores
b. Increase productivity
c. Increase knowledge
2. Background
a. Types of intelligence REFERENCE #3
a.i. Fluid intelligence refers to the general ability to solve new problems and
recognize unfamiliar patterns. (APPLICATION)
a.ii. Crystalized intelligence consists of particular kinds of knowledge.
(INFORMATION)
b. How recall works
b.i. Dopamine
b.ii. Synapsis
c. Statistics
3. TYPES
a. Natural
a.i. Exercise
a.ii. Video games
a.ii.1.
Positive
a.ii.2.
negative
a.iii. ________
b. Artificial
b.i. Adderall/Riddelin
b.i.1.
Positive
b.i.2.
negative
b.ii. Provigil THIS IS BRAND OF Madifinil
b.ii.1.
Positive
b.ii.2.
Negative
4. The Dispute: Only Natural or Pro-Drug
a. ONLY Natural Arguments
a.i. Not invasive
a.ii. natural
a.iii. More long-term
a.iv. Available to most/all
a.v. Non-Medical use of prescription drugs is illegal
a.vi. Human not machine
a.vii. Drugs short term and inconclusive research
a.viii. Controlled risk (could be injured by too much exercise etc.)
b. Pro-Drug
b.i. Quick results minimal effort
b.i.1.
For the individual
b.i.2.
For society see stats re 3% IQ increase BIG BERTHA
b.ii. No known severe side effect
b.iii. Optimize machine/output
b.iv. Drugs effectively used for medical purposes today
b.v. Higher use might decrease cost of drug for all.
b.vi. Risks less controlled/unknown may be high based on individual (i.e.
hearth problems, etc.)
5. MEDIATION
a. What do they want??? MUST HAVE
a.i. Good health
a.ii. Low risk AND Results Cognitive Enhancement ////////NATURAL
(control)
a.iii. Availability
a.iv. Results Cognitive Enhancement/////DRUG (power)
a.v. Make money - sell exercise equipment or drugs.or be successful on the
job
b. What resolution will get what both sides want??
b.i. CANT really enforce rules
b.ii. CAN you make a maximum available (like rationing limit?)
b.iii. DRAFT REGULATION
b.iii.1.
Both want cognitive enhancement
b.iii.2.
Natural wants it to be low risk - Drug side agrees to
minimize risk by:
b.iii.2.a. Physician can prescribe for non-medical use and
provides physical oversight at the Users expense.
b.iii.2.b. User must sign release for non-medical use and
agrees they cannot sue physician for any negative impact.
Beneficial for what youre not good at.
TITLE: ??? Cognitive Enhancement
Introductionscombine into one and use for transitions
Since the beginning of time, the human race has been competing to see who is the strongest,
fastest and smartest. Steroid usage has taken strength to a new level, bionic appendages and the
introduction of motor vehicles has blown speed out of proportion, but what has happened to
intelligence? Up until the very recent past, there has been nothing to supercharge the brain.
However, as modern medicine advances at an unyielding rate, several drugs have appeared that
seem to give your brain an extra edge.
On the flip side, many, if not all, artificial enhances of any type have been frowned upon but
professionals in each field. That is where the natural substitutes come into play. For strength
and speed there was the healthy diet and persistent training in the weight room and on the track,
but how do you naturally enhance the brain? Many attempts have been made such though things
like meditation and video games with several promising results. But the studies seem very clear
when they show that exercise is one of the biggest secrets of brain enhancement.
The collegiate and professional fields are becoming exponentially more elite and demanding. It
is a seemingly impossible task to stay at the front of the pack with just studying alone. There
must be something more to keep any one particular person a stride again of his/her peers. The
new age of brain enhancement is attempting and being proven successful in doing just that.
Whether it is through the use of prescription drugs that boost memory and productivity or good
old, natural exercise it is possible to get that extra oomph needed to push you past the rest.
Why Cognitive Enhancement?
Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom of Oxford University clearly summarize the benefit of
cognitive enhancement for both the individual and society at large, stating:
There are few resources more useful than cognitive ability. While other resources
are necessary or desirable, cognition enables them to be used for achieving personal
goals. While there is little evidence that high intelligence causes happiness there appears
to be ample evidence that low intelligence increases the risk for accidents, negative life
events, and low income (Gottfredson 1997, 2004) while higher intelligence promotes
health (Whalley and Deary 2001) and wealth. We also need better cognition in order to
balance an increasingly complex society where information becomes more available and
our actions have more far-reaching consequences (Heylighen 2002a, 2002b). There may
also be an intrinsic existential value in being able to perceive, understand, and interact
well with the world. REFERENCE 6
To more clearly understand what cognitive enhancement is, how it can be achieved, related
research, and surrounding disputes, it is critical to define several key terms listed below:
Cognition can be defined as the processes an organism uses to organize information.
This includes the following core functions: acquisition of information (perception),
selecting (attention), representing (understanding), retaining (memory) information,
and using it to guide behavior (reasoning and coordination of motor outputs).
REFERENCE 6
Cognitive enhancement is the amplification or extension of core capacities of the mind
through improvement or augmentation of internal or external information processing
systems. Interventions to improve cognitive function may be directed at any one of the
core faculties. REFERENCE 6
Types of Intelligence
Fluid intelligence refers to the general ability to solve new problems and recognize
unfamiliar patterns. (APPLICATION) REFERENCE #3
Crystalized intelligence consists of particular kinds of knowledge.
(INFORMATION) REFERENCE #3
HOW THE BRAIN WORKS
To send a message a brain cell releases a chemical (neurotransmitter) into the space separating
two cells called the synapse. The neurotransmitter crosses the synapse and attaches to proteins
(receptors) on the receiving brain cell. This causes changes in the receiving brain cell and the
message is delivered. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter present in regions of the brain that
regulate movement, emotion, cognition, motivation, and feelings of pleasure. The
overstimulation of this system, which rewards our natural behaviors, produces the euphoric
effects sought by people who abuse drugs and teaches them to repeat the behavior.
REFERENCE #8 NIDA
Greater cognitive capacity comes from having more neurons or synapses and increased
production of compounds such as Brain-driven Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) which creates
synapses. Taking up new cognitively demanding activities (not good at) such as ballroom
dancing or foreign language is more likely to boost processing speed, strengthen synapses, and
expand or create functional networks. Reference #1 .
There are also numerous drugs that exist that can affect cognition, though they were developed
for and are prescribed for specific medical purposes. For example, studies show that both
Adderall and Ritalin enhance the recall of memorized words as well as working memory.
However another case study of volunteers who were given a placebo instead and encouraged to
believe they would do well experienced the same cognitive improvement. This is because the
personal motivation of believing you can do well increases the dopamine levels . Reference #1
In addition, other studies have shown that exercise can be as effective for cognitive enhancement
as drugs. Reference #2 Last but not least, most of us would not go far without smart phone or
laptop to provide structural support to our cognitive abilities!
THE DISPUTE
While the concept of cognitive enhancement is very appealing and growing in popularity,
discussions and disputes keep pace as one survey estimated that almost seven percent of students
in US universities have used prescription drugs as cognitive enhancers and on some campuses
the number could be as high as 25% of students in the past year. Reference #4
An article by Henry Greely and colleagues in Nature magazine in 2008, while taking a clearly
pro-drug perspective, provides a relatively comprehensive outline of many of the points of
discussion and contention as noted in the excerpt below.
EXCERPT - Reference #2
Of course, no two enhancements are equivalent in every way, and some of the differences
have moral relevance. For example, the benefits of education require some effort at selfimprovement whereas the benefits of sleep do not. Enhancing by nutrition involves changing
what we ingest and is therefore invasive in a way that reading is not. The opportunity to
benefit from Internet access is less equitably distributed than the opportunity to benefit from
exercise.
Cognitive-enhancing drugs require relatively little effort, are invasive and for the time being
are not equitably distributed, but none of these provides reasonable grounds for prohibition.
Drugs may seem distinctive among enhancements in that they bring about their effects by
altering brain function, but in reality so does any intervention that enhances cognition.
Recent research has identified beneficial neural changes engendered by exercise, nutrition
and sleep, as well as instruction and reading. In short, cognitive-enhancing drugs seem
morally equivalent to other, more familiar, enhancements.
Three arguments against the use of cognitive enhancement by the healthy quickly bubble
to the surface in most discussions: that it is cheating, that it is unnatural and that it amounts
to drug abuse. In the context of sports, pharmacological performance enhancement is indeed
cheating. But, of course, it is cheating because it is against the rules. Any good set of rules
would need to distinguish todays allowed cognitive enhancements, from private tutors to
double espressos, from the newer methods, if they are to be banned. As for an appeal to the
natural, the lives of almost all living humans are deeply unnatural; our homes, our clothes
and our food to say nothing of the medical care we enjoy bear little relation to our
species natural state.
All technologies have risks as well as benefits. Although we reject the arguments against
enhancement just reviewed, we recognize at least three substantive ethical concerns. The
first concern is safety. Cognitive enhancements affect the most complex and important
human organ, and the risk of unintended side effects is therefore both high and
consequential The second concern is freedom, specifically freedom from coercion to
enhance The third concern is fairness. Consider an examination that only a certain
percentage can pass. It would seem unfair to allow some, but not all, students to use
cognitive enhancements, akin to allowing some students taking a math test to use a
calculator while others must go without. (Mitigating such unfairness may raise issues of
indirect coercion, as discussed above.) Of course, in some ways, this kind of unfairness
already exists. Differences in education, including private tutoring, preparatory courses and
other enriching experiences give some students an advantage over others. Whether the
cognitive enhancement is substantially unfair may depend on its availability, and on the
nature of its effects.
Additional concerns regarding any type of cognitive enhancement are raised by Sandberg and
Bostrom who state that, Cognitive enhancement raises many ethical and social issues but also
many practical challenges. Enhancements do have a price. In some cases it is a monetary price
tag, but often it is a tradeoff between different abilities. Keeping awake using stimulants
prevents the memory consolidation that would have taken place during sleep, and enhanced
concentration ability may impair the ability to notice things in peripheral awareness. In some
cases these tradeoffs can be predicted in terms of known biology or the evolutionary past of
humans (Bostrom and Sandberg 2006), but often we will have to do an empirically based
evaluation of what we individually value in a particular situation. A major concern for all forms
of enhancement is risk, both from enhancement itself and its effects (as well as its development
in clinical trials). Reference 6
Benedict Carey, a writer on science and medical topics, discusses the concept of brain
enhancement in his article to the New York Times, Brain Enhancement Is Wrong, Right? The
basis of the article depicts one particular drug of choice, Adderall, while touching on a few other
brain simulating drugs. He defends both sides of the issue by quoting and referencing many
credible professors and writings such as books and journals. Several of the professors that were
interviewed admitted directly to the use of Adderall and other mental enhancing and stimulating
drugs. Those of which who have admitted to their use had only positive things to say. They all
agreed that using the prescription drugs had only bettered their performance and allowed them to
achieve more at a given time than if they had not decided to use them. To back the argument of
the use of illegal prescription drugs as mental enhancers the article mentions the fact that many
people use legal performance enhancers in their everyday life such as coffee and beta-blockers.
The other side of the argument mainly states that the use of these drugs can and will lead to
misuse and abuse (CAREY 570). To some what go along with this misuse and abuse
(CAREY 570), the article discusses the idea that medicinal drugs are meant to help the sick, and
should not, as Francis Fukuyama says, be used to turn healthy people into gods (CAREY 570).
REFERENCE CAREY
Professor Justin Barnard provides a similar perspective arguing that, while the capacities
to procure and to process information are indeed goods of human life, they are neither the
highest of human goods nor are they ends in themselves. Yet, the use of cognitive enhancers by
the healthy implicitly treats the single good at which the drug aims as though it were the most
important or only good of ones mental life considered as a whole. Reference 7
MEDIATION .to enhance? Not to enhance? Only enhance in certain ways??
At the more global level, researchers project that the overall societal impact of even a small
increase in general cognitive function would likely be sizeable and desirable. Economic models
of the loss caused by small intelligence decrements due to lead in drinking water predict
significant effects of even a few points decrease (Salkever 1995; Muir and Zegarac 2001).
Because the models are roughly linear for small changes, they can be inverted to estimate
societal effects of improved cognition. The Salkever model estimates the increase in income due
to one more IQ point to be 2.1% for men and 3.6% for women. (Herrnstein and Murray 1994)
estimate that a 3% increase in overall IQ would reduce the poverty rate by 25%, males in jail by
25%, high-school dropouts by 28%, parentless children by 20%, welfare recipients by 18%, and
out-of-wedlock births by 25%.
At the individual level, well-meaning researchers, dedicated college students, and hardworking
professionals continue to seek ways to make their dreams come true and make a difference.
With both individual success and potential extensive benefit to society at large, how do we
mediate the
RESEARCH INFORMATION BELOW
Reference #2 Highlights
Given the many cognitive-enhancing tools we accept already, from writing to laptop computers,
why draw the line here and say, thus far but no further? As for enhancers status as drugs, drug
abuse is a major social ill, and both medicinal and recreational drugs are regulated because of
possible harms to the individual and society. But drugs are regulated on a scale that subjectively
judges the potential for harm from the very dangerous (heroin) to the relatively harmless
(caffeine). Given such regulation, the mere fact that cognitive enhancers are drugs is no reason to
outlaw them.
Based on our considerations, we call for a presumption that mentally competent adults
should be able to engage in cognitive enhancement using drugs.
Substantive concerns and policy goals
All technologies have risks as well as benefits. Although we reject the arguments against
enhancement just reviewed, we recognize at least three substantive ethical concerns. The first
concern is safety. Cognitive enhancements affect the most complex and important human organ,
and the risk of unintended side effects is therefore both high and consequential. Although
regulations governing medicinal drugs ensure that they are safe and effective for their therapeutic
indications, there is no equivalent vetting for unregulated off label uses, including enhancement
uses. Furthermore, acceptable safety in this context depends on the potential benefit. For
example, a drug that restored good cognitive functioning to people with severe dementia but
caused serious adverse medical events might be deemed safe enough to prescribe, but these risks
would be unacceptable for healthy individuals seeking enhancement.
Enhancement in children raises additional issues related to the long-term effects on the
developing brain. Moreover, the possibility of raising cognitive abilities beyond their speciestypical upper bound may engender new classes of side effects. Persistence of unwanted
recollections, for example, has clearly negative effects on the psyche18. An evidence-based
approach is required to evaluate the risks and benefits of cognitive enhancement. At a minimum,
an adequate policy should include mechanisms for the assessment of both risks and benefits for
enhancement uses of drugs and devices, with special attention to long-term effects on
development and to the possibility of new types of side effects unique to enhancement. But such
considerations should not lead to an insistence on higher thresholds than those applied to
medications.
We call for an evidence-based approach to
the evaluation of the risks and benefits of cognitive
enhancement.
The second concern is freedom, specifically freedom from coercion to enhance. Forcible
medication is generally reserved for rare cases in which individuals are deemed threats to
themselves or others. In contrast, cognitive enhancement in the form of education is required for
almost all children at some substantial cost to their liberty, and employers are generally free to
require employees to have certain educational credentials or to obtain them. Should schools and
employers be allowed to require pharmaceutical enhancement as well? And if we answer no to
this question, could coercion occur indirectly, by the need to compete with enhanced classmates
and colleagues? Questions of coercion and autonomy are particularly acute for military
personnel and for children. Soldiers in the United States and elsewhere have long been offered
stimulant medications including amphetamine and modafinil to enhance alertness, and in the
United States are legally required to take medications if ordered to for the sake of their military
performance19. For similar reasons, namely the safety of the individual in question and others
who depend on that individual in dangerous situations, one could imagine other occupations for
which enhancement might be justifiably required. A hypothetical example is an extremely safe
drug that enabled surgeons to save more patients. Would it be wrong to require this drug for risky
operations?
Appropriate policy should prohibit coercion except in specific circumstances for specific
occupations, justified by substantial gains in safety. It should also discourage indirect coercion.
Employers, schools or governments should not generally require the use of cognitive
enhancements. If particular enhancements are shown to be sufficiently safe and effective, this
position might be revisited for those interventions.
Children once again represent a special case as they cannot make their own decisions.
Comparisons
between estimates of ADHD prevalence and prescription numbers have led some to suspect that
children in certain school districts are taking enhancing drugs at the behest of achievementoriented parents, or teachers seeking more orderly classrooms20. Governments may be willing to
let competent adults take certain risks for the sake of enhancement while restricting the ability to
take such risky decisions on behalf of children.
The third concern is fairness. Consider an examination that only a certain percentage can pass. It
would seem unfair to allow some, but not all, students to use cognitive enhancements, akin to
allowing some students taking a maths test to use a calculator while others must go without.
(Mitigating such unfairness may raise issues of indirect coercion, as discussed above.) Of course,
in some ways, this kind of unfairness already exists. Differences in education, including private
tutoring, preparatory courses and other enriching experiences give some students an advantage
over others. Whether the cognitive enhancement is substantially unfair may depend on its
availability, and on the nature of its effects. Does it actually improve learning or does it just
temporarily boost exam performance? In the latter case it would prevent a valid measure of the
competency of the examinee and would therefore be unfair. But if it were to enhance long-term
learning, we may be more willing to accept enhancement. After all, unlike athletic competitions,
in many cases cognitive enhancements are not zero-sum games. Cognitive enhancement, unlike
enhancement for sports competitions, could lead to substantive improvements in the world.
Fairness in cognitive enhancements has a dimension beyond the individual. If cognitive
enhancements are costly, they may become the province of the rich, adding to the educational
advantages they already enjoy. One could mitigate this inequity by giving every exam-taker free
access to cognitive enhancements, as some
schools provide computers during exam week to all students. This would help level the playing
field.
Policy governing the use of cognitive enhancement in competitive situations should avoid
exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities, and should take into account the validity of enhanced
test performance. In developing policy for this purpose, problems of enforcement must also be
considered. In spite of stringent
regulation, athletes continue to use, and be caught using, banned performance-enhancing drugs.
We call for enforceable policies concerning
the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs to
support fairness, protect individuals from
coercion and minimize enhancement-related
socioeconomic disparities.
Maximum benefit, minimum harm
The new methods of cognitive enhancement are disruptive technologies that could have a
profound
effect on human life in the twenty-first century. A laissez-faire approach to these methods will
leave us at the mercy of powerful market forces that are bound to be unleashed by the promise of
increased productivity and competitive advantage. The concerns about safety, freedom and
fairness, just reviewed, may well seem less important than the attractions of enhancement, for
sellers and users alike.
Motivated by some of the same considerations, Fukuyama21 has proposed the formation of new
laws and regulatory structures to protect against the harms of unrestrained biotechnological
enhancement. In contrast, we suggest a policy that is neither laissez-faire nor primarily
legislative. We propose to use a variety of scientific, professional, educational and social
resources, in addition to legislation, to shape a rational, evidence-based policy informed by a
wide array of relevant experts and stakeholders.
Specifically, we propose four types of policy mechanism. The first mechanism is an accelerated
program of research to build a knowledge base concerning the usage, benefits and associated
risks of cognitive enhancements. Good policy is based on good information, and there is
currently much we do not know about the short- and long-term benefits and risks of the
cognitive-enhancement drugs currently being used, and about who is using them and why. For
example, what are the patterns of use outside of the United States and outside of college
communities? What are the risks of dependence when used for cognitive enhancement? What
special risks arise with the enhancement of childrens cognition? How big are the effects of
currently available enhancers? Do they change cognitive style, as well as increasing how
quickly and accurately we think? And given that most research so far has focused on simple
laboratory tasks, how do they affect cognition in the real world? Do they increase the total
knowledge and understanding that students take with them from a course? How do they affect
various aspects of occupational performance? BARGAIN FOR every dollar research that
goes to drug area, 2 dollars go to natural research.
We call for a programme of research into the
use and impacts of cognitive-enhancing drugs
by healthy individuals.
The second mechanism is the participation of relevant professional organizations in formulating
guidelines for their members in relation to cognitive enhancement. Many different professions
have a role in dispensing, using or working with people who use cognitive enhancers. By
creating policy at the level of professional societies, it will be informed by the expertise of these
professionals, and their commitment to the goals of their profession. One group to which this
recommendation applies is physicians, particularly in primary care, pediatrics and psychiatry,
who are most likely to be asked for cognitive enhancers. These physicians are sometimes asked
to prescribe for enhancement by patients who exaggerate or fabricate symptoms of ADHD, but
they also receive frank requests, as when a patient says I know I dont meet diagnostic criteria
for ADHD, but I sometimes have trouble concentrating and staying organized, and it would help
me to have some Ritalin on hand for days when I really need to be on top of things at work.
Physicians who view medicine as devoted to healing will view such prescribing as inappropriate,
whereas those who view medicine more broadly as helping patients live better
or achieve their goals would be open to considering such a request22. There is certainly a
precedent for this broader view in certain branches of medicine, including plastic surgery,
dermatology, sports medicine and fertility medicine.
Because physicians are the gatekeepers to medications discussed here, society looks to them for
guidance on the use of these medications and devices, and guidelines from other professional
groups will need to take into account the gatekeepers policies. For this reason, the
responsibilities that physicians bear for the consequences of their decisions are particularly
sensitive, being effectively decisions for all of us. It would therefore be helpful if physicians as a
profession gave serious consideration to the ethics of appropriate prescribing of cognitive
enhancers, and consulted widely as to how to strike the balance of limits for patient benefit and
protection in a liberal democracy. Examples of such limits in other areas of enhancement
medicine include the psychological screening of candidates for cosmetic surgery or tubal
ligation, and upper bounds on maternal age or number of embryos transferred in fertility
treatments. These examples of limits may not be specified by law, but rather by professional
standards.
Other professional groups to which this recommendation applies include educators and humanresource professionals. In different ways, each of these professions has responsibility for
fostering and evaluating cognitive performance and for advising individuals who are seeking to
improve their performance, and some responsibility also for protecting the interests of those in
their charge. In contrast to physicians, these professionals have direct conflicts of interest that
must be addressed in whatever guidelines they recommend: liberal use of cognitive enhancers
would be expected to encourage classroom order and raise standardized measures of student
achievement, both of which are in the interests of schools; it would also be expected to promote
workplace productivity, which is in the interests of employers. Educators, academic admissions
officers and credentials evaluators are normally responsible for ensuring the validity and
integrity of their examinations, and should be tasked with formulating policies concerning
enhancement by test-takers. Laws pertaining to testing accommodations for people with
disabilities provide a starting point for discussion of some of the key issues, such as how and
when enhancements undermine the validity of a test result and the conditions under which
enhancement should be disclosed by a test-taker.
The labor and professional organizations of individuals who are candidates for on-thejob
cognitive enhancement make up our final category of organization that should formulate
enhancement policy. From assembly line workers to surgeons, many different kinds of employee
may benefit from enhancement and want access to it, yet they may also need protection from the
pressure to enhance.
We call for physicians, educators, regulators
and others to collaborate in developing policies
that address the use of cognitive-enhancing
drugs by healthy individuals.
The third mechanism is education to increase public understanding of cognitive enhancement.
This would be provided by physicians, teachers, college health centers and employers, similar to
the way that information about nutrition, recreational drugs and other public-health information
is now disseminated. Ideally it would also involve discussions of different ways of enhancing
cognition, including through adequate sleep, exercise and education, and an examination of the
social values and pressures that make cognitive enhancement so attractive and even, seemingly,
necessary.
We call for information to be broadly
disseminated concerning the risks, benefits
and alternatives to pharmaceutical cognitive
enhancement.
The fourth mechanism is legislative. Fundamentally new laws or regulatory agencies are not
needed. Instead, existing law should be brought into line with emerging social norms and
information about safety. Drug law is one of the most controversial areas of law, and it would be
naive to expect rapid or revolutionary change in the laws governing the use of controlled
substances. Nevertheless, these laws should be adjusted to avoid making felons out of those who
seek to use safe cognitive enhancements. And regulatory agencies should allow pharmaceutical
companies to market cognitive enhancing drugs to healthy adults provided they have supplied
the necessary regulatory data for safety and efficacy.
We call for careful and limited legislative
action to channel cognitive-enhancement
technologies into useful paths.
Conclusion
Like all new technologies, cognitive enhancement can be used well or poorly. We should
welcome new methods of improving our brain function. In a world in which human workspans
and lifespans are increasing, cognitive enhancement tools including the pharmacological
will be increasingly useful for improved quality of life and extended work productivity, as well
as to stave off normal and pathological agerelated cognitive declines safe and effective cognitive
enhancers will benefit both the individual and society. But it would also be foolish to ignore
problems that such use of drugs could create or exacerbate. With this, as with other technologies,
we need to think and work hard to maximize its benefits and minimize its harms.
Reference #4
7% of US University students have reported taking prescription drugs without a prescription
(Illegally)
25% of preliminary private elite school students have admitted to non-medical drug use in
the past year.
Its not cheating if everybody has free and fair access to the drugs.
A side effect of high doses of Adderall can increase blood pressure.
Research shows the drugs significantly improved the learning of material that must be
recalled days later (cramming memorization).
Interestingly, those who have the least ability in a particular area are likely to see the greatest
drug-related improvement.
Reference #5
SEE BRAIN AGE INFO
Doing puzzles like Sudoku or completing crosswords probably improves your
performance on those specific tasks. (Practice makes permanent)
Fluid Intelligence what we use to solve problems which dont rely on things we
already know. (OTHER DEFINITION IS BETTER)
Studies from the Academy of Medical Sciences have shown that Provigil does indeed
improve aspects of memory and the ability to stay on task (attention span)...Another
study also found that Provigil (brand of modafinil) did NOT enhance attention.
Another study found that modafinil is NOT more effective in warding off sleep (but
does still help you remember things)
AROBIC EXERCISE has been found to consistently improve cognitive health.
Exercise is also thought to encourage the growth of new brain cells. Up until
recently, it was thought that the brain did not produce new cells.
Reference #6 Highlights BIG BERTHA
CONVERGING COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENTS Value of Enhancements
There are few resources more useful than cognitive ability. While other resources are necessary
or desirable, cognition enables them to be used for achieving personal goals. While there is little
evidence that high intelligence causes happiness there appears to be ample evidence that low
intelligence increases the risk for accidents, negative life events, and low income (Gottfredson
1997, 2004) while higher intelligence promotes health (Whalley and Deary 2001) and wealth.
We also need better cognition in order to balance an increasingly complex society where
information becomes more available and our actions have more far-reaching consequences
(Heylighen 2002a, 2002b). There may also be an intrinsic existential value in being able to
perceive, understand, and interact well with the world.
Cognitive enhancement may be defined as the amplification or extension of core capacities of the
mind through improvement or augmentation of internal or external information processing
systems. Cognition in turn can be defined as the processes an organism uses to organize
information. This includes both the acquisition of information (perception), selecting (attention),
representing (understanding), and retaining (memory) information, and using it to guide behavior
(reasoning and coordination of motor outputs). Interventions to improve cognitive function may
be directed at any one of these core faculties.
DESCRIBING AND VALUE IN OUR COMPLEX SOCIETY
The aim was not artificial intelligence but rather amplifying human intelligence. The archetypal
example
of this approach is Douglas C. Engelbarts famous Augmenting Human Intellect, which defined
the goal as:
By augmenting human intellect we mean increasing the capability of a man
to approach a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his
particular needs, and to derive solutions to problems. Increased capability in
this respect is taken to mean a mixture of the following: more-rapid comprehension,
better comprehension, the possibility of gaining a useful degree of
comprehension in a situation that previously too was complex, speedier solutions,
better solutions, and the possibility of finding solutions to problems
that before seemed insoluble. And by complex situations we include the
professional problems of diplomats, executives, social scientists, life scientists,
physical scientists, attorneys, designerswhether the problem situation
exists for twenty minutes or twenty years.We do not speak of isolated clever
tricks that help in particular situations.We refer to away of life in an integrated
domain where hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human feel for a
situation usefully co-exist with powerful concepts, streamlined terminology
and notation, sophisticated methods, and high-powered electronic aids.
Mans population and gross product are increasing at a considerable rate, but
the complexity of his problems grows still faster, and the urgency with which
solutions must be found becomes steadily greater in response to the increased
rate of activity and the increasingly global nature of that activity. Augmenting
mans intellect, in the sense defined above, would warrant full pursuit by an
enlightened society if there could be shown a reasonable approach and some
plausible benefits (Engelbart 1962).
An important insight was that it is not enough to improve just computer
hardware and software, but psychological and organizational aspects have to
be taken into account.
Converging technologies give a framework to approach the commonalities between different
forms of human enhancement, as well as a way to contrast their differences and potential for
divergence.
PHARMACEUTICAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Today there exist a broad range of drugs that can affect cognition. Stimulants enhance either by
increasing the amount of neuron activity or by releasing neuromodulators, both factors which
make
the synaptic change underlying learning more likely. The growing understanding of memory
allowed the development of more specific drugs. Stimulating the cholinergic system, which
appears to gate attention
and memory encoding, was a second step. Current interest is focused on intervening into the
process of permanent encoding in the synapses, which has been elucidated to a great extent and
hence has become a promising target for drug development. The goal would be drugs that not
just allow the brain
to learn quickly but also facilitate selective retention of the information that has been learned. It
is known that the above families of drugs can improve performance in particular memory tests. It
is not yet known whether they also promote useful learning in real-life situations.
Modafinil
Working memory can be modulated by a variety of drugs. Drugs that stimulate the dopamine
system have demonstrated effects, as do cholinergic drugs (possibly through improved encoding)
(Barch 2004). Modafinil has been shown to enhance working memory in healthy test subjects,
especially at harder task difficulties and for lower performing subjects (Muller et al. 2004).
(Similar findings, of greater improvements among low performers were also seen among the
dopaminergic drugs, and this might be a general pattern for many cognitive enhancers.) On a
larger battery of tasks, modafinil was found to increase forward and backward digit span, visual
pattern recognition memory, spatial planning, and reaction time/latency on different working
memory tasks (Turner et al. 2003). The reason might be that modafinil enhances adaptive
response inhibition, making the subjects evaluate a problem more thoroughly before responding
to it, thereby improving performance accuracy. The working memory effects might hence be part
of a more general enhancement of executive function. A few other drugs may also improve
executive function (Elliott et al. 1997; Kimberg et al. 1997; Mehta et al. 2000). Given that these
functions are closely linked to what is commonly seen as intelligence, they may be the first step
toward true intelligence-enhancing drugs.
Modafinil was originally developed as a treatment for narcolepsy, and can be used to reduce the
performance decrements due to sleep loss with apparently small side effects and risk of
dependency (Teitelman 2001; Myrick et al. 2004). The drug improved attention and working
memory in sleep-deprived physicians (Gill et al. 2006) and aviators (Caldwell et al. 2000). Naps
are more effective in maintaining performance than modafinil and amphetamine during long (48
h) periods of sleep deprivation than during short (24 h), but naps followed by a modafinil dose
may be more efficient than either individually (Batejat and Lagarde 1999). These results,
together with hormones like melatonin that can control sleep rhythms (Cardinali et al. 2002),
suggest that drugs can help shape sleep and alertness patterns to improve task performance under
demanding circumstances.
ISSUES and BARRIERS re DRUGS
In general, pharmacological enhancement is possible here and now, although
the improvements in ability tend to be a modest 1020% improvement of test
scores. As for all pharmacology, there are great inter individual variations.
Using enhancer drugs optimally might include tests of neuromodulator levels
to see where the brain setpoints are, pharmacogenomic tests to find how they
are metabolized and neuropsychological tests to check what levels produce
maximum performance. Such fine-tuning is expensive and cumbersome unless
it can be automated.
COGNITIVE TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
Education has many benefits beyond higher job status and salary. Longer
education reduces the risks of substance abuse, crime, and many illnesses
while improving quality of life, social connectedness, and political participation
(Johnston 2004). There is also positive feedback between performance on
cognitive tests, such as IQ tests and scholastic achievement, producing a 2.7 IQ
point advantage per year of schooling (Winship and Korenman 1997). While
education may be more of a social enhancement technology than a cognitive
enhancement technology, it clearly has some potential for the latter.
Much of what we learn in school is mental software for managing various
cognitive domains: mathematics, categories of concepts, language, and
problem solving in particular subjects. This kind of mental software reduces
our mental load through clever encoding, organization, or processing. Instead
of memorizing arbitrarily large multiplication tables we compress the pattern
of arithmetic relationships into simpler rules of multiplication, which in turn
(among very ambitious students) can be organized into efficient mental calculation
methods like the Trachtenberg system (Trachtenberg 2000). Such specific
methods have a smaller range of applicability but can dramatically improve
performance within a particular domain. They represent a form of crystallized
intelligence, distinct from the fluid intelligence of general cognitive abilities
and problem solving capacity (Cattell 1987). The relative ease and utility of improving
crystallized intelligence and specific abilities have made them popular
targets of internal and external software development. Cognitive enhancement
attempts the more difficult challenge of improving fluid intelligence.
The challenge of improving education is perennial, and much hope is currently
placed on using the results of neuroscience to improve education. However,
so far pure neuroscience has provided few directly applicable tools
(Goswami 2006). While this may change, the deep interdisciplinary divide
that has to be bridged may prove a far greater challenge than most forms of
technological convergence.
Pharmacological cognitive enhancements (nootropics) have physiological
effects on the brain. So too do education and other conventional interventions.
In fact, conventional interventions often produce more permanent neurological
changes than do drugs. Learning to read alters the way language is processed
in the brain (Petersson et al. 2000). Enriched rearing environments have been
found to increase dendritic arborization and to produce synaptic changes, neurogenesis,
and improved cognition in animals (Walsh et al. 1969; Greenough
andVolkmar 1973; Diamond et al. 1975; Nilsson et al. 1999). While analogous
controlled experiments cannot easily be done for human children, it is very
likely that similar effects would be observed. Stimulation-seeking children,
who might be seeking out and creating enriched environments for themselves,
score higher on IQ tests and do better at school than less stimulation-seeking
children (Raine et al. 2002). This also suggests that interventions that make
exploring and learning more appealing to children, whether environmental or
perhaps pharmaceutical, would have significant cognition-enhancing effects.
Enriched environments also make brains more resilient to stress and neurotoxins
(Schneider et al. 2001). Reducing neurotoxins and preventing bad
prenatal environments are simple and widely accepted methods of increasing
cognitive function. These latter kinds of intervention might be classified as
preventative or therapeutic rather than enhancing, although the distinction is
blurry. For instance, an optimized intrauterine environment will not only help
avoid specific pathology and deficits but is also likely to promote the growth
of the developing nervous system in ways that ultimately enhance its core
capacities.
In brains that have already been damaged, for example, by lead exposure,
nootropics may alleviate some of the cognitive deficits (Zhou and Suszkiw
2004). It is not always clear whether they do this by curing the damage or by
amplifying (enhancing) capacities that can compensate for the loss, or even
whether the distinction is always meaningful. Comparing chronic exposure to
cognition-enhancing drugs with an enriched rearing environment, one study
found that both conditions improved memory performance and produced similar
changes in the neural matter in rats. The improvements in the drug-treated
group persisted even after cessation of treatment. The combination of drugs
and enriched environment did not improve the rats abilities beyond the improvement
provided by one of the interventions alone. This suggests that both
interventions produced a more robust and plastic neural structure able to learn
more efficiently.
Improving general health has cognition-enhancing effects. Many health
problems act as distractors or directly impair cognition (Schillerstrom et al.
2005). Improving sleep, immune function, and general conditioning promotes
cognitive functioning. Bouts of exercise have been shown to temporally improve
various cognitive capacities, the size of the effect depending on the type
and intensity of the exercise (Tomporowski 2003). Long-term exercise also
improves cognition, possibly by a combination of increased blood supply to
the brain and the release of nerve growth factors (Vaynman and Gomez-Pinilla
2005). Understanding this system may lead to new classes of nootropics, perhaps
as a side effect of research into regenerative medicine.
Overall, improvements in the environment may be effective and widely acceptable
cognition enhancers, and conversely enhancement may help deprived
individuals.
COLLECTIVE ENHANCEMENT NOT INDIVIDUAL MAY USE AS PART OF
SOLUTION TO GET SIDES TO WORK TOGETHER>>>
Much of human cognition is distributed across many minds and can be
enhanced by developing more efficient forms of collaboration. Cooperative
groups can detect deception better than individuals (Frank et al. 2004) and
solve many problems better than equal numbers of individuals or even the
best individuals (Laughlin et al. 2002; Kerr and Tindale 2004; Laughlin et al.
2006).
In general, the total ability of a group to performa task increases with the size
of the group as long as the members do not need to interact much. If they need to
coordinate, the efficiency starts to drop as time has to be spent on coordination
rather than work. In a densely connected group this eventually produces a
situation where adding people reduces total performance. Reducing the density
of the network by adding a hierarchy enables larger groups at the price of
information bottlenecks. Social cognitive enhancement would act by either
increasing the performance of individual group members (improving overall
performance), improve their ability to coordinate (enabling larger groups), or
improve the synergies generated by having multiple competencies.
This is an area ideally suited for embedding technologies that mediate
group interactions. Virtual workspaces can enable improved pattern recognition
(Hayne et al. 2003) and various forms of groupware attempts to facilitate
collaboration. However, the greatest enhancements occur when very large
groups can be facilitated: theWorldWideWeb and e-mail are among the most
powerful kinds of cognitive enhancement software developed to date. Through
the use of such social software, the distributed intelligence of large groups can
be shared and harnessed for particular purposes (Surowiecki 2004).
Connected systems allow many people to collaborate in the construction
of shared knowledge and solutions: the more individuals that connect, the
more powerful the system becomes (Drexler 1991). The information is not
just stored in the documents themselves but in their interrelations. When such
interconnected information resources exist, automated systems, such as search
engines (Kleinberg 1999), can extract a wealth of useful information from
them.
DISCUSSION LOTS OF GOOD STUFF
Cognitive enhancement is already in widespread use, but not recognized as such. The morning
coffee, the crossword, the e-mail program, and the cellphone are all part of our cognitive
enhancement infrastructure. The new kinds of enhancement discussed in this article may appear
unusual, futuristic, or
problematic but will likely in time become as prosaic and accepted as the others.
It is easier to improve specialized abilities than general cognition. But the
rewards are far greater for general cognition. It comes into play all the time,
supporting many tasksincluding uses we may not have thought of enhancing.
Better memory may help education but it may also help remembering
ones holiday memories and avoid forgetting keys.
The overall societal impact of even a small increase in general cognitive function would likely be
sizeable
and desirable. Economic models of the loss caused by small intelligence decrements due to lead
in drinking water predict significant effects of even a few points decrease (Salkever 1995; Muir
and Zegarac 2001). Because the models are roughly linear for small changes, they can be
inverted to estimate
societal effects of improved cognition. The Salkever model estimates the increase in income due
to one more IQ point to be 2.1% for men and 3.6% for women. (Herrnstein and Murray 1994)
estimate that a 3% increase in overall IQ would reduce the poverty rate by 25%, males in jail by
25%, high-school
dropouts by 28%, parentless children by 20%, welfare recipients by 18%, and
out-of-wedlock births by 25%.
Cognitive enhancement raises many ethical and social issues but also many practical challenges.
Enhancements do have a price. In some cases it is a monetary price tag, but often it is a tradeoff
between different abilities. Keeping awake using stimulants prevents the memory consolidation
that would have taken place during sleep, and enhanced concentration ability may impair the
ability to notice things in peripheral awareness. In some cases these tradeoffs can be predicted in
terms of known biology or the evolutionary past of humans (Bostrom and Sandberg 2006), but
often we will have to do an empirically based evaluation of what we individually value in a
particular situation. A major concern for all forms of enhancement is risk, both from
enhancement itself and its effects (as well as its development in clinical trials).
Enhancement users must decide when the benefits outweigh the potential risk, and how to
estimate this on the basis of available information, personal goals, and their ways of life. These
risks cannot always be accurately determined beforehand, nor may a user be able to defer to
experts to judge whether the benefits are, to her, worth the risks. This poses a challenge to many
current risk frameworks that are based on reducing the risk for the population at large:
enhancement may be so individual and variable that it does not fit into a paternalistic
framework. This challenge is further complicated because of the
convergent nature of enhancement, which will bring different fields with conflicting
risk concepts (e.g., medicine, education, and computing) into overlap.
Developing a consistent, technology-independent risk management framework
for converging technologies is an important task for the future, necessary for
the eventual acceptance of general enhancement.
The reliability of research is also an issue. Many of the cognition-enhancing
interventions show small effect sizes, which may necessitate very large epidemiological
studies possibly exposing large groups to unforeseen risks.
One of the greatest challenges to developing effective cognitive enhancement
is the current research model. Enhancers are tested within a laboratory setting
for particular tasks. While this enables exact measurement and elimination
of confounders, it does not test whether the enhancers aid real-life tasks and
lifestyles. Ecological testing in real-life situations would be more relevant,
but is far more expensive, time consuming, and hard to interpret. The folk
experimentation scenario mentioned above might solve the first two problems
but would likely worsen the third.
An interesting exception is military enhancement research, where studies
in a more realistic (if still somewhat limited) setting are sometimes pursued.
Civilian spin-offs from the current programs are likely, although the research
ethics issues of military biomedical research are clearly nontrivial (cf. Pearn
2000; McManus et al. 2005 for a discussion of issues of captive subjects and
informed consent).
GREAT CLOSING PARAGRAPH>>>>
A major challenge in developing human enhancement technologies is the
need for interdisciplinary understanding. The problems facing neuroeducation
and groupware have already been mentioned. While narrowly focused
technical work is necessary, it may be that some of the most fruitful approaches
will consist in creatively combining and applying work from multiple disciplines.
Seeing cognitive enhancement as one field and as a general goal, rather
than as multitude of unrelated pursuits, may enable us to spot many promising
research questions and enhancement opportunities that would otherwise be
overlooked.
Reference #7
An Argument Against Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs
Professor Justin Barnard writes on the Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and the Common
Good website, and provides an excellent argument against the use of cognitive enhancing drugs.
He argues,
PRO DRUG - Recent calls for the widespread use of cognitive enhancements are based on a
narrow, mechanistic view of what it means to be human. In a recent issue of Nature,
several prominent intellectuals call for public policies that support the responsible use of
cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy citizens. We should welcome new methods of
improving our brain function, they write. In a world in which human work-spans and
life-spans are increasing, cognitive enhancement toolsincluding the pharmacological
will be increasingly useful for improved quality of life and extended work productivity, as
well as to stave off normal and pathological age-related cognitive declines. Safe and
effective cognitive enhancers will benefit both the individual and society.
Their essay is illustrative, not merely of a new public policy challenge we will face in the biotech
age, but also of the kind of reasoning one invariably hears in public discussions about such
issues. In a nutshell, their case is pragmatic and utilitarian. And along the way, they are
utterly dismissive of the most substantive arguments, reasons that, if heard, would threaten to
undermine the apparent sober-mindedness of their perspective. . . . .
Of course, no citizen of good will should disregard these three in conversations about the shape
of public policy, especially on issues such as the production and distribution of powerful
narcotics. But the idea, as this essay suggests, that such practical or utilitarian concerns are
matters of first or perhaps even exclusive importance is mistaken. Rather, as the logic of
the essay itself tacitly reveals, it is our conception of human nature, along with our
understanding of the purpose and meaning of human life that is foundational to the
arguments we will make and conclusions we will draw about the moral legitimacy of
cognitive enhancement for the healthy.
At the heart of the defense of cognitive enhancement for the healthy is an argument by analogy
that depends upon an assumption about the nature of human beings and the purpose(s) of the life
of the mind. Specifically, these authors suggest that cognitive-enhancing drugs are just like(or at
least more or less similar to) other forms of mental enhancement (e.g., written language,
printing, and the Internet or exercise, nutrition and sleep). Since the latter are legally
permissible, the former ought to beor so they argue. . . .
The defense of cognitive enhancement depends upon a view of mind as mere machine. This
is an understanding of human nature (or at least of ones mental life) that is thoroughly
mechanistic. The mind (or if were being honest, the brain) is a computer. Thus,
improvements come in two forms: (1) increased storage capacity or more information,
and (2) increased processing efficiency or speed. This is a view of human nature that is
fundamentally ateleological; it is without purpose beyond the mere acquisition and
processing of information. Holding such a view, as a matter of logical necessity, commits
one to the conclusion that the summum bonum for human beings consists in maximizing
our machine-like functions to the highest degree feasible. Thus, it is no surprise that the
authors conclude: We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function . . .
as a means of extended work productivity.
CON VIEW - Such a view of human nature is thoroughly reductionist. It is also mistaken.
That this is so can be grasped by a simple thought experiment involving the use of another
form of enhancement and Americas pastime. Imagine attending a baseball game in which
no human beings were participants. Imagine sitting for several hours watching a pitching
machine throw to a mechanical arm swinging a bat. Can you honestly imagine being
spellbound by such a game? Would you pay top dollar for seats behind home plate?
My hypothesis is that while a thoroughly-perfected game of robotic baseball might
commandeer an initial measure of fascination, it would simply fail to captivate our
imaginations over time. Moreover, our intuitive reluctance in being enthusiastic about this
imagined scenario is telling, not simply as an indication that something is amiss in the use
of performance-enhancing drugs, but more importantly as a clue to a proper
understanding of human nature.
That we find the prospect of robotic baseball uninteresting should not lead us to conclude that the
skills of baseball are in no way machine-like. Indeed, the fact that baseball players hone their
skills, often by means of machines in connection with machine-like repetition, is evidence of the
degree to which the cultivation of such skills can be perfected by treating them mechanistically.
To treat a skill mechanistically is simply to analyze it into its constituent parts with a view
toward training ones body to perform the most efficient and effective sequence of parts with as
much precision and accuracy as possible. Think of Tiger Woods' own success in rebuilding his
golf swing.
But we err in thinking that our mental life is exhausted, or even most uniquely expressed,
in exercising that narrow range of computer-esque cognitive functions alone. And this is the
error of those who promote the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs for the healthy. Like the
athlete who uses steroids, those who advocate the responsible use of cognitive-enhancing
drugs among the healthy falsely presuppose that one or two cognitive goods among many
are the most important goods among the many that constitute the life of the mind
considered as a whole. They presume, in other words, that cognitive improvement (and by
extension, human improvement) is exclusively a function adding information and
better information processing.
This presumption is simply false. For while the capacities to procure and to process
information are indeed goods of human life, they are neither the highest of human goods
nor are they ends in themselves. Yet, the use of cognitive enhancers by the healthy
implicitly treats the single good at which the drug aims as though it were the most
important or only good of ones mental life considered as a whole. As our thought-experiment
about robotic baseball makes clear, if merely thinking (very fast!) about lots of information were
the most important or only good of the human mental life considered as a whole, why not simply
replace us with computers?
Herein lies the proverbial rub. The logical trajectory of arguments supporting the
wholesale use of cognitive enhancers among the healthy is ultimately destructive of human
nature. And this would be the case even if one conceded what is most assuredly dubious
namely, that public policy could be crafted and enforced so as to minimize the deleterious
effects of the widespread distribution and use of such drugs. Proponents of cognitive
enhancement may still protest that benefits would accrue to both the individual and
society. But such benefits may come at the expense of individuals and societies that are
uniquely human in nature.
REFERENCE #8
DRUGS AND THE BRAIN.NIDA
http://www.nida.nih.gov/scienceofaddiction/brain.html
REFERENCE #9
ExtremeStudying
DISCUSS
PRINT
SHARE
ADVERTISEMENT
RELATED
TOPICS: brain steroids, ivy crack, adderall,ritalin
"Brainsteroids"atC.U.
OCTOBER 1, 2009
BY SAM CROSS AND L...
Its the other kind of partying that happens at Cornell.
4 a.m., finals week and Club Uris is buzzing with energy. Some students are sipping caffeinated cocktails
while others are chugging shots of Red Bull. A sleep-deprived student here or there is completely blacked out.
And, like any party, a handful of people are popping pills.
Running on Addy: Though there is research showing
that students overestimate the use of "study drugs" on campus, Adderall is known as the "Ivy crack."
Unlike other wild parties, the pill poppers are the studious ones so awake and focused on their work that
nothing could distract them from their studying. For this small group of students, taking drugs isnt a means to
get high but a coping mechanism to deal with the academic pressures of Cornell.
A Cornell student, who wished to remain anonymous in fear of being bombarded with Adderall requests,
recounted a time he was speaking about his learning disability with his friend in Olin Cafe when three students
came up to him, asking him if he had any Adderall to sell.
Another student, a junior majoring in chemistry and biology who wished to remain anonymous for fear of legal
rammifications, explained his use of Adderall as more of a luxury than a necessity.
For the vast majority of my life, I didnt take any academic performance enhancer and I did very, very well,
the student said. [Using Adderall] hasnt improved my grades, but it allows me to relax my study habits.
Instead of studying five hours a day for eight days for his prelim on Tuesday, with the help of Adderall, this
student can now study 10 hours a day for four days.
While I still study the same amount of time, I now know that I can devote a huge chunks of time to studying,
he said. I dont have trouble doing well, Adderall lets me use my time more efficiently.
Buying from people with bull shit prescriptions for about $4 every 5 milligram pill, this student uses adderall
to both study and party more effectively.
After you have a lot to drink, you usually slow down, but Adderall puts off that feeling. It helps you sustain
the best part of the night for longer.
Some students even crush up Adderall and snort it, seeking to make the effect faster and more powerful.
At this point, its practically like cocaine, he said.
Studies and media reports show that study drugs like Adderall and Ritalin are becoming increasingly popular
on college campuses, as students seek to enhance their academic performance.
At Cornell, a 2006 Gannett study found that at least six percent of the student body had used the drugs in the
past year though the impression of many students is that the actual percentage is much higher.
Our past findings suggested that many students tended to overestimate the level of use that was being
reported by their peers, Gannetts Director of Mental Health Initiatives Timothy Marchell said in an e-mail.
Its also likely that there are pockets of high use within certain social groups, which can make it seem like the
prevalence of these drugs is more widespread than it actually is.
Marchell also said Cornells surveys have been consistent with national studies that suggest a higher rate of use
among white students and students in the Greek system.
Adderall, whether it is known as Addy, the brain steroid and the Ivy League crack, is a member of a
class of compounds, amphetamines, that enter the presynaptic neuron and cause more dopamine to be released,
thus increasing the amount of neurotransmitter available to reach the postsynaptic cell and amplifies the
strength of the neurosignal.
In other words, Adderall stimulates the production of the messengers that carry signals between nerve cells,
increases concentration and alertness as a result. Ritalin, on the other hand, inhibits the reuptake of dopamine,
resulting in the same net effect as Adderall.
Usually intended for patients of ADHD and narcolepsy, Adderall reduces hyperactivity, improves impulse
control, and increases ones energy level. For students who do not have a condition that requires Adderall,
Adderall will enable them to stay focused without feeling tired or hungry. In higher doses, the effects of
Adderall can mimic that of other amphetamines, such as speed, cocaine or Crystal Meth.
However, diagnosis of ADHD, although entirely based on clinical impression, is based on a set of strict and
well tested DSM-IV standards. The patients must satisfy six symptoms in two categories and the symptoms
must appear before age six, according to Dr. David Rubin, assistant professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell
Medical College.
So just your inability to concentrate on this article will most likely not score you any pills. Even so, students
across the country who do not have ADHD continue to successfully obtain Adderall through underground trade
to study for exams, stay up at night, lose weight and get high.
Tools for success?: Some students without ADHD
use Adderall to focus, cramming weeks of studying into the the hours before a prelim.
Students on campuses across the country are increasingly using Adderall to help them study. Among 18 to 20year-olds, full-time college students were twice as likely as their counterparts who didnt attend college to use
Adderall for non-medical purposes, according to a 2009 report based on The National Survey on Drug Use and
Health. Use of prescription stimulants for non-medical purposes among college students has averaged about
five percent in recent years, according to a study in 2006 Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention and Policy.
At Florida State [where I went for undergrad], almost everyone had tried it at least once, a lot of people used
it during exams, and there were a fair amount of people that abused it, said Sakina Walsh grad.
The national average prevalence of Adderall usage at campuses varies, and Cornells statistics are consistent
with the national average.
The concern I often hear is that study drugs are being used by high-achieving students to get an edge over
their classmates, Marchell said. The data suggest that its more likely that students who are doing less well in
school turn to these drugs. They may be trying to compensate for poor study skills or perhaps the negative
consequences of partying on their academics.
One female student, a junior who wished to remain anonymous, said that while Adderall and Ritalin allow her
to concentrate well during late-night study sessions, she uses the drugs only for important exams because of
their side effects.
I feel my heart rate speeding up, she said. After about six hours my body tends to ache, and I get a fairly
large headache. I also sometimes have chest pains.
Garrett Graham 12 does not use Adderall to party harder or boost his grade point average. For Graham, his
regular Adderall usage is a necessity.
Without it, I would be a God-awful mess, he said.
Ever since Graham was young, his grandfather who was a psychologist noticed peculiarities in Grahams
habits. When completing his homework, Graham would also need to be watching a television show and listing
to music. No matter what Graham was doing, he could not be doing it for more than 10 minutes.
While Graham was diagnosed with ADHD about four years ago, it wasnt until college where Graham saw
how beneficial adderrall could be.
In high school, nothing was all that demanding, Graham said. At Cornell, Ive definitely seen the helpful
effects.
Just like how steroids are raising controversy in the athletic world, the use of Adderall to improve academic
performances raises many ethical questions.
Walsh, who takes Adderall to combat her clinical ADHD, believes that it is not cheating, because she literally
cannot concentrate without it. She knew she had the symptoms of ADHD when she studied psychology as an
undergrad in FSU, and she was tested and granted a prescription which she used to study for the GMATs.
For those who take Adderall as a pure performance enhancer, the ethical issues are much more complicated.
I absolutely think its cheating, but its not the worst thing out there. said Prof. Ronald Harris-Warrick,
neurobiology. There are many other forms of cheating out there that are much more severe, Adderall is pretty
low on the list.
Illicit Adderall use, however, remains a hot topic on campus.
The stress of existence does not necessarily wane after college, Prof. David McCobb, Human
Developoment, stated in an email. In all honesty, I think better than falling back on the stuff at this early stage
in life, it is far wiser to learn your limits, and gain the confidence that comes with dealing with exams, etc., on
your own, without chemical aid, so that you can face future stress with the knowledge that you can survive,
just by doing your best.
I think its stupid [to take Adderall], because one cheats oneself of the opportunity to build confidence without
it. he added. I dont think it is feasible to regulate everything by law, in college, anymore than at large.
You are not kids anymore. But it should be discouraged, and educated about.
While Graham does see Adderall usage among students to whom the drug isnt prescribed as dangerous, he
does understand the temptation.
Personally, it has a lot of different effects for those who dont use it regularly, Graham said. I think it is
irresponsible to use it to try and get a better test score. People often ask me for Adderall. Its understandable
though, in this academic environment, the possibility to improve your test scores without putting in more work
is desirable.
I would argue that [study drugs are] available to anyone who wants them, but like every ethical dilemma,
some people are willing to take the plunge and some arent, said a male junior who takes Adderall to study
but wished to remain anonymous.
More than anything, he said, I feel bad for the people who dont take them.