Slashdot Mirror
Cognitive Enhancement Drugs
Neil Halelamien writes "The LA Times has an article on various cognitive enhancement drugs which are currently undergoing clinical trials. These include ampakines which amplify the strength of electrical signals between neurons, HT-0712 which enhances the transfer from short-term to long-term memory, and gene therapy which revitalizes existing neurons. The article also describes successes with the drug Modafinil, which seems to sharpen attention and mental agility. The side effects of these sorts of drugs are not yet fully known, although many neuroscientists think that they may lead to 'mental clutter' or task-obsessiveness."
These guys seem to be looking at lots and lots of drugs. They still seem to be ignoring the tried-and-true caffine. *jitter*
Caffine wakes you up, gives you more energy, speeds up your metabolism, and gives you a headache. Plus, it's been in use for years.
Excuse me, I need to go drink more Bawls now.
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
The perfect worker:incapable of thinking of anything but the job he's concentrating on. Expect these to be mandatory by 2015.
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
I'm posting this AC because slashdot mods tend to be prudes, but seriously -- I find that sex really opens up my mind and enhances my cognitive abilities (yeah I've seen the Seinfeld episode).
Studying for your exams and making no progress? Call up your significant other, or make a surprise visit. Single? Get some porn if you're a guy or some of that erotic literature if you're a girl, and you'll be well relaxed and sharper than ever before.
Vioxx and now Celebrex. The COX-2 inhibitors are revealing additional side effects like heart attack and kidney damage in a couple of studies now. Look, drugs are not benign things despite what marketing campaigns would have you believe and they should not be taken lightly. Apparently 44% of Americans are now on prescription drugs of one sort or another and one might start to wonder when the other shoe is going to drop.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I heard somewhere that caffeine was frowned upon in high-class chess tournaments... will this new discovery get tested for? Brain-doping for chess? :)
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
This seems like a useful place to point out an interesting read on Jerry Pournelle's web site on overclocking the brain.
I don't see a direct connection between the two articles, but perhaps someone more informed about neurochemistry could point one out.
While mind-enhancing drugs are novel, mind-enhancing diets and mind-enhancing environments have been the privilage of the well-to-do since time began.
The privilaged generally eat better than the unprivilaged. They generally have less exposure to environmental toxins. They generally have a more education-centric environment growing up.
Even measurements of mental ability can be manipulated by "teaching the test" or "teaching to the test." Someone with a "un-coached" SAT score of 1150 may score 1170 if they've been coached on how to take the test or if their parents or teachers focused on items likely to be on that particular test at the expense of other material.
All in all, if your parents have the means, you are more likely to have a better raw iq, possibly an enhanced measured intelligence, and a better education than someone whose parents are not of means.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
My PC isn't fast enough. I'll enhance it's electrical affinity by plugging it from the 110V socket into this 220V transformer! And my software isn't doing what I want: it's got too many 1s, and not enough zeros... I'll just enhance it with this hex editor...
--
make install -not war
That's not an evolutionary stand point. That's a eugenics stand point.
There are giant obvious problems with these drugs, imho likely due to them ignoring the current results of evolution.
But saying that dumb people should be evolutionary unsuccessful is bullshit eugenics. There's no "should". Evolutionarily successful people are evolutionarily successful. If you want evolution to prove some kind of worthiness of some kind of trait, that's your vanity speaking.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
In magazine ads for drugs, drug companies are required to print a massive ammount of text, sometimes a whole page, listing side effects and potential problems. With TV ads, sometimes they do mention a couple side effects, usually dry mouth, but at the bottom of the screen they show the text "see our ad in whatever magazine" where they have that full page of text. I've noticed the magazine "Cooking Light" a few times, presumably becaue the full page ad is dirt cheap. Unless you happen to have a copy of this month's Cooking Light in your house, you have no idea what the full list of side effects and complications are.
If I was in charge, I would get rid of TV perscription drug commercials tomorrow. If you have a real medical problem, go see a trained doctor. If that doctor thinks you need medication, he'll write you a perscription. That's how it worked until just a few years ago. Chris Rock does a brilliant bit about drug ads. He talks about the ads just naming symptoms until they hit on something that rings a bell with you. "Do you get sleepy at night? Do you wake up in the morning? I got that. I'm sick!"
-B
My brain is the seat of my consciousness, my consciousness is all that "I" am. It is a very fragile thing, a hard knock to my head will destroy it. Where as my body is in comparison substantially robust, it can survive limbs being broken, and flesh torn apart... but it is not "me", it is my vehicle. It exerts a great deal of control over my brain/consciousness, as all it cares for is its own reproduction... I fight with it every day, as a parent fights the child at only wants to eat candy...
Given this (personal) view who and what I am, I am very very careful of looking after of my brain, for it is all I am. I have done drugs, I have found their effects on my consciousness somewhat,.. novel... but I don't trust that we know enough to mess with the underlying substrate of what makes Me. A small injury to my frontal lobe can turn into OCD. These Cognitive "enhancement" drugs may sound like overclocking your brain to some... but how many key rings have been made from CPUs by over enthusiastic overclockers...
I will leave this stuff to the psyconauts... if that are happy, smart and enjoying there new consciousness at the age of 80... then fine... but I know that the default configuration of my brain is tried and tested over 100,000s of years... I know it will still be (with good care of my body that feeds it) in good working order until my body packs it in from cancer/heart disease, what have you...
2c
agreed. I've been alot more insightful since I started smoking weed, even when I'm not high.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Cocaine and all of its stimulant cousins don't make you smarter, but they focus all of your attention on one thing. Your nervous system gets turned up a notch and you're ready to get stuff done. I know of people smoking meth and cleaning their apartment for 14 hours.
South Park does a great parody about ADD. The test to see if the 8 year old kids have ADD is the doctor reading all of Moby Dick. If the kids don't pay attention to all of it, they have ADD and need Ritalin.
-B
The pressure to work longer hours, or to do more after work then just sleep for a couple of hours and take a couple of pills will eventually take a toll on the brain, and after years and years of doing it, we may be in a worse state in our old age.
Another problem may be that the pills start losing effect after a while and you need to take more and more to get the same effect, then you notice that if you don't take them, you aren't as alert as you used to be without the pills, and you end up just taking them to reach a "normal" level. Have any studies been done looking into whether these drugs are addictive???
At least in the US, we have some kind of weird "honor"-related relationship with someone's physical abilities. We have a deep-seated feeling that it's "unfair" to dope up in order win physically. This might be because people believe that with enough excercise and hard work, anyone can be an Olympic Athelete.
:)
I think most people don't have the same kind of feelings about intelligence, because we regard it as an inborn thing. Either you're smart or you're not, and that's all there is too it, right?
I know that my intellect takes a lot of work to maintain. I'm quick, but my short-term memory isn't great and my logical abilitiy isn't much above average. I have to work very hard to keep my brain in a state where I can program computers, solve math in my head, remember things, and generally keep my nickname as "that smart guy." I may be predisposed to intelligence, but that doesn't mean that I can slack off.
In the US at least, I doubt we'd ever see "brain testing" because people don't regard intelligence as something you can build, unlike physical aptitude. People don't associate that weird puritanical "honor"-relationship with Matheletes.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Intelligence is precisely as valuable as its application; no more, no less. If it's used well, it has worth; if it's used poorly or not at all, then it doesn't. Where it comes from is irrelevant.
If so, is it fair to give people an advantage because they have money?
Is it fair to give people an advantage because they can afford a nice car, a business suit, tuition at a prestigious university, blah blah blah?
The bullshit "good things are bad because the rich can afford it and I can't!" thing is cute the first twenty thousand times or so, but really now, it's old. It's funny how things work; they start out unreachably expensive at first and then become more accessible.
Provided, at least, that myopic, jealous Luddites don't get them banned or suppressed because they're offended that they can't reap the benefits on day one like someone who has a few more zeroes in their bank account.
So, what else do you rail against just because some people can benefit from affording it while others can't? Education? Computers? Housing in the good part of town?
-PS
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
One of my friends is narcoleptic, and has a prescription to Provigil (Modafinil). I took some, mostly out of curiosity, on a road trip once. It's very similar to methamphetamine, although less physically invigorating. You talk a lot; have a lot of--seemingly insightful--ideas which are considerably foggier the day after. Of course, I was driving for 12 hours straight so I didn't have the opportunity to do many cognitive tests. It'd be more interesting to take some and then play a pile of online FPS games, or work on a programming project, or something more measurable. I've heard of people taking Modafinil before publicly speaking or doing a big pitch. It certainly does provide the illusion of charisma.
Unfortunately, people are already taking drugs to perform better on the SATs and other tests.
Adderall, a drug meant to treat ADD and ADHD, is one of the most commonly abused drugs. Its purpose is to help people with disabilities "focus" better, but it is more often than not used by people who don't even have mental handicaps, increasing test scores and giving some students an unfair advantage. This highly addictive drug, as with most drugs, requires more usage to get the same buzz or energy boost as previously obtained by the abuser.
Some side effects of the drug are: increased paranoia, delusions, and heart attacks or strokes.
Interestingly enough, the drug mentioned in the article seems to be fairly similar to the way Adderall works (the whole point about making the user more focused).
Wasn't it named Accela? Life imitating anime again?
Well, yes, but unlike Newton's Laws, in medicine the reaction is often neither equal nor opposite. Sometimes the price is small compared to the benefit. For example, aspirin can cause an upset stomach in some people -- but it's also been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease. If I were in a high-risk group, I know I'd rather have a grumbling stomach than a malfunctioning heart.
There is no physical law that requires the aftereffects or side effects of a performance-enhancing drug to be severe in proportion to the benefit. Nor, of course, is there a law that requires them to be mild -- if you're interested in this sort of thing you need to evaluate the risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis and wait for as long as your comfort level dictates to watch for any long-term effects.
To use one of the article's drugs as an example: for a while I was taking modafinil for a sleep disorder (which I no longer have, happily.) The only negative side effect I found was that if I took it in the morning, my eyes were a bit on the dry side by the end of the day. That's a small price to pay for being awake and alert. Are there other long-term effects that will only appear years after the fact? Maybe, but I'll take my chances.
FWIW I've come up with a number of metaphors for my experience of being autistic, and it might be useful to examine these in the context of "cognitive enhancement". There are in the "self-awareness" article directly accessible here (URL may change in the future) or through my domain.
In any event, it may be prudent to go back to the movie "Charly" and ponder his answer to the question, "What do you see?" and the ensuing dialog. Seeing more clearly comes at a price...
Not always. Thought experiment: you break your leg, then you're faced with the choice of:
No offense, but that's a non-specific platitude and sounds like a boring life.A. Use typical medical technology to fix it with a cast
B. Avoid the use of the cast and accept the broken leg. After all, like all medicine, there will probably be "a price" (there will be a monetary cost, but I don't think that's the kind of price you were talking about)
Like coffee, cognitive enhancements should be treated that same way we treat all things that may be used to ehnance our quality of life - we establish a reasonable level of "moderation" and go with that, always being careful to watch for potential pitfalls. Don't write them off out of hand just because they are new and unfamiliar.
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
As any engineer can tell you, there are always trade-offs in any design change. In this case, those trade-offs are "side effects".
It may be possible to optimize human beings for some particular task using drugs of various sorts - but what criterion will we use to determine what changes we will make?
I envisage a sort of corporate dystopia, in which people optomize themselves to maximize their utility to their employers, altering their own brain chemistry to make themselves into perfect employees - we can argue what traits such a human tool would have, but they're probably not very laudable.
On the other hand, people ought to be able to have any neurochemistry they want; under more generally egalitarian social arrangements, such drugs would simply enable people to do that, which would be good.
Maybe I've just been reading too much science fiction.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
You have no business going to a doctor and telling him/her what drug you want to take to cure what ailes you
It's my body, I think I do in fact have a right to decide what's going to go into it. And you're seriously overestimating most doctors grasp of pharmacology. It's just one aspect of many, many, things they have to attempt to keep up with. It's not that difficult for someone with even a moderate background in the area who has out of interest in their condition spent time druging through databases to know more about a particular drug, or class of drugs, than a gp.
Everything will be taken away from you.
Just out of curiosity, are there any documented cases of people being harmed by eating genetically engineered foods?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I would be very interested in using any safe mind-enhancing drug. However, the brain is not a computer and life is not a pre-mediated routine.
If people start using memory and attention enhancing drugs to ground themselves more in reality and their current world view/direction, I think it's important that people also start using psychedelics and other mentally-opening/freeing drugs to make sure they don't get bogged down in the now-now-now.
Basically psychedelics allow you an escape from grounding forces (like attention, or memory) to go and question important, overarching meta-questions -- where am I going? what does the world mean and what's my place in it? who are my friends and how do I feel about them? how do I feel about the future? etc. These would be a good counter-balance to the mind-enhacing drugs, which help you achieve goals formed from reflection upon your insight, more efficiently.
I'm not really advocating psychedelic drug use for everyone in general (well, not in this post at least, heh). But as "regular", not cognitively-enhanced people we supposedly have some sort of balance of 'free-thought' with which we question and reflect on Big, Important Matters and 'attentive/constrained thought' with which we make short-term goals happen. The two are a feedback process. If we're shifting the balance by increasing the duraction of our 'attentive/constrained thought', we need to have a way of increasing the intensity of our 'free-thought' so that we don't loose sight of the big picture.
you know what the real problem here is?
doctors are afraid to precribe narcotic pain killers. which, if used as directed, only have constipation as a long-term side effect, and possible addiction.
and for a cancer patient - who the hell cares if they get addicted to percocet?
... hi bingo
Maybe you are looking at it the wrong way; IQ is only an inaccurate measure of intelligence, however it's a very accurate measure of success.
So look at this way, the parents are more successful, because of their intelligence, and the corresponding indicator of that intelligence would be the IQ.
I sig, therefore I was.
I think we can agree that there's a correlation, but I don't think there's enough evidence to prove causation (in either direction).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Did she explain why? AFAICT the only thing wrong with that word is that it was used by benighted people in the benighted past.... but maybe I am missing something.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
That's not necessarily the whole answer.... it could be that until recently (evolutionarily speaking) there wasn't that much more to be gained by being a genius. If your whole life consists of foraging for grubs or subsistence farming, being too smart could even be quite a detriment (you'd be at risk of going crazy from boredom
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Long-haul truckers and Air Force pilots have long popped amphetamines to ward off drowsiness. Generations of college students have swallowed over-the-counter caffeine tablets to get through all-nighters. But such stimulants provide only a temporary edge, and their effect is broad and blunt -- they boost the brain by juicing the entire nervous system.
Its the law... how long till it gets demonized by FUD and becomes illegal, like MDMA, LSD and cannabis?
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.