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."

14 of 592 comments (clear)

  1. Mentat by BWJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quote: It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

    ~Thufir

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  2. Drug Tests by bob65 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well. So are we gonna have to start taking drug tests before final exams?

  3. Re:been there done that by rainman_bc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We already have Ritalin. Is this one closely related to methamphetamine, too?

    A psych prof of mine, Dr. Wilma Marshall, explained to me that Ritalin was like Cocaine for kids.

    In a related story I worked with this guy who stole his kids Ritalin for a trip once. Said the exacty same thing - it's like Cocaine without the hangover the next day.

    Does cocaine make people smarter?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  4. There's always a price. by Isldeur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know - of all the things I've learned in medicine and in life in general, there's always a price. The orientals had so much right with their yin and yang idea.

    There was a time a few years ago where I was at this incredible ball/party and had the time of my life - it was such a high. The next day I was strangely a bit mellow and depressed. Perhaps all of the neural cascades that had let me have that high the night earlier were now a bit depleted.

    I have this espresso machine which I love and the drinks give me this lovely little warm feeling inside - but if I drink too many, when the effect is gone I feel cold and tired.

    Same thing for narcotics. We all know about the highs of some of those drugs - which are invariably followed with lows that force people to do anything to spare that.

    O.k., so you take a drug that makes you concentrate a bit better. What happens later? Are you a bit dumber for a while afterwards? I respect Cephalon's attempts to stave Parkinsons' but be careful about other "enhancing" drugs.

    For every action there's always a reaction. Just live a healthy life - eat well and exercise.

  5. Piracetam by caluml · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Have a look on Google for Piracetam. Similar thing. I tried to find out about side effects, but I couldn't find any. Someone I know takes a load before reading a whole set of Cisco coursebooks. It works for him - He's not a CCIE - yet, but he's a CCISP, and all the other ones.

  6. Deepness in the Sky by beholder77 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I for one welcome our new Emergent overlords!

    Sorry a bit obscure :)

    --
    Success is as dangerous as failure, hope as hollow as fear.
  7. wait 10 years and 10 million doses by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think I'll let others be the guinea pigs. Even after clinic trials (which only involve a few thousand people watched for only a year or so) doctors only have the barest of clues as to the effects and side-effects of a drug. It takes a long time, a bunch of studies, and a serious sample size to uncover the more subtle, rare-but-serious and long-term impacts of a medication.

    No short-term trial can prove a drug is truly safe and efficacious. Until much, much, more data is in, I think I'll wait.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  8. Nootropics by srain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nootropics (aka "Smart Drugs") have received a lot of attention in recent years. While many skeptics remain, there are quite a few avid followers of the nootropic "fad". Two great resources for the beginner are Smart Drugs and Smart Drugs II, although a few issues have been pointed out by some people.

  9. Re:Piracetam: thumbs up, Modafinil: thumbs down by jacksonwest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have pretty wide experience with stimulants (and depressants, mucle relaxants, opiates, cannibinoids, etc.) and I found modafinil, AKA Provigil, to be a nice, long, peppy buzz with a relatively mild comedown-depressive effect. I still prefer methylphenidate because of the stronger buzz and shorter-term effects. It's interesting to note that the IOC recently banned it as a performance-enhancing stimulant, and Victor Conte of BALCO has accused Marion Jones of being a user. It's definitely something I prefer to take in the morning or with lunch, though, as the effects last six to eight hours and are not easily overcome by taking depressants (alcohol, marijuana) to counterindicate the effects.

  10. Missing Option... by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Marijuana. Now don't laugh.

    Remember the incident a few years back at the Winter Games in Nagano with the US snowboarder getting in trouble for the pot? He said he smoked grass before he rode because it helped him relax and focus. Now, up till that point, marijuana had not officially been on the Olympic Commitee's list of banned substances, but that all changed when their research concluded that yes indeed, getting stoned may increase athletic performance. So now, if you're an Olympic athlete, marijuana is verboten.

    I would add my own personal anecdotes in support of their findings, but I seem to have forgotten them for some reason...

    --
    "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  11. Re:Celebrex? by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    not all doctors are liberal with pain killers for terminal patients, or patients that obviously *need* them.

    for example

    specifically, from the article:
    This consensus statement is necessary based on the following facts:

    * Undertreatment of pain is a serious problem in the United States, including pain among patients with chronic conditions and those who are critically ill or near death.
    * Effective pain management is an integral and important aspect of quality medical care, and pain should be treated aggressively.
    * For many patients, opioid analgesics--when used as recommended by established pain management guidelines--are the most effective way to treat their pain, and often the only treatment option that provides significant relief.
    * Because opioids are one of several types of controlled substances that have potential for abuse, they are carefully regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration and other state agencies. For example, a physician must be licensed by State medical authorities and registered with the DEA before prescribing a controlled substance.
    * In spite of regulatory controls, drug abusers obtain these and other prescription medications by diverting them from legitimate channels in several ways, including fraud, theft, forged prescriptions, and via unscrupulous health professionals.

    ----

    so while you may know "good" doctors who use every tool at their disposal in their practice, many, many, many people in the US do not.

    --
    ... hi bingo ...
  12. Re:Celebrex? by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a biotech background from school. With a few weeks of research, I can pretty consistently find out more about my condition and the most up-to-date treatments than my doctor knows.

    Often, I'm aware of side effects that they don't inform me of, or the drug companies don't inform me of.

    The problem is that doctors get far too much advertising from drug companies already, and they aren't always the most critical consumers of information. Moreover, they're frequently in a hurry, trying to minimize costs because of their relationship with insurers, etc.

    Ultimatly, people are responsible for their own health. If they're dumb about it, that's their own fault. But I'd like to see Pfizer (to give one example) fined for failing to disclose its sponsorship of research that it published in JAMA. (on female sexual dysfunction, when Pfizer makes Viagra)

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  13. I tried Modafinil.... by Jharish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...and it does work similar to speed.

    The problem is that yes, it did sharpen my concentration and make me awake all night(I worked a grave shift in a NOC) but it also made me extremely frustrated, short on patience and irritable. I broke three mice and four keyboards before I stopped taking the stuff.

  14. Superhuman strength. by NarrMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Alright, try to keep up on this logical march. Keep in mind, some of this is speculation, but all have a basis in fact.

    1) Muscles are controlled by neurons.
    2) At any given time, only a fraction of muscle fibers are available in a given muscle. This is due to some neurons having high thresholds from never being used or used infrequently. The ratio of total fibers/useable fibers is called "neuromuscular efficiency", and the mechanism by which thresholds are lowered is called the "Hebbian Mechanism". (for this discussion, I am speaking mainly of fast-twitch fibers).
    3) It's possible to train and open up new neurons through heavy strength training, such as Powerlifting/Olympic Weightlifting (note: not Bodybuilding).
    4) Strength athletes (high jumpers, sprinters, weightlifters, powerlifters) in general have a higher degree of NM efficiency than untrained individuals (somewhere along the lines of 30-50% as opposed to 5%-10%). Case in point- Judd Biasotto, former powerlifter who, at a bodyweight of 132, bench pressed over 300 lbs. and squatted over 600 lbs. In some extreme life or death cases, effciency can be increased dramatically, by either drugs(PCP), adrenaline(mothers lifting cars on their sides to save their children trapped underneath), or mental disease. Basically, you can lift a car, your brain either
    a) doesn't know or
    b) won't let you.
    5) Increasing NM efficiency involves lowering present neural thresholds, making an activity "easier" in terms of neural drive, and allowing new neurons/muscle fibers to be recruited.
    6) Some of the drugs mentioned in the article strengthen neural connections.
    7) If these drugs affect motor neurons in the body as well, the thresholds for these neurons would be greatly lowered, and neuromuscular efficiency would increase dramatically, maybe past reachable norms. (>50%) (hell, if they affect motor neurons as well as neurons in the brain, any technical skill could be used as an example).
    8) Net result: dramatic increases in strength in a relatively short amount of time, without a significant increase in bodyweight. The ability to exert more force would come from using nearly all the available fibers in an existing muscle.
    9) ???
    10) Profit!


    I, for one, welcome our Volvo lifting overlords.

    /would love to volunteer for a clinical trial investigating the above scenario.
    //The Matrix has you.

    --
    That's right. All your base.