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."
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.
the Nobel prize committee will have to start testing for brain doping?
-or so you'd think
Well. So are we gonna have to start taking drug tests before final exams?
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
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
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.
Nonsense. I've been taking them for years. No they don't. No they don't. No they don't. No they don't. No they don't. No they don't.
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.
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.
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.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Actually, caffeine is better known for its ability to relieve headaches. Just check the ingredients on a bottle of Excedrin. Caffeine withdrawal headaches are very common in post-operative hospitalized patients who might not be getting the amount of coffee to which they are accustomed.
I for one welcome our new Emergent overlords!
:)
Sorry a bit obscure
Success is as dangerous as failure, hope as hollow as fear.
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.
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.
Does cocaine make people smarter?
They certainly seem to think so, don't they.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Well it was just on the evening ABC news 40% of arthritis patints take Celebrex while about 5% should. If you really want to understand how the new drugs reach the market read http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pres cription/hazard/independent.html
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
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
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
But given our culture, penis pills will still outsell brain enlargement pills 10-1
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.
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...
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.
Anyone who reads Slashdot regularly has no need to imagine it....
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.
taking 1-theanine with caffeine....try it yourself by taking 1-theanine with caffiene (coffee as a most likely source)
heh, I guess all the world must be coffee drinkers, for green tea already has the caffeine and I-theanine together! Use water just under boiling for green tea. Go to a Chinese tea shop/pharmacy and ask for a rich, strong green tea.
Sharpens you up for a bit o' the old ultra-violence.
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
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!"
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
The World Bridge Federation already tests for drugs and some has already lost a medal for refusing the test.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
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.
...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.
Alright, try to keep up on this logical march. Keep in mind, some of this is speculation, but all have a basis in fact.
/would love to volunteer for a clinical trial investigating the above scenario.
//The Matrix has you.
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.
That's right. All your base.