Many Scientists Using Performance Enhancing Drugs

docinthemachine is one of several readers to send word of a new poll published in Nature showing unprecedented levels of cognitive performance-enhancing drug abuse by top academic scientists. The poll, conducted among subscribers to Nature, surveyed 1,400 scientists from 60 nations (70% from the US). 20% reported using performance-enhancing drugs. Among the drug-using population, 62% used Ritalin, 44% used Provigil, and 15% used beta-blockers like Inderal. Frequency of use was evenly divided among those who used drugs daily, weekly, monthly, and once a year. All such use without a prescription is illegal.

Comments

Re:What's the problem?

[evanbd]

That sort of report usually relates to any of the amphetamine relatives or methylphenidate (ritalin) relatives (the two are related but not the same). By amphetamine relatives, I include amphetamine, methamphetamine, dexedrine, Adderall (mixed amphetamine salts), and some others. Methylphenidates include Ritalin and Focalin and some others. Brand names vary, especially by country.

All the amphetamine derivatives have the same mode of action in the brain, but they aren't all "the same." Delivery route (oral, injected, insufflated, smoked) matters, as does the specific salt (eg amphetamine sulfate vs amphetamine hydrochloride). These have an impact on how rapidly your body absorbs the drug, and therefore the response vs time curve. Extended release versions also exist (Adderall XR, Concerta (methylphenidate)), which has a similar effect -- the duration is extended, and the response vs time curve flattened (generally considered a good thing -- the response varying with time is generally not what you want).

As always... don't take without a prescription. If you must take it without a prescription, you're much safer buying illicit Adderall than street meth, and you'll probably like the results better too (especially for functional, rather than recreational, purposes). Use an appropriate dosage (aka do your research), realize that the effect will be stronger in someone who doesn't take it regularly, and be aware of what drugs it reacts badly with. (Most notably, avoid mixing stimulants to excess, though the results of mixing with weak ones like caffeine won't surprise you. Do not, under any circumstances, mix stimulants with MAOIs (some antidepressants, possibly other uses) -- that can be fatal.)

I'm not a doctor, this is not medical advice. Don't take drugs you haven't researched. Taking them without a prescription is likely illegal. In general: do your research before taking them, and be really sure you know what you're taking!

Erowid is a great place to start said research, though it's more geared toward recreational / spiritual / exploratory drug use. Wikipedia has a lot of good info. In any case, beware of inaccuracies.

I'm not surprised

[brady8]

I know at my University for example that there is widespread use of Ritalin for studying purposes once it got out that you can learn entire courses inside and out pulling all-nighters when you're on Ritalin.

A friend of mine is a regular user of Ritalin, and because I knew the guy (and his marks) before he started using I can tell you with some confidence that Ritalin will add a very significant boost to your GPA.

I also have anecdotal evidence of many pre-med students using Ritalin when they study for the MCAT, prerequisite courses, etc. since competition for med school here is so fierce.

If the students are doing it because they're under pressure for higher grades, why wouldn't the professors and scientists be doing it when they're under (arguably greater) pressure to produce research results.

Bullshit. No Top Academic Scientists Responded.

[Colonel Korn]

The poll defines "top academic scientist" as a reader of Nature. Obviously this has major issues. For one, very few serious scientists read Nature regularly, since it doesn't speak directly to a given field. In my "top academic" institution, almost all of the people I know who have gone to Nature's website recently are either science undergrads doing low level research for a simple presentation or non-scientists trying to figure out what was meant by article X which they saw referenced in an AP news story. In fact, the poll itself wouldn't be encountered by most scientists looking at Nature, since scientists are almost always entering through an external search portal directly to an article of interest. Scientists with real pressure (say, busy grad students or professors) don't browse Nature. They strategically read an occasional article in Nature, but in most cases the same research will have been published already in greater detail in a more field-specific journal.

Collectively, all of this means that Nature's pool of respondents was almost certainly not "top scientists." Instead, they were selecting undergrads, non-scientists, and generally people with a lot of extra time on their hands. Yes, we know undergrads use Ritalin to cheat on tests. We have no indication, however, that Ritalin helps one to do the deep creative thinking necessary for involved science.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

They aren't 'more or less' saying that people should be left to die on their own: they are flat out stating that barring any contract to the contrary, you are on your own., not none of them.

Not quite. They're saying the decision of wether or not someone should be left to die on their own is up to the individuals who can help him. In a libertarian society you CAN help drug addicts in failing health by donating your money/time to a charity that helps them if you want to.

They think their only moral responsibility is to themselves.

Not quite. As a libertarian I feel responsibilities to help my daughter and my parents if they were in need, regardless of need, for instance. A random drug addict... not so much. You obviously feel differently but I'm all about letting you help who you want to help.

But they are curiously blind to the ways we all help them everyday, and even when this is pointed out, they claim they never asked for it, so they feel no reciprocal responsibility.

I can't speak for "they", but this is not the case for myself.

The thing is, they aren't being forced. They could drop out of society.

We aren't? There is a place in our country we can go where we can put whatever substances in our bodies that we chose and live with the consequences of that?

But they want the benefits of living in a society with none of the responsibilities.

You don't seem to know what a libertarian is. The whole freedom accompanies responsibility concept is libertarianism 101. Any real libertarian wants ALL of the responsibilities for himself, not none of them.

Its not financially backed in the US

[NIckGorton]

There are two reasons why ER care is financially backed by the government. The first is a moral, no one should be allowed to die just because they are down on their luck. In that sense, your distinction is valid. Um, emergency care (in the US) is not financially backed by the government. It is mandated but paying for it isn't. The EMTALA law says if you come to the ER and have an emergency medical condition, I have to provide you with a medical screening exam and any emergent and necessary care. However if you don't have money, are uninsured, and you can't get retroactive Medicaid, I don't get paid.

EMTALA is an unfunded mandate that says that the nurses who work in an ER, the hospital who runs the ER, and ER physicians like me have to pay for uninsured emergency care. It takes a segment of the US economy and says we have to take responsibility for and subsidize what everyone else doesn't. That cheap McDonalds hamburger you ate today that is less expensive because McDonalds doesn't offer health insurance? I paid for a part of that.

Of course I am thankful for EMTALA every time that I use it to force a surgeon to take the appendix out of an uninsured teenager. I also feel that I am paid quite well enough even though about 30% of the ER care and 50% of the overall care I provide is uncompensated (I volunteer two days a week at a low income clinic that sees a lot of uninsured patients so that bumps the % up.) However overall I hate EMTALA precisely because its used as a crutch: I'm sure Bush slept very well at night after vetoing SCHIP because he thinks that every American gets health care since even if we are uninsured we can go to the ER (where most of the care people need - like prevention and treatment of chronic disease can't be done).