Slashdot Mirror
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.
How do you figure? I mean, they should be getting grants because they're good at what they do, right? If the drugs are a part of that, then they're a part of the reason the guy is getting the grant in the first place.
Somebody said it above; this isn't sports. It's not "cheating" to use a performance enhancing drug in your job. Most of us are addicted to a common one: caffeine. That's considered perfectly normal, but if you're using Provigil without a prescription its a wholly different thing.
The problem is one of perception. Some things are "drugs" and shouldn't be "abused", and some other things that seemingly belong in that category as well...aren't there.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I actually do use caffeine specifically for performance enhancement. Its effects on norepinephrine levels in the brain are similar to that of amphetamines, though far less severe.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Well, ideally, yes. The problem comes when those "philosophical beliefs" consist of metrics evaluating which special interest group provided them with the most benefits, which of the other legislators will trade a vote their way now, for a vote you want for pork in your distract later, how actions now will affect standing within the political party (note not with the voters, which is something else entirely), what lucrative speaking engagements will be offered post-legislative career, and so forth.
Your approach would be spot on in a situation where legislators voted along the philosophical lines that they shared truthfully with the public during a fair election process; however, that in no way describes this country. And that's not an opinion — that's a fact.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It's really unfortunate when it is. My apartment was raided by the police because my roommates (whom I did not elect to live with, but was placed with) were relatively heavy drug dealers. The police found a single adderall pill stuck in the corner of one of my drawers that I had completely forgotten about. I had tried adderall about three times and, although it helped me study, it wasn't worth the disruption to my sleep habits (it gives you horrible insomnia). I threw the last pill I had in a drawer and forgot about it. The pill had been there for about six months.
While I won't be serving any jail time, my future as I intended it is more or less over. I'm currently a convicted felon serving three years probation, having to attend an intensive drug rehab course, and worst of all, I lost my federal aid that was helping pay for my grad school. Once you include the legal fees, the loss of my state entitlements, and the loss of my federal aid, I am currently looking at around a $30,000 price tag that I can't afford because of a single pill that was found because of a search that wasn't even my fault. More than likely, I will have to withdraw from grad school after this semester, despite being less than a year away from completing my PhD.
I use Adderall damn that drug is addictive. I can stay up all night then take that and I feel good as new an hour later. Plus it has the benefit for me of allowing me to concentrate better and get more work done. It also stops me from clicking the damn stumbleupon button for hours on end. With it I get twice as much work done and can think twice as well.
Please note I do have a prescription for it and I dont even need to fake ADD to get it, just he gives me a slightly higher dose than I might need.
Beta blockers are often used by public speakers or those presenting papers as it prevents many of the physical effects of performance anxiety--red in the face, sweating, clamminess--so they can at least appear and feel composed enough to say whatever they're saying.
_You_ can drink drugs are "self-defeating".. But who cares? If I used drugs to save my life, then I would say that is good. I won't even stop to think about how I have degraded myself by staying alive. I don't think any cancer survivors feel any smaller because they needed to use drugs to beat cancer..
If I use drugs to clear my head to solve an important problem, then I don't consider that problem any less solved. I'm not working on solving a problem just to see if I can do it... I want to save the world for the world's sake, not my sake.
I would say that this line of thinking is kind of "selfish" in a way. The need for people to believe sports are fair and uncompromised by drugs has skewed the way people think of performance enhancment. Enhancement is good. We like enhancement. Get over it.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-B.Franklin
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.
But the second is pragmatic and merges the two cases. Time is of the essence in the ER. Confirming insurance or bank account info would require either a) a lot of time b) a scary big brother database. Both seem worse costs than the status quo if this is the only concern.
However, if you believe in the first reason (as you seem to), then they have to determine not only if you can pay, but if you cannot, why. That implies either a lot more time or a much scarier big brother database in those instances.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Interestingly, Provigil (Modafinil) is more effective, safer, less addictive, and has less side effects when compared in side by side studies with caffeine.
Modafinil should be in soft drinks, and the fact that you can't buy it over the counter is ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil
Did your lawyer suck? Proving that you were even aware that that pill was there, let alone that you put it there is nearly impossible. If you had denied everything the DA probably would of dumped the case because it's not worth it to try and win such a stupid case. Worst case they would offer you a deal where you agree to community service and drug counseling. If you aren't trolling then you really got fucked hard.
I had a friend in college who lived with dealers and had almost a half ounce of weed in his dorm when it was raided. He got sent to through the campus "grievance" system (which is not actually part of the legal system) and had no real consequences besides a year of academic probation and some mandatory drug counseling sessions in the campus counseling center. The dealers of course were prosecuted and are in prison for 10+ years.
I also use Provigil, but because I have sleep apnea.. Even WITH my mask and CPAP, I have huge sleep disruptions. The Dr's suggested surgery, but admitted that it may not provide much relief and I may
:)
actually still need the CPAP... Therefore, I use the CPAP as much as I can, and pop the Provigil on
the days when I can tell I didn't get any sleep. My only side effect that I've found is talking. Once
I pop a Provigil, about 1/2 hour later, I can't shutup. I will just rattle on and on... And for the
folks at work, they knew right away that something was wrong till I explained why I had to take it.
As for brain enhancement, etc... Naw... Just makes you awake. Though I'll be the first to admit that
it is rather distracting to fall asleep while your trying to think of something.
BTW, For those planning on using this as a reason to get Provigil, you have to have REAL evidence of a
problem. I had a RUDE AWAKENING when I bumped into another vehicle at a stop light. I fell asleep
at the wheel waiting for it to turn green. Luckily nobody was hurt, and it made me drop the excuses as
to why I was tired at work.
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
I have no clue how to go doctor shopping; I come by my drugs the hard way (ie, having problems that really screw up my life if I'm not on them).
Of course, my personal sense of ethics says these drugs should be available to anyone making an informed choice. At least some doctors are willing to prescribe low doses to people they feel are responsible and would be helped by them. If you're intending to use them non-recreationally (ie, to help with focus) you may well qualify. So seriously, if you and your doctor have a good relationship, just... ask. Tell them you have difficulty focusing sometimes (or whatever the case is) and were wondering if some sort of stimulant might help. Don't lie to them, or exagerrate symptoms. There's quite possibly no need, and it probably won't work (not to mention being illegal and imo unethical).
In short, if you want to convince a physician that CNS stimulants would enhance your quality of life... then tell them so :) Say why you think that's true, and approach the issue as asking your doctor for help, not trying to con them out of drugs.
There are a variety of drug options, as well as non-drug options (various techniques for focusing, etc -- they actually do work, and they work in concert with the drugs as well). You'll want to get detailed input from someone who knows the drugs better than you or I, so give them all the info they need and give them correct info.
And actually... since you do quite well for the most part, in reality I am paying for it.
My health insurance rates are set so that you can be paid your normal wage, the rent can be paid, the bills for drugs can be paid despite providing mandated free healthcare for people without healthcare.
Something like this
Pays/Cost/Unpaid
$0/300/$300 Illegal Immigrant/Young Party Animal/Homeless saint who helped society/Single Unemployed Widowed Mother
$680/300/0 Four people with insurance getting the same thing done. ($30 goes to the insurance company, $50 sales tax)
The problem comes externalizing costs becomes the majority (which it sort of is now...something like 60% of people in the US rely on other people to pay for some or all of their healthcare). Which is why Medicare is going to be completely bankrupt in 2019 (hey... 11 YEARS away-- very soon).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
A fat person with no insurance should not get treated either. I'm overweight, now, because I didn't get treated without insurance when I needed it. My tale of how I'm not allowed to work in the US anymore, due to government bigotry, has been detailed here before. The short version though, is that I was an able bodied, upstanding natural born Caucasian US citizen.
I don't have insurance now, and likely never will. I didn't several years ago either, when I broke my foot. Since that was apparently not emergency enough (I obviously didn't die, no life threat..); I didn't get treated.
Now I'm overweight, because I can barely stand up to get to the bathroom. When I was younger, I was physically active on a daily basis. I had practiced Taekwondo since I was 11, and was in great shape.
So a hearty fuck you to you, and all the moderators who gave you a +5 for this stupidity. Not everyone who's overweight (or even most, from what I can tell) got their by eating nothing but Big Macs and Twinkies.
~Rebecca
This is slightly off topic, but one can either agree that morality (right and wrong) is subjective, and hence is completely open to debate, or morality is objective, and hence there is one and only one (Universal) right. There can be no middle ground.
It is easy to point to the presence of the debate itself as a method of validation for the former side to the argument. However, for the latter, the burden of proof is upon the person making such an assertion. After all, if moral right and wrong are facts, then it can be shown to apply universally, to all and to all situations. Should any situation be morally ambigious, then moral objectivity cannot hold true (one cannot have some morals be objective and some subjective--only that some are subjective and uncommon, and some are subjective and common). The only approach to truly assert truth and fallacy is through mathematics. Unfortunately, this is impossible, and thus most on the latter side emply the second best method, the scientific method.
However, most accounts of conflict show no clear moral line of right and wrong. Some of this is in part, are due to conflicts of social acceptability, conflicts of perception, even conflicts of memory. And even when such conflicts are not relevant, the line that is established will move over time. That we are capable of changing our minds, whether it be slightly, or completely, not attributable to an external force is sufficient to illustrate this point.
Or perhaps, to make the argument more concise, because the invididual as a self is capable of subjectivity, our morals, which are to the best of our ability to prove through scientific inquiry, a property of the system known as the self, are therefore subjective.
The body of science that deals with consciousness and perception unconditionally show this. Thus in order to assert the reality objective morals, one must discredit the scientific method of experimentation and validation--in which case, nothing is or can be proven.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
I'd say that part of the problem is that there isn't a clear definition considered-- both in the sense of 'what' and 'why'-- of morality. Morality deals with "good" and "bad", but those terms cannot exist in a vacuum. 'Good' is good... toward what end? 'Bad' is bad... against what goal? Without goals for morality, nothing can be proven-- not so much from a lack of objective ability, as much as from the simple fact that no actual assertion has been made.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.