Academy of Medical Sciences and Cognition-Enhancing Drugs
James recently forwarded me an article entitled "Academy of Medical Sciences suggests urine tests to detect smart drugs" that discusses widespread use of cognition-enhancing drugs and putative legislation to curb their use.
"Sir Gabriel Horn, a neuroscientist at Cambridge University who chaired the [academy's expert] panel, said: “The Government should work with interested bodies to consider local regulation around the workplace, schools and universities, and other places of that kind...When this [the use of cognition-enhancing drugs] becomes serious for education authorities, they may need to take steps. They could examine urine samples, for example.”
While we're at it, why don't we be sure to screen students' urine for dietary micronutrients that might give them an advantage. Or perhaps also for genetic polymorphisms associated with intelligence in order to reduce students' grades to handicap their "innate abilities". Or even better, the government could just perform video surveillance on the students 24/7 to ensure they're not acquiring any "unfair advantages," pharmacological or otherwise. Maybe we should enforce laws that allow students to study no more than a certain number of hours per week, just to make sure to avoid any unfair advantages.
Despite the provocative title of the article, it appears as though urine tests are not specifically recommended in the actual primary source article ("Brain science, addiction and drugs", article accessible here, portal and description accessible here) released by the Academy of Medical Sciences (searching for "urine" in the article reveals only hits relating to addiction and detection of drugs during pregnancy). However, given the above comment is from the chairperson of the expert committee, these suggestions are worryingly indicative of these academics drunkenly toeing the line between preservation of the public's safety and respect of individual liberties.
An interesting clip from the primary article:
"Most participants reported using caffeine regularly: tea, coffee, cola or 'Red Bull'. However, despite evidence that caffeine has a significant effect on cognition, most participants argued that the long history of using these drinks and their social context put them in a different category to other forms of cognition enhancers."
The phrase "long history of using these drinks and their social context" reminds me of man's inhalation of carcinogenic compounds for thousands of years before the pathogenic effects of smoke were realized. These sentiments, and the willingness of an Academy of Medical Sciences member to sacrifice personal liberties for them, reflect how fear of new technologies can profoundly cloud the judgment of those evaluating them.
Andy says:
"another point that I always make when this gets brought up is that we have to be realistic about the status of current cognitive enhancers. For example, ritalin and amphetamine might help you burn the midnight oil and study longer than usual, but there will quickly come a point when sleep deprivation and catecholamine depletion start to make it backfire. And of course any advantage that cholinergic drugs as well as the other gray market nootropics (like piracetam) are likely to be pretty damn subtle. These drugs have their most potent effects when there's a 'deficit' involved, like ADHD or dementia. In that case, the individual should likely be taking them anyway!
"I still want to see some research in healthy humans showing that these drugs have demonstrable positive effects on relevant cognitive tasks like standardized tests or longitudinal GPA performance."
When James and I were undergraduates, people who were not us set out to try and administer standardized tests for cognitive indices in a double-blind placebo-controlled fashion with piracetam. Perhaps surprisingly, they found that the tests were costlier and harder to come by than the volunteers and pharmaceuticals.
Hopefully those sitting in ivory towers with stacks of grant applications on their desks will have better opportunity before this generation is dust to let safety and science guide their thinking, instead of fickle social mores and flickers of totalitarianism. This is underscored by how little contemporary cognitive enhancers offer us, as Andy points out. Until then, all together now: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
"Sir Gabriel Horn, a neuroscientist at Cambridge University who chaired the [academy's expert] panel, said: “The Government should work with interested bodies to consider local regulation around the workplace, schools and universities, and other places of that kind...When this [the use of cognition-enhancing drugs] becomes serious for education authorities, they may need to take steps. They could examine urine samples, for example.”
While we're at it, why don't we be sure to screen students' urine for dietary micronutrients that might give them an advantage. Or perhaps also for genetic polymorphisms associated with intelligence in order to reduce students' grades to handicap their "innate abilities". Or even better, the government could just perform video surveillance on the students 24/7 to ensure they're not acquiring any "unfair advantages," pharmacological or otherwise. Maybe we should enforce laws that allow students to study no more than a certain number of hours per week, just to make sure to avoid any unfair advantages.
Despite the provocative title of the article, it appears as though urine tests are not specifically recommended in the actual primary source article ("Brain science, addiction and drugs", article accessible here, portal and description accessible here) released by the Academy of Medical Sciences (searching for "urine" in the article reveals only hits relating to addiction and detection of drugs during pregnancy). However, given the above comment is from the chairperson of the expert committee, these suggestions are worryingly indicative of these academics drunkenly toeing the line between preservation of the public's safety and respect of individual liberties.
An interesting clip from the primary article:
"Most participants reported using caffeine regularly: tea, coffee, cola or 'Red Bull'. However, despite evidence that caffeine has a significant effect on cognition, most participants argued that the long history of using these drinks and their social context put them in a different category to other forms of cognition enhancers."
The phrase "long history of using these drinks and their social context" reminds me of man's inhalation of carcinogenic compounds for thousands of years before the pathogenic effects of smoke were realized. These sentiments, and the willingness of an Academy of Medical Sciences member to sacrifice personal liberties for them, reflect how fear of new technologies can profoundly cloud the judgment of those evaluating them.
Andy says:
"another point that I always make when this gets brought up is that we have to be realistic about the status of current cognitive enhancers. For example, ritalin and amphetamine might help you burn the midnight oil and study longer than usual, but there will quickly come a point when sleep deprivation and catecholamine depletion start to make it backfire. And of course any advantage that cholinergic drugs as well as the other gray market nootropics (like piracetam) are likely to be pretty damn subtle. These drugs have their most potent effects when there's a 'deficit' involved, like ADHD or dementia. In that case, the individual should likely be taking them anyway!
"I still want to see some research in healthy humans showing that these drugs have demonstrable positive effects on relevant cognitive tasks like standardized tests or longitudinal GPA performance."
When James and I were undergraduates, people who were not us set out to try and administer standardized tests for cognitive indices in a double-blind placebo-controlled fashion with piracetam. Perhaps surprisingly, they found that the tests were costlier and harder to come by than the volunteers and pharmaceuticals.
Hopefully those sitting in ivory towers with stacks of grant applications on their desks will have better opportunity before this generation is dust to let safety and science guide their thinking, instead of fickle social mores and flickers of totalitarianism. This is underscored by how little contemporary cognitive enhancers offer us, as Andy points out. Until then, all together now: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
posted by chris at
1:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home