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.

No, it's not drug abuse.

...poll published in Nature showing unprecedented levels of cognitive performance-enhancing drug abuse by top academic scientists...

It is "drug abuse" when drugs are used without the informed consent of an individual; it is simply "illegal drug use" (and very likely legislative abuse of personal liberties at the same time) when an adult makes an informed choice about drug use that doesn't comply with the current law.

People need to move away from the mindset where media pompously and wrongly attributes polar positions such as "right and wrong" and "use and abuse" to be a 100% lexical replacement for "legal and illegal." Anyone with any sense at all knows better than that. A significant number of the laws on the books in the country I live in (the USA) are inherently wrong, outright un- or anti-constitutional, or something even worse. Using them to define what is "right" leads directly to behaviors that are despicable — or worse.

One can be cynical and simply say that this is because our legislators aren't very good at their jobs. Both from the standpoint of making good law in the first place, and also in the sense that they seem to be almost incapable of admitting they made a mistake and taking bad law off the books. Personally, I think it's because they're not very good at liberty — and very good indeed at lawmaking.

There's an old saw that goes, "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence", but I think in the case of bad law, we are indeed looking at malice aforethought. It seems to me that these people have agendas that can only be construed to be "for the people" if you slept through history class and have never read any of the founding documents with any interest. Like most Americans. :(

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

It is "drug abuse" when drugs are used without the informed consent of an individual; it is simply "illegal drug use" (and very likely legislative abuse of personal liberties at the same time) when an adult makes an informed choice about drug use that doesn't comply with the current law.

Are you an idiot?
Drug abuse, by any definition of "abuse" has nothing to do with (informed) consent.

There is a range of usage patterns [wikimedia.org].
Some might say it's perscription drug abuse if used other than as perscribed.
But generally speaking, drug use becomes abuse when there are negative health/social consequences.

Under your idiotic definition, a fully informed heroin junkie isn't abusing drugs.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

What is right and wrong will always be a subjective and philosophical definition.

I don't agree with that in the least.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

Laws are made when a majority who are elected, hold the same philosophical beliefs create and vote for them.

What planet do you live on? Laws in the US are made when a group of lobbyists bribe *ahem* I meant, give campaign contributions to a sufficient number of politicians to ensure passage of the law.

If you don't like the laws, participate in the voting and hope your candidate of choice wins. That is what society is.

Sounds like you actually believed all that crap in Government Class in High School.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

Laws are made when a majority who are elected, hold the same philosophical beliefs create and vote for them.

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.

Re:No, it's not drug abuse.

Horsefeathers. You (that is, society) assumed that burden on its own. It doesn't place any obligations on me. It's as if I decided to come over and mow your lawn for you. You'd probably be delighted that you didn't have to do it yourself anymore.(1) But if, six months later, I came banging on your door and demanded that you stop allowing your kids to play in your own back yard because they were leaving toys laying around that made it harder for me to mow the grass, you'd most likely tell me to take a hike.

If you don't want to pay the cost associated with my behavior, then don't pay it. If I overdose on drugs, let me lay there and die if I don't have insurance or can't pay the bill myself if you so choose. But your actions in assuming responsibility for my debts don't give you any legitimate authority over my behavior.

(1)Unless, of course, you're one of those weird people who enjoys mowing the lawn, but we're assuming for the sake of the analogy that you aren't that warped an individual.

What's the problem?

We prescribe these drugs to millions of kids who most likely have nothing "wrong" with them, and people have a problem when some adults do the same thing?

This isn't athletics. The point isn't fairness. The point is advancing the science. I have serious doubts that these drugs are actually helping anybody do research who didn't already have some kind of problem, but it's none of our damn business, either.

Re:What's the problem?

This isn't athletics. The point isn't fairness.

Alright, predictions folks. How long until the Math team / Debate team / Model UN have to pee in a cup to prove they aren't taking "Brain Enhancing" Drugs? I set the over under at 5 years.

Re:What's the problem?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to suggest that attention-enhancing drugs actually make people DUMBER? I tried using them once. It was probably the most productive night of academia I've ever had. I wouldn't do it again, but what business is it of yours?

Suppose the fellow goes home at night and has a few too many glasses of scotch. Suppose he has threesomes with sluts. Suppose he does any number of things you don't personally like. Are you gonna take away his funding for that, too?

Re:What's the problem?

So, *cough* which drug did you use? I have a test coming up...;)

Re:What's the problem?

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 [erowid.org] 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.

Re:What's the problem?

Only if that funding is in direct competition with my own slut-related research.

Re:What's the problem?

It is when they are using taxpayer grants to fund their research.

Yes, that's certainly true. You would want research you pay for to be done at the fastest and most effective way possible, so as to maximize your ROI. So you make an excellent case for the use of cognitive enhancement.

Re:What's the problem?

That logic sort of falls apart very easily. People utilize taxpayer funds to facilitate going to work everyday. That doesn't somehow change the rules about privacy. We all depend on the state in one way or another, but that doesn't magically make every action I undertake a legitmate subject for public discourse and requiring of public approval.

And what about...

Caffeine anyone?

Re:And what about...

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.

Off-label

The blurb makes it sound as if all this use is illegal. I would imagine most isn't: most of these people will have prescriptions but are using them for off-label purposes. Which is legal.

Punishment

So, will they take away your Nobel if you've been found to use science-enhancing drugs?

Not all use is illegal

It isn't necessarily illegal to possess or use prescription medicine without a prescription unless it is a controlled substance or there are state or other laws that come into play. It is illegal to dispense it without a presecription.

Inderal is not a controlled substance.

Re:Not all use is illegal

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.

Oh great...

Does this mean there will be mandatory drug testing at the Science Olympiad [soinc.org]?

Just what was in Albert Einstein's pipe [wayodd.com]?

And how did Stephen Hawking really end up in that wheelchair?

My confidence is shattered. :^p

Re:Oh great...

Just what was in Albert Einstein's pipe?

or his hair?
             

Re:Fairness

But then again, life's not fair.

So if life's not fair, why ban "cheating" with drugs? Cheating is part of being unfair.

Re:drugs for enhancement are self-defeating

I admire your romanticism, but science isn't sport. It's not about a fair fight between equals. Science is about using any method you can to explain or measure a detail of the universe that nobody else can. So long as you do it yourself (i.e. you didn't actually steal someone else's idea or result), anything goes. There is no Nobel prize for featherweight science. Either you're the best, or you're not - and your funding will reflect this.

Who cares? Re:drugs are self-defeating

_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.