Cognition Enhancer Research

oschobero writes to tell us the Economist has a look at pharmaceutical research as it applies to cognition enhancers. While the research is obviously focused on things like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and schizophrenia, the resulting drugs may also have a benefit to healthy minds. "Provigil and Ritalin really do enhance cognition in healthy people. Provigil, for example, adds the ability to remember an extra digit or so to an individual's working memory (most people can hold seven random digits in their memory, but have difficulty with eight). It also improves people's performance in tests of their ability to plan. Because of such positive effects on normal people, says the report, there is growing use of these drugs to stave off fatigue, help shift-workers, boost exam performance and aid recovery from the effects of long-distance flights."

I don't like drugs

[crazybit]

as much as scientist claim they can enhance or reduce certain abilities, it is also a reality science is just beginning to understand human metabolism.

We don't know much about how each part the human metabolism affect the others, so it's very difficult to anticipate possible side effects.

It's also widely known that many of the current drugs where discovered by accident while trying to cure something else (like the discovery of viagra, and the heart benefits obtained from aspirin). So, as much as we don't want see it, our scientist can be wrong.

Let's hope we don't see our Universities bloated with new kind of "brain enhancement" drugs.

phone number 7bit 8bit digit theory

[Vspirit]

Based on what findings is it stated that most people can only hold 7 digits in memory?

I wonder if there is a connection to how many digit you need to make a local phone call.

In the states I assume you can or could leave out the area code, and then needed to remember xxx-xxxx.
In Denmark as a kid and now, we need to remember 8 digits to make a phone call.

I see a correlation, but.. heck, digits for thoughts.

Garden Of Eden Model of Health

[Anonymous Coward]

I think religious people might metaphysically have a hard time with this because this goes against the whole "Garden Of Eden" model of health which is Humans were made perfectly and they fell from perfection when they got curious and ate the special apple hoping for some sort of benefit. Only disease is allowed to be treated in order to restore the system to what god intended.

So you can't get a prescription for viagra because you want to have loads of sex, you can only get it for treating the dreaded disease known as "Erectile dysfunction".

One small problem...

[Penguinisto]

Taking a somewhat little-understood psychotropic drug for treatment of illness is one thing (especially when prescribing it to children), but it is another thing entirely to start talking it up as a performance enhancer.

What is the long-term (or even all of the short-term) effects of this? IIRC, Ritalin comes with a bucketload of side effects.

I guess that drugs specifically made for the mind start (at least for me) creeping deeper and deeper into questions of morality and ethics than one designed to treat any other body part. Just something that makes me a bit wary about them... For instance, is an "enhanced" person more susceptible to suggestion than otherwise? Are they more focused on the task at hand, but not as aware of their surroundings? How does it affect multitasking? Emotions? Attitude and outlook?

Dunno... but caffeine seems to work just fine for me, and I get to keep a clear mind which I retain full control of while I'm at it.

/P

it's getting them that's the problem...

[crashandburn66]

These drugs would be immensely beneficial to the human race. And what sane person wouldn't want to be smarter? Unfortunately, they will be opposed by very powerful religious and conservative forces. it will probably devolve into a cyclic, pointless, and unyielding debate like the one about abortion.

Caffeine is one of these substances; probably the most widely available, too. Personally I can think faster, clearer, and longer with about 300mg of caffeine in me. Unfortunately, I'm getting tolerant to it now... :(

Regardless, these drugs have the possibility to change the world. Hopefully people will get these things on the market in time for my SATs!

Re:Holy crap, 7 digits?

[crazybit]

it's probably because of how your brain works.

Maybe you are trying to memorize 7 numbers (symbol + significance in our society) instead of memorizing a 3cm x 1.5cm illustration (the area in a paper where those numbers can be written) or instead of memorizing a 10 second sound (the aprox time in wich those numbers can be pronounced).

The problem might not be your memory, but the way your brain processes and stores the information it receives.

Re:Holy crap, 7 digits?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think remembering 7 digits is primarily because of the need for knowing telephone numbers. Perhaps you just need to call people more often?

Withdrawal and Other Downsides?

[Doc Ruby]

What happens to your cognition once you stop taking it, after you've gotten used to taking it? Do you get a tolerance, so you not only need higher doses for a smarts boost, but you also just return to your base performance after getting used to it?

What's the withdrawal like?

I suspect that maybe the many kids given Ritalin while growing up learn to depend on it for their baseline. When they outgrow their "hyperactivity" (AKA "childhood"), they quit the drugs, and sink into an unfamiliar dullness in which they can't think at their previous baseline without the artificial stimulation. And how much do they just get burned out from the steady drugging?

Something's got to explain the evident steady decay in average intellect as the years wear on [imdb.com], despite these synthetic boosts.

Re:I don't like drugs

[geekoid]

"as much as scientist claim they can enhance or reduce certain abilities, it is also a reality science is just beginning to understand human metabolism."

Bull.
While we don't know everything, we are long past the "Just beginning " phase.
What are you, posting from 1950?

"It's also widely known that many of the current drugs where discovered by accident while trying to cure something else (like the discovery of viagra, and the heart benefits obtained from aspirin)"

discovered through experimentation and observation. You make it sound as if they drop something accidentally and then it cured something.

While they observed unexpected effect during the scientific process, it was the experimentation and testing that brought there discoveries to light.

"So, as much as we don't want see it, our scientist can be wrong."
This is nonsensical.

Re:One small problem...

[geekoid]

you aren't keeping a clear mind with caffeine.
No doubt you believe you are.

Coffee comes with a "bucketload" of side effects as well.

The brain is a part of the body just like your heart, or hands, or belly button.

Re:Oh, great.....

[aurispector]

There are no completely safe drugs, there are no drugs without side effects. That being said, even if these drugs are significantly safer, it just seems to be a bad idea to depend on drugs to run your everyday life. The line between theraputic and recreational use is blurring.

If I had to take non-theraputic medications to perform my job I'd get a different job.

Re:One small problem...

[Penguinisto]

Perhaps, but the effects (side or immediate) of coffee/caffeine taken in moderation are well-known (and have been for literally over at least a century).

The key term is "moderation" - if I were to suck down a case of Bawls in the morning (or even one bottle), then yes, the term 'clear mind' would not be perfectly accurate - just as taking any stimulant in large doses (or in the case of, say, Ampehtamines, in any but the smallest doses) would affect mental clarity.

One cannot say the same for synthetic chemicals whose effects are not known fully.

/P

Setting the Curve

[Anonymous Coward]

As a few people have touched on above, there are some huge problems with the enthusiasm for these drugs. They are very poorly understood, not least with regard to side effects. So, let's say that the benefit outweighs the risk for people who truly need them (severe disorder, or what have you) - not only are they over-prescribed, but they are widely abused by people with no prescription ... any student at an American university can confirm. By my observation, people who have used too much legal-Speed (Ritalin, Adderall, etc) think and act a lot like people who have used too much Speed-Speed.
It does improve their performance in the short run though. And what do you think a professor sees? More kids getting more work done in less time - time to assign more problems; it isn't necessarily quality work, but if it was just busy-work to begin with (or it's just a large class), that doesn't matter.

Re:Holy crap, 7 digits?

[hkmarks]

That's totally normal, don't worry about it.

Most people can retain 7 +/- 2 (5 to 9) semantic "packets" of information. A "packet" can be a part of a larger packet. Most people can reliably recall 5 random numbers or letters in a row. Or 5 groups of 5 numbers or letters. Or 5 random words. Or 5 unrelated phrases.

But don't try to memorize a paragraph worth of random letters and numbers -- that's more than 9 packets so it's almost impossible without a lot of repetition. That's why phone numbers have a dash in them, to break the number up into smaller packets that are easier to remember.

Ever tried sleep?

[Roger W Moore]

I get roughly 5-6 hours of sleep a night and have had no issues at all. I did notice the "You know you're tired, but you don't think/act like you're tired" thing and yeah it's really odd.

Instead of drugs have you considered getting an extra 1-2 hours of sleep per night? This is cheaper than taking drugs, does not make you feel odd, and 10 years from now will not be shown to cause cancer/depression/heart disease/... If you are feeling tired during the day the message your body is trying to send you is 'sleep more' not 'take drugs'.

Re:Oh, great.....

[Hojima]

There are no completely safe drugs, there are no drugs without side effects.

Jut because it has a side effect does not mean it's unsafe. If the side effect of taking steroids was the sniffles (and nothing else), every athlete would be taking it (regardless of legality). That being said, natural drugs generally have little to no harm in comparison to many other synthetic drugs, mostly because huge pharmaceutical companies pay chemical engineers to find a cheap method to produce something found in nature, and thus their quantum structure, and even their chemical composition, can be altered so that the body does not respond well to it (but the drug works so they don't care). It's even the same deal with multivitamins.

Re:Ritalin is a great study drug.

[Jaime2]

First person anecdotes are pretty useless for this topic. Many people who have dropped acid will testify in front of the Supreme Court that it enhanced their perception. Only a well controlled, well designed double-blind test is acceptable in this context.

Re:Withdrawal and Other Downsides?

[Angry Black Man]

You are quite wrong, clearly not a doctor or pharmacist, and I hope you dont try to spread these ideas as fact easily. First, tolerance buildup in amphetamine (dexedrine and adderall) as well as amphetamine derivatives is very easy and happens very quickly. It happens with children all the time. By the time kids reach high school or college, if they have taken amphetamine for a while, they are definitely on a significantly higher dosage than before and/or redosing more often (twice a day, three times a day, or taking time released amphetamines to make up for it) just to achieve baseline.

To compare first doses of amphetamine to cocaine and reach a conclusion is ridiculous, as they are completely different drugs. Are you serious? By the same standard you can say "a quick back of the envelope calculation suggests that first doses of MDMA are substantially lower than cocaine, so tolerance should not be an issue." Which is, of course, completely false. Amphetamine and amphetamine derivatives are notorious for having tolerance buildup as well as a substantial, though not terrible, comedown.

As far as ritalin vs. dexedrine vs. amphetamine comedowns, your suggestion that its because of metabolism rates is at best greatly overly simplified. It may be, but it also probably lends more to the fact that different amphetamine salts tend to have different affinities for serotonin vs. dopamine vs. adrenaline levels and this would be expected to play a significant role.

I agree that they can be used to train the brain though. Although, that is purely anecdotal and I dont know of any studies that have looked into this.

But please, dont give advice about stimulants.

Re:Ritalin is a great study drug.

[Beefpatrol]

I've been learning the same kinds of things with one of the ADD stimulants and an antidepressant for the last few years. One of the best things about these drugs is that they show you what "the other side" feels like. When you've been predominantly in one mode every day since puberty, it can be impossible to even understand what people mean when they ask simple questions about what you are going to do. For instance, there was always cognitive dissonance when a manager would ask me something like, "can you do thing X by deadline D?" My mental answer to a rhetorical question like that was always something like: "maybe." I usually answered verbally in the affirmative because I was aware that it was expected that I would, despite knowing that the actual answer was not so clear. In situations like that, I always felt like I had entered another dimension where people continuously behave in ways that don't make sense. The reason for this, I later found out, was because most of the time, normal people can say "yes" or "no" to a question like that and be sure that unless something extremely unusual were to happen, they would be correct; they either can do it, or they can't, and they know ahead of time which is true. Their reasons for saying "yes" or "no" didn't usually include thoughts like: "technically yes, and I've done it before -- it is actually pretty easy, but my track record for managing to do it is dismal for reasons that I don't understand, so an objective interpretation of the data suggests that a long-winded and unsatisfactory answer that indicates that I really don't know if I will do X by deadline D, and that the reasons for this are beyond my realm of comprehension, is what my reply *should* be, but I'm going to say yes anyway because any other response is going to piss people off. I absolutely hate corporate America -- this kind of weird asking of questions that are obviously unanswerable in an honest fashion must mean that either people are screwing with me or they are intensely stupid."

I didn't realize all this in a concrete manner until somewhere in my late 20s after trying some of these drugs that made things like mental crises, and the utter inability to turn my brain off to focus or sleep optional. I've since taken them on and off as necessary, but being able to intuitively understand what it means to be able to cause one's actions to align with one's intentions on a regular basis is invaluable. I can say with complete honesty that I really didn't understand how the world worked before.