Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Cognitive Enhancement Drugs 592

Neil Halelamien writes "The LA Times has an article on various cognitive enhancement drugs which are currently undergoing clinical trials. These include ampakines which amplify the strength of electrical signals between neurons, HT-0712 which enhances the transfer from short-term to long-term memory, and gene therapy which revitalizes existing neurons. The article also describes successes with the drug Modafinil, which seems to sharpen attention and mental agility. The side effects of these sorts of drugs are not yet fully known, although many neuroscientists think that they may lead to 'mental clutter' or task-obsessiveness."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cognitive Enhancement Drugs

Comments Filter:
  • Mentat (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:03PM (#11142150) Homepage Journal
    Quote: It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

    ~Thufir

    • Re:Mentat (Score:5, Informative)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:07PM (#11142184) Homepage Journal
      As a followup to this, there are always "unintended effects" of supplemental drugs/molecules/herbs, whatever your X of choice. The stains on the lips from the sapho juice in Dune were relatively benign and a sign of the Mentat, but there are other effects of real world "additives" that one must be aware of and careful of when partaking. Celebrex should be the latest warning in a long line of possibly dangerous side effects.

      • Wait, Celebrex? Don't you mean Vioxx?

        --grendel drago
        • Re:Celebrex? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:13PM (#11142250) Homepage Journal
          Vioxx and now Celebrex. The COX-2 inhibitors are revealing additional side effects like heart attack and kidney damage in a couple of studies now. Look, drugs are not benign things despite what marketing campaigns would have you believe and they should not be taken lightly. Apparently 44% of Americans are now on prescription drugs of one sort or another and one might start to wonder when the other shoe is going to drop.

          • Re:Celebrex? (Score:2, Interesting)

            by dhakbar ( 783117 )
            Marketing campaigns are required by law to include information about the dangers of taking the drug. I don't think that any amount of butterflies and flowers makes that voice listing the possible side effects seem less insiduous. I don't think that most people take drugs so lightly anymore.
            • Re:Celebrex? (Score:3, Informative)

              by BlakeLupa ( 767754 )
              Well it was just on the evening ABC news 40% of arthritis patints take Celebrex while about 5% should. If you really want to understand how the new drugs reach the market read http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pres cription/hazard/independent.html
              • Re:Celebrex? (Score:4, Insightful)

                by EnderWiggnz ( 39214 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @11:07PM (#11143652)
                you know what the real problem here is?

                doctors are afraid to precribe narcotic pain killers. which, if used as directed, only have constipation as a long-term side effect, and possible addiction.

                and for a cancer patient - who the hell cares if they get addicted to percocet?
            • Re:Celebrex? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:28PM (#11142363) Homepage
              In magazine ads for drugs, drug companies are required to print a massive ammount of text, sometimes a whole page, listing side effects and potential problems. With TV ads, sometimes they do mention a couple side effects, usually dry mouth, but at the bottom of the screen they show the text "see our ad in whatever magazine" where they have that full page of text. I've noticed the magazine "Cooking Light" a few times, presumably becaue the full page ad is dirt cheap. Unless you happen to have a copy of this month's Cooking Light in your house, you have no idea what the full list of side effects and complications are.

              If I was in charge, I would get rid of TV perscription drug commercials tomorrow. If you have a real medical problem, go see a trained doctor. If that doctor thinks you need medication, he'll write you a perscription. That's how it worked until just a few years ago. Chris Rock does a brilliant bit about drug ads. He talks about the ads just naming symptoms until they hit on something that rings a bell with you. "Do you get sleepy at night? Do you wake up in the morning? I got that. I'm sick!"

              -B
      • Sharpens you up for a bit o' the old ultra-violence.
    • by Flower ( 31351 )
      With Qiang Zao and her line tracing. Immensely intelligent but just psychologically handicapped enough so as never to be a real threat.
    • Re:Mentat (Score:5, Funny)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:28PM (#11142369)
      I always prefered:
      It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
      • Re:Mentat (Score:5, Funny)

        by Feanturi ( 99866 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @09:49PM (#11142978)
        I must drink beer.
        Beer is the painkiller.
        And beer is the little drink that brings total satisfaction.
        I will drink my beer.
        I will permit it to pass through me.
        And where the beer has gone there will be nothing.
        Only a hangover will remain.
  • by four2five ( 645777 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:05PM (#11142163) Homepage
    the Nobel prize committee will have to start testing for brain doping?
  • Drug Tests (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bob65 ( 590395 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:05PM (#11142170)
    Well. So are we gonna have to start taking drug tests before final exams?
    • Re:Drug Tests (Score:2, Interesting)

      by marshall_j ( 643520 )
      Well side effects include task obssesivness so just look for the guys filling out extra copeise of the exam.
    • Re:Drug Tests (Score:3, Informative)

      Ginko Biloba, Gurana, Caffiene, Taurine... hell, even assorted amphetamines. Or maybe some E if you *know* you're gonna fail it. Drug use for exams is as common as dirt already.
      • This is a classic urban legend:

        A college student is obsessing about his final exams. In the week before his big exam, he starts staying up all night to cram, pounding down pots of coffee. Finally, he starts taking amphetamines to stay wired. He has a marathon 48-hour study session right before his big final, and finally heads down to take the big test.

        He's in the zone. He knows every answer and remembers every last detail. He flies through his exam, writing voluminous essays, and heads back to his ro
  • These guys seem to be looking at lots and lots of drugs. They still seem to be ignoring the tried-and-true caffine. *jitter*

    Caffine wakes you up, gives you more energy, speeds up your metabolism, and gives you a headache. Plus, it's been in use for years.

    Excuse me, I need to go drink more Bawls now.
    • Actually, caffeine is better known for its ability to relieve headaches. Just check the ingredients on a bottle of Excedrin. Caffeine withdrawal headaches are very common in post-operative hospitalized patients who might not be getting the amount of coffee to which they are accustomed.
    • That's what I was thinking, this sounds like caffine without the jitters. What do you bet that the first round of brain enhancing drugs will be released for people with measureable chemical imballances. But it will then be advertised as a 'mental Viagra'. It will then be released and dangerous side effects will be discovered by the first round of 'human guinea pigs' that take this. This will be just like the recent issues raised about all the cox-2 inhibitors (e.g. Celebrex) that address arthritis pain b
  • We already have Ritalin. Is this one closely related to methamphetamine, too?

    debasement of human existence in order to "treat" a "disease" that's just an excuse for bad parenting.
  • by Nine Tenths of The W ( 829559 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:06PM (#11142181)
    The perfect worker:incapable of thinking of anything but the job he's concentrating on. Expect these to be mandatory by 2015.
  • This is dangerous (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SauroNlord ( 707570 )
    We are stepping into a world where intelligence can be bought. Where we can manipulate our own biology to make us stronger and smarter. Will they do drug tests for college/univ students ?

    Is intelligence worth anything? If so, is it fair to give people an advantage because they have money?

    Mark my words, this is a dawn of a new era.
    • by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:21PM (#11142321) Homepage Journal
      While mind-enhancing drugs are novel, mind-enhancing diets and mind-enhancing environments have been the privilage of the well-to-do since time began.

      The privilaged generally eat better than the unprivilaged. They generally have less exposure to environmental toxins. They generally have a more education-centric environment growing up.

      Even measurements of mental ability can be manipulated by "teaching the test" or "teaching to the test." Someone with a "un-coached" SAT score of 1150 may score 1170 if they've been coached on how to take the test or if their parents or teachers focused on items likely to be on that particular test at the expense of other material.

      All in all, if your parents have the means, you are more likely to have a better raw iq, possibly an enhanced measured intelligence, and a better education than someone whose parents are not of means.
      • All in all, if your parents have the means, you are more likely to have a better raw iq, possibly an enhanced measured intelligence, and a better education than someone whose parents are not of means.

        Maybe you are looking at it the wrong way; IQ is only an inaccurate measure of intelligence, however it's a very accurate measure of success.

        So look at this way, the parents are more successful, because of their intelligence, and the corresponding indicator of that intelligence would be the IQ.

      • All in all, if your parents have the means, you are more likely to have a better raw iq, possibly an enhanced measured intelligence, and a better education than someone whose parents are not of means.

        Couldn't you also argue that if your parents have the means, they probably got them them due to intelligence? And that you inherited your intelligence from them genetically?

        I think we can agree that there's a correlation, but I don't think there's enough evidence to prove causation (in either direction).

    • by Zibblsnrt ( 125875 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:39PM (#11142466)
      Is intelligence worth anything?

      Intelligence is precisely as valuable as its application; no more, no less. If it's used well, it has worth; if it's used poorly or not at all, then it doesn't. Where it comes from is irrelevant.

      If so, is it fair to give people an advantage because they have money?

      Is it fair to give people an advantage because they can afford a nice car, a business suit, tuition at a prestigious university, blah blah blah?

      The bullshit "good things are bad because the rich can afford it and I can't!" thing is cute the first twenty thousand times or so, but really now, it's old. It's funny how things work; they start out unreachably expensive at first and then become more accessible.

      Provided, at least, that myopic, jealous Luddites don't get them banned or suppressed because they're offended that they can't reap the benefits on day one like someone who has a few more zeroes in their bank account.

      So, what else do you rail against just because some people can benefit from affording it while others can't? Education? Computers? Housing in the good part of town?

      -PS

  • by Isldeur ( 125133 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:09PM (#11142203)
    You know - of all the things I've learned in medicine and in life in general, there's always a price. The orientals had so much right with their yin and yang idea.

    There was a time a few years ago where I was at this incredible ball/party and had the time of my life - it was such a high. The next day I was strangely a bit mellow and depressed. Perhaps all of the neural cascades that had let me have that high the night earlier were now a bit depleted.

    I have this espresso machine which I love and the drinks give me this lovely little warm feeling inside - but if I drink too many, when the effect is gone I feel cold and tired.

    Same thing for narcotics. We all know about the highs of some of those drugs - which are invariably followed with lows that force people to do anything to spare that.

    O.k., so you take a drug that makes you concentrate a bit better. What happens later? Are you a bit dumber for a while afterwards? I respect Cephalon's attempts to stave Parkinsons' but be careful about other "enhancing" drugs.

    For every action there's always a reaction. Just live a healthy life - eat well and exercise.
    • I knew my cat would be smarter than me some day, to make up for all the times he peed on my socks.
    • The next day I was strangely a bit mellow and depressed.

      In technical terms, that is called a "hangover".
    • by terrymaster69 ( 792830 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:36PM (#11142446)
      Oh and Dude, oriental is not the preferred nomenclature...
    • by koreth ( 409849 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:58PM (#11142587)
      For every action there's always a reaction.

      Well, yes, but unlike Newton's Laws, in medicine the reaction is often neither equal nor opposite. Sometimes the price is small compared to the benefit. For example, aspirin can cause an upset stomach in some people -- but it's also been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease. If I were in a high-risk group, I know I'd rather have a grumbling stomach than a malfunctioning heart.

      There is no physical law that requires the aftereffects or side effects of a performance-enhancing drug to be severe in proportion to the benefit. Nor, of course, is there a law that requires them to be mild -- if you're interested in this sort of thing you need to evaluate the risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis and wait for as long as your comfort level dictates to watch for any long-term effects.

      To use one of the article's drugs as an example: for a while I was taking modafinil for a sleep disorder (which I no longer have, happily.) The only negative side effect I found was that if I took it in the morning, my eyes were a bit on the dry side by the end of the day. That's a small price to pay for being awake and alert. Are there other long-term effects that will only appear years after the fact? Maybe, but I'll take my chances.

      • Buffered Aspirin (Score:3, Informative)

        For example, aspirin can cause an upset stomach in some people -- but it's also been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease. If I were in a high-risk group, I know I'd rather have a grumbling stomach than a malfunctioning heart.

        The studies showing the protective effect were done with buffered aspirin to protect the participants' stomachs. The buffers are typically magnesium salts.

        There are claims that further studies using plain aspirin without the magnesium showed no protective effects and were not
    • by thelandp ( 632129 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @09:20PM (#11142782)
      there's always a price

      Not always. Thought experiment: you break your leg, then you're faced with the choice of:
      A. Use typical medical technology to fix it with a cast
      B. Avoid the use of the cast and accept the broken leg. After all, like all medicine, there will probably be "a price" (there will be a monetary cost, but I don't think that's the kind of price you were talking about)

      Just live a healthy life - eat well and exercise
      No offense, but that's a non-specific platitude and sounds like a boring life.

      Like coffee, cognitive enhancements should be treated that same way we treat all things that may be used to ehnance our quality of life - we establish a reasonable level of "moderation" and go with that, always being careful to watch for potential pitfalls. Don't write them off out of hand just because they are new and unfamiliar.

  • by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:11PM (#11142222) Homepage Journal
    I'm going to bet that regular use does lead to OCD, and perhaps they will find that people with OCD have higher levels of brain chemicals that these drugs enhance.
  • Chess (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FiReaNGeL ( 312636 ) <`moc.liamtoh' `ta' `l3gnaerif'> on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:14PM (#11142261) Homepage
    I heard somewhere that caffeine was frowned upon in high-class chess tournaments... will this new discovery get tested for? Brain-doping for chess? :)
    • Re:Chess (Score:3, Informative)

      by hunterx11 ( 778171 )
      The chess professionals already have this. The president of FIDE, the world chess federation, wants chess to be an Olympic sport. It is never going to be one. But now the Grandmasters have to submit to drug tests.
  • by dillon_rinker ( 17944 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:16PM (#11142277) Homepage
    This seems like a useful place to point out an interesting read on Jerry Pournelle's web site on overclocking the brain. [jerrypournelle.com]

    I don't see a direct connection between the two articles, but perhaps someone more informed about neurochemistry could point one out.
  • Piracetam (Score:4, Interesting)

    by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot@spamgoe ... minus herbivore> on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:17PM (#11142279) Homepage
    Have a look on Google for Piracetam [google.co.uk]. Similar thing. I tried to find out about side effects, but I couldn't find any. Someone I know takes a load before reading a whole set of Cisco coursebooks. It works for him - He's not a CCIE - yet, but he's a CCISP, and all the other ones.
    • Re:Piracetam (Score:3, Informative)

      by UpnAtom ( 551727 )
      Piracetam is fantastic stuff.

      In my experience, it will generally do nothing for you. It no direct effect on my memory for example.

      In a stimulating environment however, the frequency and quality of those Eureka moments seems to be massively improved.

      So I only take it during predictably profound learning experiences eg self-improvement seminars.

      I take choline first thing and then 800mg both before the morning & afternoon sessions.

      I tried Aniracetam which is good but more expensive; and Hydergine, wh
  • Pfft (Score:3, Funny)

    by NetNifty ( 796376 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:18PM (#11142285) Homepage
    Screw cognitive drugs, I want drugs that give me pre-cognition!
  • Deepness in the Sky (Score:5, Interesting)

    by beholder77 ( 89716 ) <dungeons AT gmail DOT com> on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:20PM (#11142304) Homepage
    I for one welcome our new Emergent overlords!

    Sorry a bit obscure :)
  • by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:20PM (#11142310)
    I think I'll let others be the guinea pigs. Even after clinic trials (which only involve a few thousand people watched for only a year or so) doctors only have the barest of clues as to the effects and side-effects of a drug. It takes a long time, a bunch of studies, and a serious sample size to uncover the more subtle, rare-but-serious and long-term impacts of a medication.

    No short-term trial can prove a drug is truly safe and efficacious. Until much, much, more data is in, I think I'll wait.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I think I'll let others be the guinea pigs. Even after clinic trials...

      It will be too late, you'll be looking for a new job after being replaced by someone with an IQ of 345 who finished all of your projects while waiting to be interviewed.

      The drug will probably cost $2000 a month, so its unlikely you'd be able to afford it on unemployment in order to catch up.
  • This isn't all that helpful. What I want is some way to spend more of my time awake, instead of wasting 8 hours a day sleeping. Why don't these companies work on that problem instead?

    And no, caffeine is not the answer for this.
  • amp up (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
    My PC isn't fast enough. I'll enhance it's electrical affinity by plugging it from the 110V socket into this 220V transformer! And my software isn't doing what I want: it's got too many 1s, and not enough zeros... I'll just enhance it with this hex editor...
  • by Baldrson ( 78598 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:24PM (#11142344) Homepage Journal
    Something I've wondered about is whether the evoked potential correlation with general intelligence [soton.ac.uk] could be used to enhance intelligence.

    The way it would work is this:

    A neural network is set up to control a audio-visual environment. You dynamically measure IQ via the proxy of the (highly correlated) evoked potential response of the subject and backpropagate an error signal through the multimedia neural net inversely proportional to the dynamic IQ of the subject.

    Simple in concept. With a little luck we'd have people whose brains had been stimulated to a high IQ state without ending up with something like the lawnmowerman taking over slashdot.

  • EA Games (Score:2, Funny)

    by Weyoun ( 174697 )
    I wonder how long it will be before EA starts slipping these drugs into the curly fries at the company cafeteria. Why should employees be allowed to sleep when we can reprogram them not to need it?
  • by nickgrieve ( 87668 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:31PM (#11142398) Journal
    My brain is the seat of my consciousness, my consciousness is all that "I" am. It is a very fragile thing, a hard knock to my head will destroy it. Where as my body is in comparison substantially robust, it can survive limbs being broken, and flesh torn apart... but it is not "me", it is my vehicle. It exerts a great deal of control over my brain/consciousness, as all it cares for is its own reproduction... I fight with it every day, as a parent fights the child at only wants to eat candy...

    Given this (personal) view who and what I am, I am very very careful of looking after of my brain, for it is all I am. I have done drugs, I have found their effects on my consciousness somewhat,.. novel... but I don't trust that we know enough to mess with the underlying substrate of what makes Me. A small injury to my frontal lobe can turn into OCD. These Cognitive "enhancement" drugs may sound like overclocking your brain to some... but how many key rings have been made from CPUs by over enthusiastic overclockers...

    I will leave this stuff to the psyconauts... if that are happy, smart and enjoying there new consciousness at the age of 80... then fine... but I know that the default configuration of my brain is tried and tested over 100,000s of years... I know it will still be (with good care of my body that feeds it) in good working order until my body packs it in from cancer/heart disease, what have you...

    2c
    • Unfortunately, under the hood your brain changes in fairly profound ways in both the short and long terms - the underlying neurophysiology is quite a bit more flexible than most folks realize. Dendritic growth, atrophy of unused sectors, retasking existing sectors toward processing other sensory inputs and outputs or adjusting for damage, there are literally hundreds of examples of ways in which the brain changes fairly seriously as a result of 'normal' functioning.

      Now, the link between brain and mind, tha
      • Just wanted to say that your post was great apart from the above question which is somewhat unfortunate.

        If you expect to start feeling your brain age, what are the likely consequences of such an expectation?

        feel brain age -> believe getting old -> start acting old -> start bad posture -> start bad health

        Here's another:

        feel brain age -> notice normal brain underperformance -> expect brain to underperform -> brain underperforms

        Technically speaking, the question is both an embedded hy [creonline.com]
  • by narcc ( 412956 )
    Expand your mind, man!
  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:31PM (#11142410)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I've been on Modafanil before (market name Provigil) to counter narcolepsy - and never saw a marked effect. YMMV, but it would seem to me that drugs targetted toward the relief of some deficiency may not provide the desired effects when used for purposes of enhancement.

    To point (though abused in context), hearing aids can interfere significantly with the hearing of a non-impared individual rather than granting super-human capability.
  • While it may lead to stuff like task-obsessivness or clutter or whatever if someone kept taking them. I wonder how well they would work in the short term for somehting like final exam period, or SAT's, etc. Some single test or period where mental acuity is very important.

    I'm willing to bet you would either be or at least feel stupider when you stopped taking them though. Seems like the body has many reactions like that.
    Take dopamine or melatonin boosting drugs and your body produces less of these naturally
  • by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:33PM (#11142419) Journal
    All I can say, is well, um, uh, I don't remember what I was going to say.

    Damn.
  • by Paradox ( 13555 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:38PM (#11142455) Homepage Journal
    At least in the US, we have some kind of weird "honor"-related relationship with someone's physical abilities. We have a deep-seated feeling that it's "unfair" to dope up in order win physically. This might be because people believe that with enough excercise and hard work, anyone can be an Olympic Athelete.

    I think most people don't have the same kind of feelings about intelligence, because we regard it as an inborn thing. Either you're smart or you're not, and that's all there is too it, right?

    I know that my intellect takes a lot of work to maintain. I'm quick, but my short-term memory isn't great and my logical abilitiy isn't much above average. I have to work very hard to keep my brain in a state where I can program computers, solve math in my head, remember things, and generally keep my nickname as "that smart guy." I may be predisposed to intelligence, but that doesn't mean that I can slack off.

    In the US at least, I doubt we'd ever see "brain testing" because people don't regard intelligence as something you can build, unlike physical aptitude. People don't associate that weird puritanical "honor"-relationship with Matheletes. :)
  • by saforrest ( 184929 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:44PM (#11142493) Journal
    ...and not a single mention of Paul Erdös [wikipedia.org]?
  • by robogun ( 466062 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:46PM (#11142517)
    But given our culture, penis pills will still outsell brain enlargement pills 10-1
  • Dubya (Score:3, Funny)

    by Door-opening Fascist ( 534466 ) <skylar@cs.earlham.edu> on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:49PM (#11142533) Homepage
    Can we enroll Dubya in the trials?
  • by Beautyon ( 214567 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:55PM (#11142575) Homepage
    These drugs are not in fact novel; there are already drugs with the same conventration enhancing effects; Penural and Etracine are both in wide use, and are specifically designed to improve concentration and eye hand co-ordination.

    There might be some utility in developing these new drugs further, since they may not interact with Intervol, which is sometimes a problem.
  • Nootropics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by srain ( 197634 ) <srain@silentrain.nMONETet minus painter> on Monday December 20, 2004 @08:59PM (#11142600) Journal
    Nootropics (aka "Smart Drugs") [nootropics.com] have received a lot of attention in recent years. While many skeptics remain, there are quite a few avid followers of the nootropic "fad". Two great resources for the beginner are Smart Drugs [amazon.com] and Smart Drugs II [amazon.com], although a few issues have been pointed out by some people [nootropics.com].
  • by Two99Point80 ( 542678 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @09:01PM (#11142617) Homepage
    I am autistic, and seem to have some of the "enhancements" being discussed here such as very good situational focus and access to unfiltered detail. However these come at considerable cost, for example susceptibility to sensory overload, sometimes-extreme difficulty with unscheduled or illogical changes, and so forth. (Perhaps these attributes could be analogous to "side effects" of the cognitive enhancement drugs?) While it could be argued that "everybody does/has/experiences this", the degree of it can be extreme for some of us, and may point to caveats regarding the meds.

    FWIW I've come up with a number of metaphors for my experience of being autistic, and it might be useful to examine these in the context of "cognitive enhancement". There are in the "self-awareness" article directly accessible here [bellsouthpwp.net] (URL may change in the future) or through my domain [davespicer.org].

    In any event, it may be prudent to go back to the movie "Charly" and ponder his answer to the question, "What do you see?" and the ensuing dialog. Seeing more clearly comes at a price...

  • As any engineer can tell you, there are always trade-offs in any design change. In this case, those trade-offs are "side effects".

    It may be possible to optimize human beings for some particular task using drugs of various sorts - but what criterion will we use to determine what changes we will make?

    I envisage a sort of corporate dystopia, in which people optomize themselves to maximize their utility to their employers, altering their own brain chemistry to make themselves into perfect employees - we can argue what traits such a human tool would have, but they're probably not very laudable.

    On the other hand, people ought to be able to have any neurochemistry they want; under more generally egalitarian social arrangements, such drugs would simply enable people to do that, which would be good.

    Maybe I've just been reading too much science fiction.
  • by datawar ( 200705 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @10:51PM (#11143502)
    I would be very interested in using any safe mind-enhancing drug. However, the brain is not a computer and life is not a pre-mediated routine.

    If people start using memory and attention enhancing drugs to ground themselves more in reality and their current world view/direction, I think it's important that people also start using psychedelics and other mentally-opening/freeing drugs to make sure they don't get bogged down in the now-now-now.

    Basically psychedelics allow you an escape from grounding forces (like attention, or memory) to go and question important, overarching meta-questions -- where am I going? what does the world mean and what's my place in it? who are my friends and how do I feel about them? how do I feel about the future? etc. These would be a good counter-balance to the mind-enhacing drugs, which help you achieve goals formed from reflection upon your insight, more efficiently.

    I'm not really advocating psychedelic drug use for everyone in general (well, not in this post at least, heh). But as "regular", not cognitively-enhanced people we supposedly have some sort of balance of 'free-thought' with which we question and reflect on Big, Important Matters and 'attentive/constrained thought' with which we make short-term goals happen. The two are a feedback process. If we're shifting the balance by increasing the duraction of our 'attentive/constrained thought', we need to have a way of increasing the intensity of our 'free-thought' so that we don't loose sight of the big picture.

  • Missing Option... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dabigpaybackski ( 772131 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @11:08PM (#11143659) Homepage
    Marijuana. Now don't laugh.

    Remember the incident a few years back at the Winter Games in Nagano with the US snowboarder getting in trouble for the pot? He said he smoked grass before he rode because it helped him relax and focus. Now, up till that point, marijuana had not officially been on the Olympic Commitee's list of banned substances, but that all changed when their research concluded that yes indeed, getting stoned may increase athletic performance. So now, if you're an Olympic athlete, marijuana is verboten.

    I would add my own personal anecdotes in support of their findings, but I seem to have forgotten them for some reason...

  • by Jharish ( 101858 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:52AM (#11144362)
    ...and it does work similar to speed.

    The problem is that yes, it did sharpen my concentration and make me awake all night(I worked a grave shift in a NOC) but it also made me extremely frustrated, short on patience and irritable. I broke three mice and four keyboards before I stopped taking the stuff.
  • Superhuman strength. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NarrMaster ( 760073 ) <dfordyce AT mix DOT wvu DOT edu> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:58AM (#11144400)
    Alright, try to keep up on this logical march. Keep in mind, some of this is speculation, but all have a basis in fact.

    1) Muscles are controlled by neurons.
    2) At any given time, only a fraction of muscle fibers are available in a given muscle. This is due to some neurons having high thresholds from never being used or used infrequently. The ratio of total fibers/useable fibers is called "neuromuscular efficiency", and the mechanism by which thresholds are lowered is called the "Hebbian Mechanism". (for this discussion, I am speaking mainly of fast-twitch fibers).
    3) It's possible to train and open up new neurons through heavy strength training, such as Powerlifting/Olympic Weightlifting (note: not Bodybuilding).
    4) Strength athletes (high jumpers, sprinters, weightlifters, powerlifters) in general have a higher degree of NM efficiency than untrained individuals (somewhere along the lines of 30-50% as opposed to 5%-10%). Case in point- Judd Biasotto, former powerlifter who, at a bodyweight of 132, bench pressed over 300 lbs. and squatted over 600 lbs. In some extreme life or death cases, effciency can be increased dramatically, by either drugs(PCP), adrenaline(mothers lifting cars on their sides to save their children trapped underneath), or mental disease. Basically, you can lift a car, your brain either
    a) doesn't know or
    b) won't let you.
    5) Increasing NM efficiency involves lowering present neural thresholds, making an activity "easier" in terms of neural drive, and allowing new neurons/muscle fibers to be recruited.
    6) Some of the drugs mentioned in the article strengthen neural connections.
    7) If these drugs affect motor neurons in the body as well, the thresholds for these neurons would be greatly lowered, and neuromuscular efficiency would increase dramatically, maybe past reachable norms. (>50%) (hell, if they affect motor neurons as well as neurons in the brain, any technical skill could be used as an example).
    8) Net result: dramatic increases in strength in a relatively short amount of time, without a significant increase in bodyweight. The ability to exert more force would come from using nearly all the available fibers in an existing muscle.
    9) ???
    10) Profit!


    I, for one, welcome our Volvo lifting overlords.

    /would love to volunteer for a clinical trial investigating the above scenario.
    //The Matrix has you.

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Working...