Many Scientists Using Performance Enhancing Drugs 955
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to be a heroin user. Wasted so much of my time and money on the stuff. Alienated close friends, irreparably destroyed relationships with family member, dragged my girlfriend and daughter through hell, but deep down, the choice was mine to do so. I've been clean three years now. It's a constant struggle, but it was my choice to get clean, and it is my choice to continue to be clean.
I didn't need a twelve step program or a jail sentence or witnessing a friend overdosing to stop (though I have been through all of those things and more). All I needed to do was sit down and rationally weigh my choices, which, I'll admit was hard because all I could do was think about getting high. I came to the conclusion one night as the haze cleared that there was no mystical heroin demon forcing me down and making me do it. It was me.
My opinion as a former drug user: so long as they're not infringing on the rights of others and as long as they are made to pay for their own health care, (I am for a system that excludes drug users from coverage if the illness can be attributed to their drug use) let them do what they want. The moment they run afoul of the law or become a drain on society, feel free to bitchslap them back into line.
You'll be surprised at the resources that will be available. Instead of chasing John McPothead that just wants to get high, eat some Doritos, and watch MXC, your police force will be able to patrol your neighborhood and stop real crime like robbery, rape, and murder and will have the resources needed to effectively investigate those crimes that they don't stop.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, actually, there are definitions of "abuse" that deal with exactly that. There are better definitions for gp to refute - the ones that deal with the expectation that one lives up to an obligation to behave properly. The term "drug abuse" implies that any substance that can chemically interact with your body - even if naturally occurring and/or readily available without outside assistance - defaults to a state where society has a list of uses that are acceptable for you to engage in. This list starts blank and you are obligated to pay for the expense of satisfying society that there are acceptable uses, and you cannot ever demonstrate to society that you are up to the task of deciding the matter entirely for yourself. Even if you're a qualified scientist.
Under his definition a heroin junkie may be abusing many things - the charity of people who will preserve him from the full range of consequences of his decisions, treatment programs that he has no intention of actually making full use of but must attend to avoid penalties of one form or another. Then again, he may not be abusing any damn thing at all [wikipedia.org]. But heroin? How can you "abuse heroin"? Society doesn't spell out a set of obligations to you in exchange for its efforts to keep it available for you, or acknowledge a right way and a wrong way to use it. It's like accusing someone of "abusing serial killing" or "abusing date rape". If you're against the use of certain drugs by anyone anywhere, then the charge is "heroin use" or "cocaine use". Calling it "abuse" is a way of stifling debate - "Are you for or against permitting abuse? Are you saying you're in favor of legalizing abuse?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Under your idiotic definition, a fully informed heroin junkie isn't abusing drugs.
By your definition a fully informed heroin junkie might not be abusing drugs either. If someone on a heroin maintenance program can manage their jobs, friends, and family, because they're not forced to spend all their time and money drug seeking, where are the negative health/social consequences?
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Funny)
I don't agree with that in the least.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I believe that classifying any decision or action as right or wrong is a false dichotomy. Any decision or action can be broken down into pieces that may be judged right or wrong (some dependently and some independently of each other,) and doing such an analysis is both recursive and geometric. Where to "draw the line" on such an analysis is what makes such judgments subjective. How to weigh each facet during the analysis is what makes the process philosophical, moral and ethical.
That being said, while I agree that any judgment we make will be both subjective and philosophical, I believe that that the concepts of right and wrong themselves are based on absolutes. Obviously this is a belief, albeit one shared by a number of religions and philosophies. I don't want to start a debate, though, so I'll make a technological analogy.
Assume that people are processors, and that these processors do not know their internal logic. Any given processor thinks that it is generating correct output for a given set of inputs, but different processors generate different results for same set of inputs. The question is, how can the results of any particular processor for a particular set of inputs be verified?
Well, the processor cannot reliably test itself, as the faculties performing the test are suspect. Other processors cannot reliably model the internal logic of the flawed system, as it is not known. Since different processors generate different results for the same set of inputs, their reliability is unknown. The only option is to use a set of other processors to generate output from the same input. This may generate a consensus of what the correct output should be. (Depending on the distribution of flaws in subcomponents of the processors, the standard deviation of the results may vary significantly for different input sets.) Any consensus that is reached would be analogous to cultural morality. But any judgment by a processor, even if it includes as an input a given consensus, must be subjective.
So how can any results be absolutely verified? As I see it, there are only two ways. The first would be to have a reference processor that is known good, and compare results generated by the reference processor. The second is to have a reference document outlining the correct results.
Obviously, different religions claim to have reference processors and/or reference documents. Which of these (if any and to what extent and/or in what combination) to believe is where religious and philosophical differences occur.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because different people don't agree on the subject, it must be subjective? It follows from that that the age of the Earth is subjective. Different people believe it's anywhere from six thousand to five billion years old.
It does not follow from the fact that different people hold different views on something that it's subjective. It could be subjective, or it could be some people are just plain wrong.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Sounds like you actually believed all that crap in Government Class in High School.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
People ARE trying to change it, the problem is with a general populace that is fat, happy and placated with endless hours of entertainment and blasted with pro-law propaganda continuously (that ironically they pay for) and a government run by special interests (tobacco lobby, alcohol lobby, energy lobby, textile lobby (cotton), prison lobby, etc).
there have been more than a few states that have decriminalized marijuana but federal laws still mandate incarceration, often with mandatory minimum sentencing. Changing laws on a federal level is almost impossible due to the heavy lobbying efforts of those mentioned previously.
It's getting to the point where the legal system is collapsing on itself with 1/10+ of the population incarcerated and drug use still as rampant as ever.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, then you get into the 'tyranny of the majority' problem. There are some things that are 'off limits' to regulation by the gov't. At least according to the philosophy under which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were composed.
That is the problem that I have with a great deal of legislation that goes on within the US. Some of it should not be even considered, but the reading of the Constitution has become so alive that one wonders if any of the Congress Critters can catch it to read it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I read your statement as suggesting that it has become too alive, which may well be the case. Its meanings should be interpreted in the light of the current day; what was offensive 50 years ago is no longer considered offensi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:4, Insightful)
That whole "my body my business" should cut both ways when you have the means by which to abuse said body.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Its not financially backed in the US (Score:5, Informative)
EMTALA is an unfunded mandate that says that the nurses who work in an ER, the hospital who runs the ER, and ER physicians like me have to pay for uninsured emergency care. It takes a segment of the US economy and says we have to take responsibility for and subsidize what everyone else doesn't. That cheap McDonalds hamburger you ate today that is less expensive because McDonalds doesn't offer health insurance? I paid for a part of that.
Of course I am thankful for EMTALA every time that I use it to force a surgeon to take the appendix out of an uninsured teenager. I also feel that I am paid quite well enough even though about 30% of the ER care and 50% of the overall care I provide is uncompensated (I volunteer two days a week at a low income clinic that sees a lot of uninsured patients so that bumps the % up.) However overall I hate EMTALA precisely because its used as a crutch: I'm sure Bush slept very well at night after vetoing SCHIP because he thinks that every American gets health care since even if we are uninsured we can go to the ER (where most of the care people need - like prevention and treatment of chronic disease can't be done).
Re:Its not financially backed in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re:Its not financially backed in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
My poke is at the *business* hiring them which is making me pay for part of it's cost of doing business so it has higher profits. That's the main thing corporations do-- find ways to push their costs outside of their company onto society as a whole.
If businesses were required to pay fair wages and we didn't provide free health care and schooling, the illegal immigrant problem wouldn't really exist. It would be more like back in the 50's when it was background noise (and teenagers did the work of illegal immigrants) as opposed to the 4 million that crossed the border last year alone (850k were caught and sent back.. the rest are here now)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree so long as the provision is against ALL unhealthy habits. A fat person with no insurance should not get treated either.
But that would never happen so let's stop singling out drug users.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Funny)
DOCTOR: Arrrg... too... complicated... need Ritalin to focus...
Yep, we're all screwed!
Who judges the victims (Score:4, Insightful)
Who makes that judgment? Is it the EMT responding on the scene? Is the the ambulance driver? Does the doctor decide when you are on the operating table?
You are going to ask people whose profession is to help fix people and save lives to determine who is worthy of being saved, and who isn't? This is the horribly unethical problem that is the notion of being "uninsured" in the first place. You want to compound that with subjective life style judgments?
So, a gay person with AIDS is treated by a fundamentalist doctor who believes sexuality is a lifestyle choice, and thus, AIDS treatment costs are an unnecessary burden on the tax payer. This is truly the extreme of what the US already has in place with HMOs who are constantly crunching numbers, as opposed to doing everything in their power to help people get better.
Sure, what you say is a wonderful idea. Freedom of choice, my body, and all that. But this thing is called society for a reason. If you really want to destroy yourself, do it outside the realm of society. But of course, these junkies don't hold such noble notions of personal responsibility, so you can't expect them (nor society) to act in accord with such notions.
Re:Who judges the victims (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't be compassionate but then attach strings (I'll help you, but only if you don't abuse drugs). People almost always have some hand in what fate befals them, and almost never have complete control over it.
It is an exercise in futility to try to judge who is worthy of charity by setting regulatory standards and making sweeping moral judgements.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
How are any of those being taken care of by the ER and "billed to society" any different than "I used too many drugs and became ill..." aside from the fact that you believe it to be a poor personal choice?
society's "safety net" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Nanny state... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that is best single argument I have ever heard against state interference in people's behaviour (aka. the 'nanny state'). Interesting, thanks.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you agree that a moral person has some responsibility to help a person in need you've agreed that society has a burden based on everyones actions. The only question is where you draw the line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I help you in any way then I am imposing my will on you. If I don't help you I am imposing my will on you.
If I am aware or you in any way and that affects my actions in any way I am imposing my will on you in some form. Its unavoidable.
If I live next to you and you don't mow your lawn you are imposing your will on me and making me suffer consequences I might not want. If you do mow y
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite. They're saying the decision of wether or not someone should be left to die on their own is up to the individuals who can help him. In a libertarian society you CAN help drug addicts in failing health by donating your money/time to a charity that helps them if you want to.
Not quite. As a libertarian I feel responsibilities to help my daughter and my parents if they were in need, regardless of need, for instance. A random drug addict... not so much. You obviously feel differently but I'm all about letting you help who you want to help.
I can't speak for "they", but this is not the case for myself.
We aren't? There is a place in our country we can go where we can put whatever substances in our bodies that we chose and live with the consequences of that?
You don't seem to know what a libertarian is. The whole freedom accompanies responsibility concept is libertarianism 101. Any real libertarian wants ALL of the responsibilities for himself, not none of them.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, let's just assume that it's a huge issue. Let's assume that ending drug prohibition would cause MORE overdoses, even though logically it would be less. Explain the situation with marijuana. No human being will ever be admitted to a hospital because of a THC overdose from smoking too much pot. It's just not possible to overdose on it, because you'll pass out long before it will reach toxic levels. That's not the issue, of course, the issue is freedom. Concern for public welfare isn't the real reason, otherwise we'd go back to having alcohol in the list of prohibited drugs, and tobacco would get thrown in as well. We'd get mandatory exercise, and every McDonald's would get bull dozed and replaced by a salad bar. All at government expense.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. You're placing the blame on the wrong party. The person who overdosed didn't cause you to pay for their care. The legislators who put the law in place that says you have to pay for their care are the ones who connected the action of the drug user to your wallet. Your blame, and your reaction, can only be correctly directed at the legislators.
If a law is made that says every time I eat a cheeseburger, you must pay fifteen dollars, this in no way indicts me as a bad person for eating cheesburgers, nor does my eating cheeseburgers affect you for any reason that you can legitimately lay upon me. The problem is the law; the making of it, the enforcement of it, the support of it, if any, that you have extended. In the meantime, I should continue to have the liberty to go on eating cheeseburgers as I choose. You, on the other hand, need to do something about your legislators.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A couple of issues (in the US at least, I have no idea how it works Everywhere Else).
According to US law, any emergency room that accepts payment from Medicare or Medicaid (ie, every one of them) MUS
Re:Right and wrong are subjective? (Score:4, Funny)
Right. Carry on. Glad that's sorted. =)
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who claimed they did? I intentionally drove my car to work. Did I commit automobile abuse? So why, if I intentionally take an illegal drug, did I commit drug "abuse?" If I take a prescribed pain pill, I'm using a drug. If I take the exact same drug for the exact same condition but I purchased it from an illegal source, it's drug abuse. The point is that, generally speaking, we've allowed legislatures to define what is use and what is abuse, and that we attach moral judgments to those terms. There is no legitimate moral or rational justification for the dividing lines that are drawn, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to mindlessly follow the legislatures judgments on what constitutes use and what constitutes abuse.
Would you suggest that we call what child molesters, who might not be able to help themselves, do as "illegal children touching" instead of "child abuse"?
You're conflating different meanings of the word, or at least different ways to interpret similarly formed sentences. Child molesters are abusing children because they are harming the children. The abuse that is occurring is from the point of view of the child. Are you arguing that drug users are causing harm to the drugs? If not, then your analogy falls apart.
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Funny)
* I've seen beer stored in a warm garage allowed to temperature cycle between 40-100 F daily for weeks on end.
* I've seen pot left out on a tray in a well ventilated area for days allowing it to dry out and taste terrible.
* I've seen the SAME coffee brewed 3-4 days running, eventually creating a brown fluid only slightly resembling the intended substance.
Oh, the humanity...
Re:No, it's not drug abuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, lets see.
Some addictions can, in fact, be the result of abuse; for instance, when a pregnant woman knowingly takes drugs recreationally that may very likely result in her addiction (which is fine, I have no problem with that) and that of her fetus (that, I define as "wrong" because it has the potential to abuse the fetus's liberties now and in its future.) Where I see you as in error here is in defining "woefully addicted" as a synonym for "wrong." If I choose to take a risk of becoming addicted, and in fact this comes to pass, that was my personal choice. It isn't "wrong." It may well be a poor choice by other people's standards, but what I get out of my actions as measured by myself against the costs to me isn't your balance to judge until, or unless, what I do directly affects you. If I walk up to you on the street and stab you with a hypodermic full of heroin, now we're talking about "abuse."
A child abuser, in the sense that you're using the term, is someone who is violating the privacy and sexuality of an individual who (a) we think cannot make an informed decision and (b) is often subject to power (misuse of authority, or expression of control without authority) they cannot counter; that use of power is an abuse of the child's ability to make choices for itself. We don't subject children to the power of adults in order to expose them to any act an adult might choose; we do it to protect them. Consequently, when an adult abuses that power to act in ways that we consider not in the best interests of the child, we find that to be an extreme offense against the child.
The ideal of liberty is that my right to swing my fist stops where your face begins. If I take a potentially addicting drug, this is "swinging my fist at myself" and is none of your business, regardless of your opinion of how well reasoned my choice is. If I coerce or force someone else (child or otherwise) into taking a punch from me, or punching itself, this is the very definition of abuse. So I have no right to addict you; I have no right to force or coerce any person who cannot make an informed decision according to the dictates of their own conscience into any act, and that covers child abuse as well as it does any other kind of abuse.
Adding the concept of an abuser being "unable to control the act of abuse" in no way opens the door to acceptance of the fact that they have assaulted the liberties of another person. If they cannot control themselves in the "swinging of their fists", then society needs to control them. There is an inherent difference between what rights we have to do things to ourselves, and what rights we have to do to things to others. This difference is in no way ameliorated by one's ability to control one's self, as far as I'm concerned. If you can't control yourself with regard towards your actions as they directly affect others, you should not be excused for what you do: What you are able to do should be constrained, which is simply acting in the best interests of the other members of society.
The root problem with today's "child abuse" laws is the mismatch between the laws drawing a line in the sand based upon age. They use this line (wrongly) as if it provides an effective and reasonable match with every individual's attainment of the ability to make an informed choice according to the dictates of a rational and sufficiently mature conscience. This congruence is not valid and is unlikely to ever be valid, barring mandatory machine education and a lot more sophisticated social system than we have now. We could certainly do a lot better than ag
What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is also possible that the sciences are a more attractive field for people who truly do need to take these types of medications, so the disproportionately high percentage of users in that area may actually be closer to reality than the article would have you believe.
As a learning tool this is a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those of us who are trying to compete with these people are being harmed. Now you put us in a bad position--take them too, or fall behind. Is that fair to us?
Who knows if it's fair. Who cares. Is your only purpose in doing science to compete with other scientists? I thought the point was advancing the base of human knowledge. I don't think these drugs are having as big an effect as you think, anyway. My personal experience was that they enhance focus, not intelligence. You aren't going to come to any su
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't work in modern academia. It's all about quantity. Ideally it's about both quantity and quality, but the only people who can get away with just quality are the very senior professors who already have tenure, who can't get promoted any further, and who are already in the senior ranks of all the academic societies (fellow of the IEEE, etc.). So the idea that a drug would keep your quality the same, while improving your quantity, is incredibly tempting (not to mention making the quantity vs. quality problem worse).
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't work in modern academia. It's all about quantity. Ideally it's about both quantity and quality, but the only people who can get away with just quality are the very senior professors who already have tenure, who can't get promoted any further, and who are already in the senior ranks of all the academic societies (fellow of the IEEE, etc.). So the idea that a drug would keep your quality the same, while improving your quantity, is incredibly tempting (not to mention making the quantity vs. quality problem worse).
Then we have a fundamental problem with how science is conducted. The problem isn't the drugs. The drug use is a symptom of flawed standards for scientific research.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An example. I have this great idea, but my resume isn't as good as this other person who took drugs all the time, while I didn't take drugs. When we both apply for the same $100k grant to do our project, he gets the money because his resume is better--they feel that the $100k is better spent with that person because of his past work. Now my idea won't get developed because I don't have the money I need to implement it. I fail on both my goals: advance the subject, and be employed.
Okay, let's switch thin
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Any tips on doctor shopping? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the idea is more that it would be unfair to the academics who don't use the drugs. These drugs were developed, as far as I am aware, to help those who otherwise couldn't perform at their normal level. If I live in the "publish or perish" world of academics, must I now take these drugs to be competitive?
As I keep repeating, I don't think these drugs make people as "smart" as you might think. And even if they did, if there were no terrible side effects, why would that be bad? You say you don't want to take drugs in order to compete. But what about staying up all night? Are you being unfairly treated because you refuse to stay up 48 hours in a block, like some other researchers do?
You work within your means and what you are willing to do. Others have a different set of criteria. I don't see how this implies unfairness.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point. I think anyone doing research with public money should do their research as efficiently as possible. Don't let those silly FDA guidelines get in the way.
Is that your stance, too? It's hard to tell from your post.
It would be interesting to see how many of the research is being done in the areas of pharmaceuticals and/or cognitive functions.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
And what about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And what about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And what about... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Caffeine? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know of any serious side-effects other than those attendant on other stimulants. It's been out for about 25 years, so you'd think they would have shown up by now, so the cocaine analogy is flawed. If caffeine was illegal, would consuming it be okay?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Off-label (Score:5, Insightful)
Punishment (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Those damn underevolved monkeys... they laughed at me, scolded me, but I will be the one who laughs last... they will see!
Igor! PREPARE THE ANTI-INTELLIGENCE BEAM!!!
HA HA HA HA!!!
Not all use is illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Inderal is not a controlled substance.
Re:Not all use is illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I had a friend in college who lived with dealers and had almost a half ounce of weed in his do
Beta blockers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Their evil plans were foiled yet again. (Score:3, Funny)
The man was apparently muttering about some kind of oil that supposedly made the brain work faster or some such nonsense.
His accomplices included a blonde bimbo, a middle aged woman resembling a sturng out housewife, her young ethnic lover, and a poorly put together RC dog.
Over in liberal arts.... (Score:3, Funny)
Performance enhancing means Viagra.... no wonder kids aren't doing science.
Oh great... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Funny)
or his hair?
And how many are legally used? (Score:3, Insightful)
Inderal is a cheap beta blocker ($4 for a month's supply) commonly used for the treatment of hypertension and various heart diseases. It can also be used on an as-needed basis for stage fright.
Adult ADHD may be treated with Ritalin. If people are prescribed these medicines, then no foul.
Adderall XR (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Headline of the Future... (Score:4, Funny)
It has also been revealed that Steven Nash of the Phoenix Suns NBA team has been taking brain enhancing drugs to help him make smarter, more accurate ball passes. One side effect is that it stunted his growth. College photos revealed that he used to be taller than Shaquille O'Neal. "I wasn't making it as a center, so I decided to become the Mother of All Point Guards", he said at a news conference.
So do we have to unlearn all our Science? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not surprised (Score:5, Informative)
I know at my University for example that there is widespread use of Ritalin for studying purposes once it got out that you can learn entire courses inside and out pulling all-nighters when you're on Ritalin.
A friend of mine is a regular user of Ritalin, and because I knew the guy (and his marks) before he started using I can tell you with some confidence that Ritalin will add a very significant boost to your GPA.
I also have anecdotal evidence of many pre-med students using Ritalin when they study for the MCAT, prerequisite courses, etc. since competition for med school here is so fierce.
If the students are doing it because they're under pressure for higher grades, why wouldn't the professors and scientists be doing it when they're under (arguably greater) pressure to produce research results.
Ritalin is scary stuff (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit. No Top Academic Scientists Responded. (Score:5, Informative)
Collectively, all of this means that Nature's pool of respondents was almost certainly not "top scientists." Instead, they were selecting undergrads, non-scientists, and generally people with a lot of extra time on their hands. Yes, we know undergrads use Ritalin to cheat on tests. We have no indication, however, that Ritalin helps one to do the deep creative thinking necessary for involved science.
Tainted (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
So if life's not fair, why ban "cheating" with drugs? Cheating is part of being unfair.
Re:drugs for enhancement are self-defeating (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gerry
Who cares? Re:drugs are self-defeating (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 w