Brain Enhancement Is Wrong, Right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09carey.html?ex=1362718800&en=753abf3a269f71c3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

by robg • 18 years ago

22 67 18 years ago

nytimes.com

JulianMorrison5• 18 years ago

Of course it isn't. What a silly idea. Enhancement is always good, that's why it's enhancement and not harm.

kirubakaran• 18 years ago

Dude your profile is interesting. I have similar interests and similar singularitarian ideas :-)

aflag• 18 years ago

Academia is different from sports. Despite what many people may think, academia and science are not a game. Your goal is not to be better than someone, but to do good research. If you feel the need to take drugs and you're willing to take its risks, then by all means do. It's not cheating.

Now, requiring people to use substances that might be bad for them is not a good idea. People have to have the freedom to choose if they will take those substances or not. Neither should be mandatory. The reason for this is that we want people to be able to make their own decisions and do whatever pleases them the most; may it be using drugs or not.

daniel-cussen2• 18 years ago

Good point. Academia is not a zero-sum game.

Alex3917• 18 years ago

Knowledge is not a zero-sum game. Academia, not so much.

iamwil• 18 years ago

It is if there are limited spots for an academic position, papers a journal can publish, etc.

dhimes• 18 years ago

Academia is extremely competitive at the professional level,as are many pursuits. That's why many many researchers cheat, and it's so scandalous when they are caught.

Think about this: you lose out on a job opportunity to someone who forged their data or perhaps used stimulants to work at an unnatural pace over a certain period of time. This changes your career in a dramatic way. When that person is caught, what is your compensation? Yes, he (she) was exposed but you were wronged. What would be fair compensation?

amichail2• 18 years ago

I disagree with this distinction that it's cheating with sports but not academia.

I think what matters is whether there's a health cost to these drugs and if so how much. If a drug is quite safe, then it should be allowed -- no matter whether we are talking about sports or academia.

cstejerean• 18 years ago

Sports are for the entertainment for those watching. The consensus seems to be that the spectators enjoy it more when they know the athletes didn't use any performance enhancing drugs.

Academic research is not done for entertainment, it directly benefits society and mankind in general. If someone wants to risk their health to find a cure for cancer faster, more power to them.

mhb2• 18 years ago

Since no drug is safe enough for some groups, what really matters is by whom it is allowed. Major league baseball, colleges, and other groups with which people can voluntarily associate seem like reasonable arbiters for their membership's drug use. Governments do not.

atoulouse• 18 years ago

While I don't agree with you, I see where you're coming from and don't think you deserve negative karma for your post.

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment:

One could perhaps make the analogy to caffeine (as others in this thread already have). Sports and academia alike drink it all the time. This is a drug so generally harmless that we don't even consider it a drug. Who would argue that caffeine gives an unfair advantage? Does it not make sense that a drug with a more pronounced benefit and similarly innocuous side-effects should be accepted?

jamesbritt3• 18 years ago

"Despite what many people may think, academia and science are not a game. "

Wait; all that over/under stuff on the Fields Medal betting is a scam?

Damn.

mhartl• 18 years ago

It's worth noting that caffeine, in proper doses, enhances both physical and mental performance. So be careful of the slippery slope: slide far enough down and you'll kill your cappuccino.

anewaccountname• 18 years ago

I've heard food can have the similar effects, let's ban that too.

delackner2• 18 years ago

Actually if you read the literature on Provigil, it is much safer than caffeine in two vital ways. It is not a stimulant, whereas caffeine is, like amphetamines. It very specifically and directly affects the brain's chemistry. It is also not addictive, whereas many a coffee-fiend greets the morning, lunch, afternoon, and night with coffee, and woe to he who gets in their way.

The only reason caffeine, and alcohol, and tobacco are viewed differently from MUCH safer drugs is that some people subscribe to illogical belief systems that differentiate between 'old' drugs and 'new' drugs, regardless of the fact that many of the drugs they hate are just as old as the ones they love.

wallflower• 18 years ago

Reminds that marijuana is classified as a performance-enhancing drug by many national (NBA) and multi-national sport governing boards

robg5• 18 years ago

I once had a Carribean taxi driver tell me that marijuana is the only drug (there are some he probably hasn't tried) that you don't have to process or change in any way. You can ingest it directly from the ground for the same effects. Try that with caffeine, chocolate, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etc. And of course, the psychotropics that "enhance" takes that processing to a whole new level.

kingnothing• 18 years ago

Heroin is processed opium. Opium comes from poppy seeds, and the processing for that is minimal.

Cocaine is made from the coca plant; the leaves of which can be chewed raw for a similar, but markedly weaker, effect.

I doubt tobacco has to be processed to be smoked.

Psilocybin mushrooms require no processing.

Peyote requires no processing.

Alcohol be found naturally from rotting, fermented fruit fallen from trees. There's a video on Youtube of animals getting drunk from eating it.

I'm sure there are several other plants that will get you high that I'm unaware of. Just thought I'd throw a little knowledge out there for anyone who might be interested.

tptacek6• 18 years ago

I offer no judgement, but note that if performance-enhancing drugs become the norm in academia and industry, those who opt not to chemically alter (and perhaps harm) themselves are obviously going to be marginalized.

That's why steroids are a problem in sports. It's not that kids "look up" to Barry Bonds. It's that they're not stupid, and they quickly realize the only way to succeed is to dope.

Staying up all night coding sounds awesome to me. Having 2x focus sounds awesome. When research assures me I'm not going to be clinically depressed for the remainder of my life as a result of medicating, I might even consider taking pills for work. But I'll feel guilty about the future I'm creating for my kids.

yters6• 18 years ago

Yes, and a corollary is that this doesn't necessarily mean the non doped can just go live easier lives because the doped are doing so much more work. The same thing has been said about most of technological revolutions, but do people live more leisurely, relaxed lives today because of our advances?

mhb2• 18 years ago

How is this a corollary? As a result of increased productivity in society, everyone becomes better off. And yes, people today live more leisurely, relaxed lives materially because of increased productivity.

yummyfajitas5• 18 years ago

>The same thing has been said about most of technological revolutions, but do people live more leisurely, relaxed lives today because of our advances?

Yes. There are now more World of Warcraft players in the US than farmers, thanks to mechanized agriculture. This led to a decrease in hours worked from about 80 to 40.

Mechanized factories led to a similar reduction; service workers tend to work far less than factory workers (spending several hours/day at work, but not working).

The rest of the productivity gains went to increased consumption, which tends to mean a greater quality of leisure (I enjoy playing video games much more than I would enjoy watching Big 3 TV networks in 1950).

Doping may lead to an increase in inequality (i.e., non-doped need to work harder to have the same stuff as the doped), but that's a different matter.

JulianMorrison5• 18 years ago

I would accept a world where you need enhancement to get ahead, for the same reason I accept a world where you need a phone and a car to get ahead. Some people may grumble, but everyone is better off.

tptacek6• 18 years ago

We'd all get a little bit further if child labor were allowed, too.

rms5• 18 years ago

http://network.nature.com/forums/naturenewsandopinion/816

http://66.179.50.166/s.aspx?sm=xrWEV6jaPOhKbAU_2blNRDBQ_3d_3...

links from http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/09/debate-around-brain.htm...

__• 18 years ago

Dr. Chatterjee: "The way this is likely to be framed is: 'Look, we want smart people to be as productive as possible to make everybody's lives better. We want people performing at the max, and if that means using these medicines, then great, then we should be free to choose what we want as long as we're not harming someone.' I'm not taking that position, but we have this winner-take-all culture and that is the way it is likely to go."

Huh? "Winner-take-all culture"? This seems like a moral issue.

I suspect that a lot of human suffering -- or at least missed potential -- is due to our cognitive biases and other mental shortcomings. I suspect there are many leaders, inventors, and researchers who would improve the human condition far more if they could think faster, remember better, and get tired less. Fighting against a drug that could unleash this potential energy and save huge numbers of lives seems immoral.

Electro• 18 years ago

I think the effects must be weighed. Is it wrong for a molecular biologist to take drugs if it means he can invent a cure for cancer in 5 years instead of 20? I believe one person should be allowed to do whatever they want with their body as long as it doesn't negatively effect other people, and in said example he might die younger but he'll have saved around 114 million people from death.

We're not talking about handing someone over to some evil aliens or they'll murder 114 million innocents. We're talking about someone saying, "My death will be worth saving 114 million people from an early death." I can't fault someone choosing to do that.

robg5• 18 years ago

I'm surprised no one's said it yet: Who says you're enhanced?

As far I know, few studies have shown actual improvement in mental or physical performance without serious side effects. I think even the military, which has studied both amphetamines and steroids, has found that the side effects far outweigh the benefits.

As a big baseball fan, I think the current PED controversy is illustrative. Many folks think they're getting a benefit and are willing to go to great lengths for that edge. But it's not clear they're getting anything other than an confidence boost. You wouldn't take the pill if you didn't think it would work or is working. So you keep taking it.

I think the same is true of neurocosmetics. It easier to believe they work. Still, I'd rather take a nap than a pill. And I'm more worried about neuroimplants - in fifty years.

yummyfajitas5• 18 years ago

The Air Force says you are enhanced by amphetamines:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/02/57434

(The reporter is a little more skeptical. Then again, the military tend to be big users of statistics, so I expect they have some reason to believe this.)

robg5• 18 years ago

The fighter pilots I've talked to says it only works in heavy doses for short time periods. That doesn't sound very good to me.

Tichy3• 18 years ago

I always ask myself: if substance X is supposedly so beneficial, why doesn't the body manufacture it by itself? Or just creates the effect the drug is supposed to create to begin with?

noonespecial3• 18 years ago

Perhaps it used to, and is broken now. Putting the chemical back is fixing it, like a diabetic with insulin.

jamesbritt3• 18 years ago

"If substance X is supposedly so beneficial, why doesn't the body manufacture it by itself?"

Well, it does. Many nootropic drugs work either by stimulating the production of, or blocking the absorption of, otherwise normally occurring brain chemicals.

I believe, for example, that methylphenidate (Ritalin) stimulates the production of dopamine, while bupropion (Wellbutrin) blocks dopamine reuptake.

I used to do a fair amount of wetware hacking, and one of the concerns was avoiding the crash that comes when your brain is depleted of one or another chemical.

One path to a better brain, then, is to feed it the material it needs to produce the more interesting (noradrenalin, dopamine, etc.) stuff.

rms5• 18 years ago

You can responsibly use amphetamine or modafinil without serious side effects. Amphetamine enhances the mental performance of millions of our children and few people seem to be complaining about long term side effects.

The military has studied the use of amphetamine and modafinil in extreme situations. If you go without sleep for three days, there's going to be serious side effects, with or without any drug. I doubt that any of the scientists on stimulants are using it that extremely, which means the side effects are limited.

lutorm• 18 years ago

If you read that article, you'd think that drugs are the only way to enhancing brain performance... I enhance my brain all the time, but with exercise instead of drugs.

The article seems to be based on the premise that unless you take drugs you can't do anything about the performance of your brain, when there's a wealth of research indicating otherwise. Maybe if people didn't have the misconception that intelligence is something fixed and innate, they would actually try to train their brain instead of taking drugs?

rms5• 18 years ago

Surprised no one has mentioned Erdos yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erdős

Brain Enhancement Is Wrong, Right?

Related Stories