trumptman
06-11-2006, 04:42 PM
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/10/AR2006061001181.html)
So within one or two generations we've gone from "Turn On, Tune In, and Drop Out," to this?
Seen by some ambitious students as the winner's edge -- the difference between a 3.8 average and a 4.0, maybe their ticket to Harvard Law -- these "brain steroids" can be purchased on many campuses for as little as $3 to $5 per pill, though they are often obtained free from friends with legitimate prescriptions, students report.
And...
Smart-pill use has not been the focus of much data collection. This comes as no surprise to researchers such as Richard Restak, a Washington neurologist and president of the American Neuropsychiatric Association, who has written extensively about smart drugs in his 2003 book, "The New Brain: How the Modern Age Is Rewiring Your Mind," as well as his forthcoming "The Naked Brain: How the Neurosociety Is Changing How We Live, Work and Love."
Contributing to this dearth, he points out, is that these drugs are not famous for being abused recreationally and they are not being used by people with a disease.
This is not "the type of data collected by the FDA," he says. Law-enforcement activity has been sparse. "Who is the complainant?"Compared with the kind of drug users who get police attention, "This is an entirely different population of people -- from the unmotivated to the super-motivated," Restak says. These "drug users may be at the top of the class, instead of the ones hanging around the corners."
Finally...
When you ask the students, they look at you like you're from the planet Zircon. They ask why you weren't on this story three years ago. Even if some of these drugs are amphetamines, it's medicine parents give to 8-year-olds, they say. It's brand-name stuff, in precise dosages. How bad can it be? Sure, there are problems with weight loss, sleep loss, jitters and throwing up, they say. But other unintended consequences are not what you might expect. Universities now sport some of the cleanest apartments in the history of undergraduate education. Says one student who asked for anonymity because she has been an off-prescription user of these drugs: "You've done all your work, but you're still focused. So you start with the bathroom, and then move on to the kitchen . . . ."
Being someone who has not attended college full-time on a campus for a...while. This type of story is shocking to me. It draws a good parallel between the two beliefs in this area when mentioning athletics. There are folks who, even while competitive would never risk harm to their body by taking anything to enhance performance. Others will grab everything they can to get ahead in athletics.
Now it appears to be true as well for academics. The jokes used to be about a good pot of coffee, or perhaps some caffinated soda. While I don't drink them, I'm aware of the various energy drinks out there. Now people are popping pills to gain an academic advantage.
So there are a few issues to discuss here. First, is it right to enhance mental peformance using drugs? The article makes mention of future scenarios where people might be pissing in a cup after their SAT's. We know that in the athletic world we have tried to insure that better nutrition and training are allowed but not better chemistry. Should this be the case for brain chemistry as well?
A second issue is the drug war. Most of us have given up on it because those who want to escape using drugs or just enjoy some tuning out recreationally will find a way to do so. Here we have the opposite. People are breaking the law not to tune out or relax. Instead they never want to relax and never want to have to decouple or unfocus from what they are doing. Society debates and even legislates the merits of being able to tune out or recreate with substances. Many question whether society really has a role in this part of our lives.
Should society debate and perhaps even legislate people who don't want to tune out, but instead tune in, who not only don't want to recreate but want to continually focus and work? Does society have a compelling reason to limit this?
We get into a lot of privacy areas on this question and society often has set aside individual concerns in a quest for attempting to insure a more fair or just society. We discuss privacy versus drug testing for work for example to insure someone might not operate a crane under the influence. What about the opposite side of the coin?
Finally speaking of classism, we already have to discuss the advantages and disadvantages related to multiple parents, their educational level and child academic attainment. We see a widening gap because you have single parent families, often female headed and high school educated, competing against dual income college educated families. Now you toss this into the mix and the gap grows even wider. Johnny and Jerahn are both applying for the same position and in the past might have had the same scores and necessitated an affirmative action debate. Now Johnny's parents by him some Adderall and the debate is gone because Johnny's performance is in a different league. Does Johnny piss in a cup to help insure societal fairness? Should steps be taken to prevent this and if yes, what kind of steps?
Thoughts please...
Nick
So within one or two generations we've gone from "Turn On, Tune In, and Drop Out," to this?
Seen by some ambitious students as the winner's edge -- the difference between a 3.8 average and a 4.0, maybe their ticket to Harvard Law -- these "brain steroids" can be purchased on many campuses for as little as $3 to $5 per pill, though they are often obtained free from friends with legitimate prescriptions, students report.
And...
Smart-pill use has not been the focus of much data collection. This comes as no surprise to researchers such as Richard Restak, a Washington neurologist and president of the American Neuropsychiatric Association, who has written extensively about smart drugs in his 2003 book, "The New Brain: How the Modern Age Is Rewiring Your Mind," as well as his forthcoming "The Naked Brain: How the Neurosociety Is Changing How We Live, Work and Love."
Contributing to this dearth, he points out, is that these drugs are not famous for being abused recreationally and they are not being used by people with a disease.
This is not "the type of data collected by the FDA," he says. Law-enforcement activity has been sparse. "Who is the complainant?"Compared with the kind of drug users who get police attention, "This is an entirely different population of people -- from the unmotivated to the super-motivated," Restak says. These "drug users may be at the top of the class, instead of the ones hanging around the corners."
Finally...
When you ask the students, they look at you like you're from the planet Zircon. They ask why you weren't on this story three years ago. Even if some of these drugs are amphetamines, it's medicine parents give to 8-year-olds, they say. It's brand-name stuff, in precise dosages. How bad can it be? Sure, there are problems with weight loss, sleep loss, jitters and throwing up, they say. But other unintended consequences are not what you might expect. Universities now sport some of the cleanest apartments in the history of undergraduate education. Says one student who asked for anonymity because she has been an off-prescription user of these drugs: "You've done all your work, but you're still focused. So you start with the bathroom, and then move on to the kitchen . . . ."
Being someone who has not attended college full-time on a campus for a...while. This type of story is shocking to me. It draws a good parallel between the two beliefs in this area when mentioning athletics. There are folks who, even while competitive would never risk harm to their body by taking anything to enhance performance. Others will grab everything they can to get ahead in athletics.
Now it appears to be true as well for academics. The jokes used to be about a good pot of coffee, or perhaps some caffinated soda. While I don't drink them, I'm aware of the various energy drinks out there. Now people are popping pills to gain an academic advantage.
So there are a few issues to discuss here. First, is it right to enhance mental peformance using drugs? The article makes mention of future scenarios where people might be pissing in a cup after their SAT's. We know that in the athletic world we have tried to insure that better nutrition and training are allowed but not better chemistry. Should this be the case for brain chemistry as well?
A second issue is the drug war. Most of us have given up on it because those who want to escape using drugs or just enjoy some tuning out recreationally will find a way to do so. Here we have the opposite. People are breaking the law not to tune out or relax. Instead they never want to relax and never want to have to decouple or unfocus from what they are doing. Society debates and even legislates the merits of being able to tune out or recreate with substances. Many question whether society really has a role in this part of our lives.
Should society debate and perhaps even legislate people who don't want to tune out, but instead tune in, who not only don't want to recreate but want to continually focus and work? Does society have a compelling reason to limit this?
We get into a lot of privacy areas on this question and society often has set aside individual concerns in a quest for attempting to insure a more fair or just society. We discuss privacy versus drug testing for work for example to insure someone might not operate a crane under the influence. What about the opposite side of the coin?
Finally speaking of classism, we already have to discuss the advantages and disadvantages related to multiple parents, their educational level and child academic attainment. We see a widening gap because you have single parent families, often female headed and high school educated, competing against dual income college educated families. Now you toss this into the mix and the gap grows even wider. Johnny and Jerahn are both applying for the same position and in the past might have had the same scores and necessitated an affirmative action debate. Now Johnny's parents by him some Adderall and the debate is gone because Johnny's performance is in a different league. Does Johnny piss in a cup to help insure societal fairness? Should steps be taken to prevent this and if yes, what kind of steps?
Thoughts please...
Nick