Appendix

Appendix
Psychostimulant drugs have been used by a certain number of
students on university campuses around the world. Promoters of
these drugs trivialise this practise as ‘memory-enhancing’ or
‘cognitive-enhancing’. I prefer to use the name that is more
appropriate: doping. Over a short period, brain doping appears
to be effective. Several studies have shown that
dexamphetamine 10 mg on 5 consecutive days, enhanced both
the rate of learning and the retention of the words one hour, one
week and one month later (Whiting 2005). Not unexpectedly,
brain doping was reported to be highest among men, Whites,
and fraternity/sorority members. Brain-doping subjects also had
higher levels of cigarette smoking, heavy drinking, risky driving,
and abuse of marijuana, MDMA (ecstasy), and cocaine (McCabe
2005). The most commonly cited motives for illicit use are to
enhance concentration, get higher grades, and increase alertness
(Teter 2006).
Brain doping is not altogether new in academia. A few years
ago I learned that at least one of my colleagues had been using
cocaine to work the long night hours typical for big projects. In
2008, a scientific magazine published the results of an informal
survey into the use of brain-doping drugs among its readers
(Maher 2008). About 20 percent indicated that they had used drugs to stimulate concentration or memory. Methylphenidate
was the most popular drug (62% of the participants reported
taking these drugs), followed by modafinil (44%), beta blockers
such as propranolol (15%) and adderall. These figures may
overstate the phenomenon because people who dope their brain
are more likely to participate in this kind of survey.
Nevertheless, the numbers suggest that among some academics,
drug taking is not a taboo.
Some people are trying to make the very idea of brain doping
fashionable and socially acceptable. The line of reasoning is as
follows: ‘We are ready to give brain-doping drugs to adults with
neuropsychiatric disorders and severe memory and
concentration problems. We – physicians and pharmaceutical
companies – would also welcome that these drugs be prescribed
more widely for other psychiatric disorders. We might even be
tempted to apply the same considerations to children and
adolescents with hyperactivity disorders. After all, why boost the
brainpower of other people and not your own? You already take
Italian espresso and caffeine-containing soft drinks. If children
at school took these drugs, would you be able to withstand the
pressure to give them to your children?’
Yes, we most certainly would. What’s more, we don’t appreciate
visions of brain doping ‘benefitting society or extending our
work productivity’. Clearly, future discussion on this topic needs
regulation. It is too simple for researchers to declare competing
interests when they are consultants for pharmaceutical
companies that develop or produce brain-doping drugs. It is also
too simple for editors of scientific journals to content themselves
with publishing these conflicts of interest in a footnote. We are
not happy that people who might be biased in their convictions
fashion the discussion about brain doping. Scientific journals
should carefully select the contributors of articles on this
subject. The potential market for brain-doping drugs is immense
– bigger than that of any antidiabetics, anticholesterols, antihypertensives, antipsychotics and other anti-XXL drugs
combined. Stakes are high, temptations are great, and way too
many researchers are for sale.
If your friends yield to the temptation of using brain-doping
drugs, don’t follow them! Most drugs have adverse effects – a
fortiori when used chronically – and I predict that after decades
of use, brain-doping drugs will be shown to produce devastating
effects on the brains of those who wanted to – in brain-doping
parlance – ‘perform better and enjoy more achievements and
success’. By then, editors of prestigious international journals of
science will have issued a public Mea Culpa for having invited the
wrong people to shape the discussion. Some researchers will face
criminal charges. Pharmaceutical firms will be struggling with
expensive action suits.
References
Maher B. Poll results: look who's doping. Nature 2008; 452:674-5. Abstract
McCabe SE, Knight JR, Teter CJ, Wechsler H. Non-medical use of prescription
stimulants among US college students: prevalence and correlates from a
national survey. Addiction 2005;100:96-106. Abstract
Kandel, In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. W. W.
Norton & Company, 2007. Chapter 24, page 333: Is it desirable to improve
memory in normal people? Would it be desirable for young people who
could afford them to buy memory-enhancing drugs before taking the
college entrance exams? There is a range of opinions on this issue, but
mine is that healthy young people capable of studying and learning on
their own and in school without the aid of chemical memory enhancers
(students with learning disabilities might be considered differently).
Studying well is, without a doubt, the best cognitive enhancer for those
capable of learning.
Teter CJ, McCabe SE, LaGrange K, Cranford JA, Boyd CJ. Illicit use of specific
prescription stimulants among college students: prevalence, motives, and
routes of administration. Pharmacotherapy 2006;26:1501-10. Abstract
Whiting E, Chenery H, Chalk J, Darnell R, Copland D. Dexamphetamine enhances
explicit new word learning for novel objects. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol
2007;10:805-16. Epub 2007 Jan 25. Abstract


TheWordBrain2015