Hah hah ha!

Academics isn't about competition.  That's the funniest piece of bs I've heard all day!

The Adderall / Concerta crowd definitely exists on campus, but I know it doesn't work for everyone (not that it should be comforting).  Sometimes you focus on the "wrong" thing...I have a friend who took a break from his homework to watch a brief one minute clip on the Internet of someone doing a moonwalk.  His Adderall had kicked in, and he got out of his chair and played the clip again and tried to mimic the dancer.  Four hours later (as the drug wore off), he realized what he had been doing.  He stopped taking the drug after that.

I think this whole piece misses what is most disturbing about the issue.  There aren't a whole lot of good reasons why society should endorse performance enhancing drugs by athletes, because there is not gain of lasting value of sports victories for anyone aside from the thrill of fans.  However, if mind-enhancing drugs can lead to scientists being more productive, it could potentially lead to (thinking hyperbolically) cures for cancer, affordable renewable energy, quantum computing, or any number of technological advances.  Leaving aside the question of how to balance the morality of such choices, if drugs really do provide these advances, is there really any hope of stopping industry and government from embracing them, let alone academia?  

Michelle,

Once again you are a voice of reason.  You are always right on with your commentary.

This is another sad example, unfortunately too common in America, of the ridiculous lengths that people will go to in order to succeed.

I have a slightly different take on the excerpt, which is influenced by my experiences as a teacher:

In sports, good athletes take drugs to be even better athletes so they can beat other good athletes.

In schools, students with learning disabilities or other impediments take medications to help them function as students.  Essentially, these medications help students who can't perform at the level of the peers.  Most students take Adderall to help them focus on one or two singular tasks, as opposed to keeping track of every bit of stimulus in the classroom.  It's not a matter of creating super-learning machines (at least not in most cases).  And even then, the students still struggle to be successful in mainstream classrooms.

Ok, so a limited defense of Farah: I think all she meant was that the 'cheating' element of doping to enhance academic performance is not as important as it would be in sports. There are definitely icky aspects to taking Adderall to perform, but it's not the exact same as steroids for sports where competition is the entire point. In academia, competition is a means to an end (yes, the glorious pursuit of knowledge). Pretend there is a point where performance enhancing drugs are safe. There would still good reasons to keep those drugs out of sports, and the use of those drugs would still be cheating. Meanwhile, every academic would probably be required to take the things.

This post seems more like a cheap shot that gets laughs because it invokes the old 'haha eggheads think they're better than us (but they're not)' line. Yes, academia is pretty vicious, but it's important to reiterate the ideals once in a while and reinforce that it shouldn't be about competition.

Hmm...well maybe Martha Farah is just glad to see that nerds finally have a way to compete in the world of "academic athletes". I mean....you really do need lightning fast reflexes when you're prepping slides or doing titrate tests in the lab. As far as Adderall giving you a one-up on someone else academically is suspect performance wise in say a final exam or writing a coherent essay. You either know the material or don't. Just because you stayed up until 4am without a nap doesn't mean you'll perform better especially after that 5-pill Adderall crash. Livestrong Baby!

Full disclosure: I work at the CCN, though not in Martha Farah's lab.  I think that Martha has a good point, although she vastly understates the degree to which academics really is a competition (I'm sure it doesn't seem nearly as competitive once you're a tenured professor).  

There's a lot that remains to be learned about the specific effects of the drugs in question, both in terms of cognitive abilities and in terms of potential health risks (and if I recall, Martha is starting to work on some of that research).  Nevertheless, the fact is that there is potentially more at stake here than competition.  It's somewhat doubtful that society has much to gain from athletes taking performance enhancing drugs.  Perhaps baseball benefits from things like players hitting more home runs, but this is certainly debatable, and there are other ways of getting those results (having smaller parks, for example).  If these drugs turn out to be beneficial, the potential benefits to society are undeniable.  A cure for a disease works just as well if the person discovered it "naturally" or with the aid of some drug.

Academics is still a competition, and that's an aspect of the debate that deserves real attention, but I would argue that the outcomes of the "who can cure diseases the fastest" game matter a lot more than the outcomes of any sporting events.

Leaving aside the debate of whether the use of drugs is good or bad for students and scholars, I don't think it's morally equivalent to athletic doping. Athletic events are basically entertainment, but scholarship enriches human culture in a far more dramatic and fundamental way. I think you could honestly say that, as Michelle sarcastically does above, "Smart people on drugs = societal good. Athletic people on drugs = societal ill." I don't know that I'd make that argument, but it's not as nutty as she seems to think it is.

Tanner,

I don't think the issue here is students with learning disabilities (i.e. the ones for whom the drugs are legitimately prescribed).  Rather, the debate is about the increasingly common use of these drugs by psychiatrically normal students attempting to boost their academic performance.

Hey, I'm for it.  That's been the problem with our society -- wrong people on drugs.  She seems to say that if everybody can't do drugs then nobody should do drugs.  Sounds like a socialist.

This stuuf is also all over the Performing Arts in NYC, Dr. Diamond has new scrips to write....

Man, lots of new posters around here. What a difference a change of topic makes. More like this, pls

Just say No to _cheap_ drugs.

I be tooking Provigil for yeers now, and i no see no probrem wif it.

Just keep this information away from Chinese parents, no actually let them know but first let me invest in the companies that produce these drugs, I could make a killing. In China, they have no school athletic programs (they have phys ed, but no organized sports after school). If anyone thinks America is competitive, spend a year in China. My 5 year old niece takes English classes on the weekends (as well as others, and she is only 5!)

I be tooking Provigil for yeers now, and i no see no probrem wif it.

Just keep this information away from Chinese parents, no actually let them know but first let me invest in the companies that produce these drugs, I could make a killing. In China, they have no school athletic programs (they have phys ed, but no organized sports after school). If anyone thinks America is competitive, spend a year in China. My 5 year old Chinese niece takes English classes on the weekends (as well as others, and she is only 5!)

Well for those who think that taking low grade forms of speed (which Adderall basically is) or other stimulants as having any benefit in finding a cure for cancer or other benefits for human synaptic improvements then certainly I've got this nice bag of (cough, cough) parsley to sell you. Having "experimented" with Adderall for an all-nighter once in grad school, it helped me stay awake and focused but it didn't "improve" my design capabilities. Adderall junkies are just that...stimulant junkies.

I'm all for expanding your mind but maybe instead of psychotropics and stimulants we could instead focus on neural implants that allowed you comprehend every spoken language, calculate quantum physics, etc. Hardware/wetware would be the way to go!

I mean if we're going to pump loads of money into scientific endeavors to make us functionally smarter then give these scientists something to do besides making more psychotropic drugs. Hell...if I want super-awareness and expansive thoughts I could take LSD or smoke some pot!

Some of the greatest breakthroughs and achievements in art and science haven't necessarily been because someone stayed awake 48 hours straight. Day-dreaming, thinking, bouncing ideas off your peers, tinkering in the garage is what opens the capacity for breakthrough.

Lest we get caught up in a miracle pill that lets you focus of Excel spreadsheets for 10 hours straight without a break leads us to think we'll be raising a generation of Einsteins, what it will really mean is suddenly your boss is requiring you to have a prescription of Adderall so you can work a little more focused, maybe a little longer without more pay, or deaden your perception of how dull your life has become. Ah...I just might have to reread me some Philip K. Dick.

"Hey Kid...would you some like Can-D?"

This piece, like the controversy over steriod use, ignores the crucial issue of which of these "performance enhancing" drugs are healthy, and which are not, and in what doses. For example, steriod use by athletes to enhance performance usually involves high doses that are definitely not healthy for most people. However, lower doses of steriod, particularly for those past their prime, are most definitely very healthy, and lead to increased health and fitness. So the whole idea of bashing steriod use is really only applicable to those who abuse steriods, not those who use them. And the whole mixing of HGH with steriods is plain nutty, as there are no negative health effects from HGH, only positive ones, especially those past their youth.

Similarly with brain-enhancing drugs. I don't know what adverse affects Adderal or Provigil have. I do know that there are main brain enhancing neuroceuticals that have extremely good health benefits, and no known bad side effects. These includes things like Piracetam, which increases blood flow in the brain and increases memory performance, and choline, which works in conjuction with Piracetam. Omega-3 oils, fish oils, etc, are also excellent, as are a host of newly discovered substances. I see nothing wrong with using these to enhance one's brain's performance. You might as well suggest taking vitamins is "cheating".

There's a lot of stupidity in this whole debate that needs, I think, some intellectual enhancement.

"Well for those who think that taking low grade forms of speed (which Adderall basically is) or other stimulants as having any benefit in finding a cure for cancer or other benefits for human synaptic improvements then certainly I've got this nice bag of (cough, cough) parsley to sell you. Having "experimented" with Adderall for an all-nighter once in grad school, it helped me stay awake and focused but it didn't "improve" my design capabilities. Adderall junkies are just that...stimulant junkies."

As I mentioned earlier, the actual effects on cognitive abilities are not at all well-documented, anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.  Both the cognitive and health effects need to be studied, so the debate is perhaps somewhat premature.  If the drugs turn out not to be beneficial, then the answer becomes pretty simple.  The broader question is how to deal with drugs that are actually helpful, regardless of whether psychostimulants like Adderall and Provigil fit the bill.

personally, I think we should just let the athletes take drugs.