Why scientists should do drugs (if they choose)

The reports about the widespread use of drugs, cognitive enhancers, among scientists is making the rounds. I tend to think that it might be a positive thing, even if there are side effects. The fact is that if you go into science you're looking at a life of relatively meager remuneration for the intellectual firepower you can bring to any question. Someone who has the abilities and skills to get a tenure track position could almost certainly have been able to make a go of it in a much higher paid profession, but they didn't. Why? Many reasons, from fame to doing what you love. The reality though is that most scientists don't really stand out, and unlike Gilgamesh no one will remember them in the future. I think that the culture of science does need a lot of warm bodies, so there is a positive spillover effect to someone spending their whole life in a scientific career, despite the fact that only a tiny minority of individuals will accrue to themselves the glory of immortality and acclaim.

With those cold facts in mind people should cut scientists some slack. This is not to diss I-bankers, doctors and lawyers, they're all needed, but scientists don't get paid jack compared to these professions. Scientists contribute to the body of human knowledge, and to human welfare. From biomedical advances to material science the fact that researchers devote their cognitive cycles to questions of deep importance for the structure of our civilization and quality of life of its citizens with minimal remuneration is somewhat amazing. It isn't surprising in the world of science people sometimes look to more than caffeine to gain some margin, and increase their productivity within the finite constrains of time, family and basic physiological needs. If a scientist wants to eat a lot of steak because of the sensory pleasure which they extract from the experience, that's great! It might lower their life expectancy, but one should evaluate the total utility under the curve, not the length of that curve on the X-axis. Similarly, if they make recourse to cognitive enhancers which might have consequences in the long term, so be it. Why do athletes take performance enhancing drugs? To win! Why do scientists take cognitive enhancing drugs? To get the most out of their career, yes, but a byproduct of this is to get the most bang for your buck when it comes to scientific productivity! That is a form of perfomance enhancement which has consequences for more than personal ego, it may increase the well being of millions (potentially).

Drugs can be bad, but we need to look at the big picture here. If your child goes into science would you dissuade them from a lifetime expectation of relatively meager earnings in relation to their cognitive aptitudes? What's a few years & quality of life at the end of one's life when set against the sacrifies already implicit in the choices one makes?

Tags

More like this

I agree with your conclusion, but I don't think I agree with your reasoning.

I think that the big difference between athletes using performance enhancing drugs and scientists is the idea of a zero-sum system. In sports, since every win requires a loss, athletic regulatory bodies are keen to ensure that only certain parameters are being contested, ie: ability to play baseball, and not others, ie: who your dealer is who is buffing you up.

In science, a win for a scientist is a win for humanity. If an MD/PhD manages to run a successful lab AND treats 15 patients in a given week, those 15 patients are better off, the hospital is better off, and the lab has made progress, helping all those who work in it.

THAT is why I think we should go easy on scientists, doctors, and others who don't play the zero-sum game.

I don't have any problem with recreational drug use, I actually endorse it. We fuck with our sensory inputs in multiple ways to produce entertaining alternative experiences, why would fucking with our brain chemistry transgress some moral boundary?

Just keep in mind the "recreational" aspect of recreationial drug use, don't take the experiences too seriously and start sounding like McKenna...

I must have lost my train of thought there. Anyway, I don't see anything particularly worrisome about the resort to altering brain-chemistry to enhance performance. There is always the objection often used to justify its restriction in sports, that a highly competitive environment encourages or even coerces people into engaging in dangerous activities. Although in highly competitive environments, this isn't only restricted to drugs. And the side effects of the drugs being used are probably less menacing than those of anabolic steroids and HGH.

I'd disagree with the 'remuneration' argument.
In this respect our system looks pretty much like that zero-sum mentioned ny Isaac.
It doesn't mean the drugs used for career boosting are necessarily 'bad', people (different) are free to chose the way which fits to them (personaly) to get the goal in a complex environment. While i don't like drugs - somebody finds them perfect by his criterions. I smoke - and surely have right to do so.
It may be 'bad' only when it comes to be a common background and a system is zero-sum one still.
Something is different in sports. Even if little minotity choses anabolics - other athlets and the general public won't be happy with this. They wish 'only certain prameters to be contested'

By kostya puhov (not verified) on 11 Apr 2008 #permalink

Sign me up, I'm willing to deal with the consequences. I think we need more scientist developing better cognitive enhancers.

developing better cognitive enhancers.
better? Are there any?
for my experience there are nothing alike:)
coffeine & tabacco let me to work at night for a lot of time. Even alcohol may be useful sometimes!
But my _cognitive_ abilities are surely best when my mind is clear and health is good... and may be when i do some gymnastics:) I used to hate it in the school... but now i find it useful:)

By kostya puhov (not verified) on 11 Apr 2008 #permalink

The major problem is that when everybody is competing for the same, limited research funding, those taking the drugs will gain an advantage. Those who don't want to shorten their lives are either going to get hosed or be forced onto the drugs to compete.

Same thing with grad students. And high schoolers who want to get into the college of their choice.

I don't think it's a good example to be setting.

By Miguelito (not verified) on 11 Apr 2008 #permalink

Those who don't want to shorten their lives are either going to get hosed or be forced onto the drugs to compete.

right. this is a serious issue, but in the end to the victors go the spoils. i'm saying that scientists already make many sacrifices. is a life expectancy of 70 vs. 80 fundamentally different?

The arguments people will make against this are that it's more worthy to try to cure sick people than work on people who are already well but want to be better. They'll also say that this stuff will only be available to the wealthy, further widening the class divide. Finally, they'll say that the field is weirder than life extension, which is already too far out for most people.

On the other hand, the discoveries can be applied to everyone, not just those who have whatever disease you're working on, and it can have collateral effects of speeding up research in other fields. The class issue isn't a good argument, against this or anything else, because something has to be available before it can become cheap, right? Finally, they're right about the life extensionist weirdos. There's nothing to be done about that, but it does mean that there's lots of low-hanging fruit for a competent researcher to pluck by the bushel.

(razib, I think my previous comment, substantially different from this one, is held up in your moderation queue. Would you please delete it? My post contains the same information.)

guys, is all that stuff discussed (not that to be invented but that is really used by students-scientists) really cognitive enhancers?
I'm asking just... because of my ignorance in the field:)
Ppl usualy mention stimulators... i didn't hear anybody stating 'it makes me feel clever'.

By kostya puhov (not verified) on 11 Apr 2008 #permalink

Kostya - drugs like Adderall and Ritalin really do allow a person to focus much more intensely than they could without it. If you don't have any lack of focus or efficiency, then I'm not sure you would benefit. However, I know of many scientists who lose focus during a day, or stay up all night writing a grant/paper and get 4 hours of work done in a 12 hour period. In those situations these drugs can increase output substantially.

Isaac, thank you. I wonder if the term 'cognitive enhancers' is correct?
If it's 'focus management' discussed here.... i understand the problem. but it may be... i miss something and there is 'the drug which makes you clever (tm)' in the proper sence (i.e. elevates (at least theoretically) cognitive abilities of any given human beyond his/her usual maximum, 'when he's in good form').
I just do not know is there such a drug, that doesn't mean it doesnt exist. so i asked the question.
The topics do differ slightly.

Actually, 'focus manegenent' is really an issue:) a complex issue though with many psichological and phisiological factors. And even common medical problems such as blood pressure do have an impact.

Surely, scientists have a lot to research about and around this:) May be sometimes the drugs mentioned are the best option, surely someones take these drugs, surely they do worth this discussion. But when it comes to research... science (as well as those interested) still have a much wider question to adress. If i had troubles with focus i'd prefer to know 'what does affect my focus/what can be done' rather than just get a pill. I even was experimenting with it (having no troubles).

I smoke, drink, eat roast meat and i'm not one of those... who never does so. I drink coffee. I'm just curious and prefer to see all the options:) From the scientific perspective the picture is the same i guess...

OFF: I know where your 'many scientists' have lost 8 hours writing a grant/paper. Putting references into a proper form (everybody invents a new one), fighting the equations edit program... reducing abstract... expanding discussion...
Is there medication for this??

By kostya puhov (not verified) on 11 Apr 2008 #permalink

The legendary mathematician Erdos used amphetamine constantly for decades.

Wiki: His colleague Alfréd Rényi said, "a mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems", and ErdÅs drank copious quantities. (This quotation is often attributed incorrectly to ErdÅs.)[3] After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month.[4] ErdÅs won the bet, but complained during his abstinence that mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine habit.

I also know a PhD candidate, not in math, who's thinking of dedicating his dissertation to Gordon Alles, though his own preference is Adderall.

I once joked that a lot of scholarly work needs to be asterisked. Or maybe all of Erdos's proofs should be declared invalid and reproven by clean mathematicians.

By John Emerson (not verified) on 11 Apr 2008 #permalink

Anytime you use a substance to throw off your Circadian rhythm you risk losing focus and productivity, not gaining it.

Whatever goes up, must come down, and there are plenty of studies that show high stress combined with sleep deprivation do not increase efficiency over the long term, but decrease it, as well as contribute to health issues.

You would think that of all the professionals, scientists and doctors would have the most profound respect for keeping their body chemistry in a state of balance.

What I am reading here makes me doubt that.

And that is not a good thing.

Something that seems to bother people in this discussion is whether there are long-term health effects of taking any kind of cognitive enhancer. Have Adderall and Ritalin been shown to shorten the life span like amphetamine use [at least when dosages are controlled]? Is it analogous to compare cognitive enhancers to athletic enhancers such as anabolic steroids, amphetamines and HGH with their known effects on blood lipids, aggression, cartilage overgrowth, hemodynamic changes, cardiac arrhythmias, testicular changes, etc?

One of the interesting things about drug use is the willingness to live in the now. When drug using athletes were asked whether they would take the drugs and win now at the cost of sacrificing the quality and length of life at the end, they very often would answer in the affirmative, just as Razib answered ...but in the end to the victors go the spoils. i'm saying that scientists already make many sacrifices. is a life expectancy of 70 vs. 80 fundamentally different? . That's really living for the moment but just wait 'till you're 68.

To me, it boils down to the drug and the person. If some cognitive enhancers can be used "wisely", then go ahead while constantly self-monitoring [and have someone else dispassionately monitor you] for signs of abusive behavior. Use is not necessarily abuse for some people, but it will be for others.

By natural cynic (not verified) on 11 Apr 2008 #permalink

Back in the 90's there seemed to be asthma epidemics among the elite athletes in many types of competition. In one survey ~30% of triathletes, 20-25% of swimmers and similar percentages of X-C skiers were diagnosed - substantial increases above previous nmbers of diagnoses. At the same time only 10-15% of the whole population in the same age range had been diagnosed with asthma. Maybe the intense training brought out latent cases of exercise-induced asthma, or just maybe it was the knowledge of the ergogenic properties of some of the asthma meds.

If there is a strong push to have some kind of sanctions agains nootropics/cognitive enhancers and their users, there will have to be exceptions for scientists who need meds for things like ADD/ADHD and narcolepsy. Maybe then we will see a significant increase in the number of diagnoses of ADHD and narcolepsy among the scientific elite.

By natural cynic (not verified) on 11 Apr 2008 #permalink

The most fundamental freedom is "internal freedom," the right to choose what you put into your body and what you do with your own brain, including choosing your state of consciousness.

The government, and your employer, stops at your epidermis, otherwise you are nothing more than a slave who has been owned.

The only legitimate basis for restricting access to a substance is if its use creates a measurably significant risk that the users will engage in crimes of force or fraud against others.

Athletics has traditionally been a realm of competition between humans, where a level playing field is essential, and thus it is legitimate to proscribe performance-affecting drugs.

In science the axis of competition between humans is a by-product of the primary activity of making new discoveries about nature. The ethics of scientific honesty have never required a level playing field, but have always required honest reporting of findings.

Any attempt to conflate the competitive element in science with the competitive element in athletics is like an attempt to conflate scientific truth (which is empirical and public) with religious truth (which is personal and private), or conflate beauty in music (melody, rhythm, harmony, etc.) with beauty in painting (color, form, texture, composition, subject matter, etc.).

The use of cognitive enhancers has no relationship whatsoever with the issue of truthfulness of procedures, results, and reporting, on the part of scientists.

Those things being said, it is incumbent upon anyone who uses any substance to enhance their mental functioning, to make themselves an expert on that substance and its effects and its risks. People who should be smart enough to know "when to say when" often aren't and often don't, much to their own detriment. The last major wave of this problem occurred with psychedelics research in the 1950s through early 60s, with the result of a street drug culture and an FDA ban on human-subject research that has only been lifted in the last few years. In the meantime, four decades of potential progress in some very interesting areas of cognitive science suffered under the ban.

We owe it to ourselves and others, to not end up creating psychiatric casualties, for example via sleep deprivation that triggers latent bipolar disorder or a psychotic episode. We owe it to ourselves and others, to apply scientific methods and principles to our self-experimentation, and then to examine the results objectively and critically.

If we want to take the strong stand for personal liberty in this area, we must also stand for personal responsibility, and we must practice consistency between our beliefs and our actions.

The major problem is that when everybody is competing for the same, limited research funding, those taking the drugs will gain an advantage. Those who don't want to shorten their lives are either going to get hosed or be forced onto the drugs to compete. Same thing with grad students. And high schoolers who want to get into the college of their choice. I don't think it's a good example to be setting.

I agree, but I also think that the problem goes beyond the "example". It really is about personal choice. And that is the dilemma. Advocates of cog drugs will say "but people have a choice!". In a highly competitive environment where colleagues start using this drugs and, supposedly, getting an advantage, using them will not be a choice for anybody else who wants to stay in the game.

But all of this is based on speculation. Is there anybody who knows whether there are studies showing that using these drugs effectively leads to prolonged beneficial effects? Because the use of these drugs is based on the assumption that they do - in healthy people, who are not the population these drugs were designed for.

And an additional problem is this: what if somebody who truly needs cog drugs to perform at near-normal levels needs to compete with healthy individuals also using these drugs? Are we putting them at an unfair disadvantage again? Is that even ethical at all?

Scientists should not be "cut some slack" from ethical issues. Researchers are the ones who should be dealing with those head on.

But there are no unfair advantages in science, because it is not a competition! As The competitive aspect, both for fame and funding is a byproduct of many people wishing to further human knowledge.

If using mind-enhancing drugs is prohibited to stop more motivated scientists getting an advantage, where do we draw the line? Should we also ban drinking coffee, working more than 40 hours per week, putting in all-nighters before deadlines, etc? These very common and unhealthy practices are also unfair to those who wish to have a more balanced life that is not all about science.

I think we should judge scientists only on their output, not their methods of achieving the performance. As someone mentioned earlier, Erdos was dependant on amphetamine to work effectively. Many famous scientists like Newton, Shannon, Dijkstra, and others have been extremely talented, but also motivated enough to dedicate to science and leave no time for personal life.

I think we should judge scientists only on their output, not their methods of achieving the performance.

i think we need to be careful to offer up a balance between consequentialist and deontological ethics. a lot of the moralism on either side (here and here) comes from very different normative frameworks on what the Good Life should be, and what values are fundamental. i wouldn't, for example, support giving scientists powers of life and death over non-scientists if it was found that that increased their productivity. some means are always out of bounds, and some ends are very hard to argue against, but the elements of the set which spans that "some" differs from person to person.

I see no fundamental contradiction between frameworks and arguments here.
1. people are free to chose their ways
2. environment shouldn't force people to chose some of the ways.
Of course frameworks of discussions over humans and over 'what is good and what is bad' within the set of possible choses we make do differ from frameworks of discussions over the shape of environment.

By kostya_puhov (not verified) on 12 Apr 2008 #permalink

1. people are free to chose their ways

no they're not.

2. environment shouldn't force people to chose some of the ways.

says you.

The major problem is that when everybody is competing for the same, limited research funding, those taking the drugs will gain an advantage. Those who don't want to shorten their lives are either going to get hosed or be forced onto the drugs to compete. Same thing with grad students. And high schoolers who want to get into the college of their choice. I don't think it's a good example to be setting.

Science, etc., aren't primarily competitions between individuals (though they are that secondarily). They are attempts to do work of intrinsic value. If amphetamines, etc., help do better work, good.

The ill effects of long-term moderate amphetamine use are unknown to me, if there are any. Amphetamines remain legal drugs and are frequently prescribed by MDs. The horror stories are from self-destructive people using to excess for the buzz (and often with dirty needles and contaminated drugs).

This whole thread has been much more prohibitionist than I would have expected.

By John Emerson (not verified) on 12 Apr 2008 #permalink

This whole thread has been much more prohibitionist than I would have expected.

anti-prohibitionists are too busy doing research to comment ;-) but in any case, why are you surprised exactly? just curious as to your thoughts.

i think we need to be careful to offer up a balance between consequentialist and deontological ethics. a lot of the moralism on either side (here and here) comes from very different normative frameworks on what the Good Life should be, and what values are fundamental. i wouldn't, for example, support giving scientists powers of life and death over non-scientists if it was found that that increased their productivity. some means are always out of bounds, and some ends are very hard to argue against, but the elements of the set which spans that "some" differs from person to person.

Of course I did not mean allowing scientists to kill small children, fake experimental data, or use any other illegal or unscientific means to increase productivity.

What I meant was that we should allow, and even respect scientists who make possibly dangerous personal sacrifices to do more work if they are willing. This includes using drugs, giving up personal life or hobbies, etc.
If you don't want to, you can compete on your own terms. If you are really talented, you will still do good work and achieve good results in the "competition". But no motivated scientist should be held back because others are not willing to make the same sacrifices.

Yes, this means that there is pressure from the working environment, and I don't think it should be eliminated to level the playing field for everyone. You are already expected to work 50+ hours per week with the help of coffee in some areas of life. If you don't want to - fine, work less, and presumably earn less fame and grant money/salary as you could have otherwise. Or choose another field or employer where your interests are better met.

I'm not encouraging taking the huge sacrifices route, just saying its a valid one. Personally I've reached the conclusion that working as a freelance consultant will allow me to balance fun work, income and free time the best compared to being a scientist in the academia, startup founder, or an industry worker.

Razib, I guess I'm just an old-fashioned guy.

By John Emerson (not verified) on 13 Apr 2008 #permalink

While I have never experienced the contemplatory splendor of ritalin or similar congnition-enhancing drugs, I would put forward the argument that most of these drugs enhance the stamina or efficiency of what, to a scientist, constitutes grunt work: data analysis, writing papers and grants, or reading the contemporary literature. While this is all important, and squeezing an extra hour or two of this sort of thing from a scientist's day might yield some benefit, I would argue that the truly revolutionary thinking that drives quantum leaps in human knowledge might be inhibited by these drugs. Kary Mullis supposedly came up with the concept of the polymerase chain reaction while driving; I myself find I generate my most original ideas during my walk to the lab, or while lying in bed at night. Knowledge is rarely, if ever, driven forward dramatically by someone staring intently hours on end at a computer screen. Rather than taking drugs to enhance focus, I think we should all take an hour a day and go for a walk, have a coffee, whatever is needed to de-focus. Often, it's when you're looking in the opposite direction that you see most clearly.

Hey, guys -- have you ever heard of ErdÅs? That's a pretty big data point there.

By John Emerson (not verified) on 13 Apr 2008 #permalink

Rather than taking drugs to enhance focus, I think we should all take an hour a day and go for a walk, have a coffee, whatever is needed to de-focus. Often, it's when you're looking in the opposite direction that you see most clearly.

here's the key. you think certain things, and you think (along with many others) that gov. fiat should be used enforce what you perceive to be the optimal strategem to maximizing scientific creativity, right? i think john's point that science isn't ultimately about interpersonal competition (though proximately it is about that) is the key here; let a thousand flowers bloom. additionally, perhaps not everyone flourishes under the same regimine? i'm not a doctrinaire libertarian, but the immediate rush to prohibition based on a particular idea of how science should be run (as opposed to letting the chips fall where they may initially) makes me wonder.

razib, i brought 1&2 just as examples to illustrate two different aspects.
Still, a strong proponent of human freedom of choise may argue for putting some constraints on environment (which as he believes may tend to confine this freedom).
An opponent of this freedom would argue for quite different set of constraints.
Both are prohibitionists?

So, i believe, my 1&2 aren't merely good for modelling but do reflect something real.
Maybe your 'Good Life' concept looks different from these perspectives.

says you
2. = there ARE some ways such...
Yes, i know people who probably disagree... in some philosophical context.
though never in practical sence.

By kostya_puhov (not verified) on 13 Apr 2008 #permalink

I'm surprized a lot.
I didn't perceive this conversation as an argument, nor did I read things i perceive as 'prohibitionist' here.
I see people posting here some reflections and considerations most of which do not necessarily contradict each other.
I see disagreement at the point 'is it OK if envirionment does force people take the drugs'... but opponents of the OKness at most say nothing about the current situation while proponents comment the current level.
I read it all as if it is written by the same person!
And nobody openly discusses the means of control (prohibition etc.)

Maybe i don't understand some of suppositions of the discussion?

I wonder if my replies are perceived as prohibitionist ones?

By kostya_puhov (not verified) on 13 Apr 2008 #permalink

Cognitive enhancers? Well, yeah, I can think of several that work for me:
1 - a good night's sleep. (I've been up almost all night at my computer, so my cognitive processes will be suffering today.)
2 - an empty (or almost empty) stomach. A lot of food in my stomach makes me sleepy.
3- no stress.

So, if I'm well rested, not too full of food, and not stressed, I do fine. I don't need anything else, but I guess the BigPharma chemists might as well dope themselves up. They can't do any worse than all the bizarre chemicals they already push on the gullible public.

Drugged scientists peddling drugs. What a mess.

Amphetamine-type drugs are routinely and legally prescribed for ADD, ADHD, depression, narcolepsy, and certain other disorders. They're also illegally used as recreational drugs, often with devastating effects.

So what we're primarily arguing about is whether these drugs should also be prescribable to enhance already-good performance. Secondarily, we're talking about black-market use to enhance good performance, and also about ADD prescriptions which might really be just intended as performance-enhancers.

Should the performance enhancing use of amphetamine-type drugs were legal? I say yes. Not everyone needs them. Lots of people have their other organic ways for maximizing their alertness. Good for them, but their ways don't work for everyone.

The competition angle is secondary. Primarily we want as much science as possible. That isn't true of the Olympics; we don't actually need great athletic performances at all -- the competition is everything there.

If the laws were changed, MDs could monitor patients for signs of abuse, which are not hard to find.

Lumping illegal use for performance-enhancement with illegal recreational use by self-destructive people is ignorant. If there's evidence that continued legal use is harmful, it hould be brought forward.

By John Emerson (not verified) on 14 Apr 2008 #permalink