Free To Be... Cosmetic Neurology

(This one's for the 'friend' who recently offered me some of her prescription drugs.)

"We live in a culture that believes medication can solve almost any problem."

"The last thing a person concerned with brain power should do is gamble with using chemicals that influence her brain in ways that we do not understand."

- From a November 2009 Glamour article on 'sharing' prescription drugs.

Ignore the really large cup of coffee on my desk. I don't need it to write well, but it helps. This is the extent of my sympathy with chemically-tailored cognition.

The irony is that I will argue long and hard for cognitive liberty - your right to "the absolute sovereignty of [your] own consciousness." But the current trends towards accepting the expanded use of 'smart drugs' make me nervous.

Maybe it's because I was inundated with anti-drug messages during my formative years. There was a war on drugs that included some fairly-effective propaganda aimed at teenagers and young people. Apparently that message doesn't apply to these drugs.

In her Glamour article on the (apparently) common practice of sharing prescription drugs, the author includes statements like this - "While most experts agree that unsupervised pill popping is always risky, some have actually suggested that stimulants such as Adderall, Ritalin and Provigil should eventually become more available to people as study and work aids. In an editorial published last year in the scientific journal Nature, seven leading experts in medicine, science and law argued that using these drugs to boost mental performance was the way of the future. 'Cognitive enhancement has much to offer individuals and society,' they said." While the article continues on to describe the potential downfall of this type of drug use, we are left with the feeling that the scientific 'stamp of approval' has already been given via the quote from Nature. (That Nature article gets around.)

And the cover story of the current issue of Scientific American tackles the same issue. (Boo! for not making the whole article available online.)

On principle, I object to the fact that the average reader has no access to the actual science that is being used to support various arguments for or against cosmetic neurology, and must rely on secondhand reports and media coverage for information.

But my stronger objection is this... The current practices of cosmetic neurology and cognitive enhancement include plenty of unregulated activity, as illustrated by the Glamour article. The danger is that this activity will/has become so prevalent that it establishes new norms to which others are then obliged and/or pressured to conform.

And therein lies a paradox - How do you argue for the cognitive liberty of the individual when the exercise of that liberty may result in a decrease in liberty for those who follow? Should my children by obligated to take 'smart drugs' to stay competitive in school? Should I be obligated to take antidepressants to maintain a new standard of 'normal' behavior in my workplace?

And while there may currently be no explicit policies in place to mandate this type of drug use, our ideas about what is 'normal' are slowly and surely being altered to conform to new ideas about what is possible. "Our boss has started getting on my case for not being as productive... [as the guy] using unprescribed modafinil to work crazy hours..." (q) Hidden in every article referenced in this post are warnings about the unknown consequences of long-term, unprescribed, or unapproved use of prescription drugs for cosmetic (non-disease treating) purposes. Yet who will have the patience to wait for definitive scientific findings? And who will want to accept that s/he does not have the right to 'dope' his/her brain, especially if the practice is prevalent among peers?

"If we can improve cognitive systems in disease, can we also do so in health? Should we?" - Cosmetic neurology: The controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Anjan Chatterjee, MD (2004).

I like my current state of cognition. I'd like the freedom to keep it as it is. If your freedom to change your state of mind interferes with my freedom to not change my state of mind, then we'll have to throw down. In the meantime, let's all make informed choices.