-§-
Performance enhancers have been roundly rejected in sports dialogue. But what will the talking points be on IQ supplements? Can any other field be expected to compete against, say, Ritalin-dropping, mood-scheduling, chemically-supported perfectionists? According to an article at eFluxMedia, yes. Some professors are beginning to encourage Ritalin as a booster for the healthy.
Let the case of Ritalin, or Methylpenidate, as the original article does, be the theoretical trial of this proposal. Created to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and sufferers of chronic fatigue syndrome, Ritalin is a powerful central-nervous system stimulant. It enhances the dopamine levels and allows the user to access greater concentration and orderliness. The child who previously played morse code on his desk for the entire school day or could not respond to a history question without re-enacting the battle of Waterloo is presumably given the inner calm to choose between creativity and academic responsibility. Significant peer-reviewed studies have given Ritalin the seal of approval as a reliable, safe treatment, but as a stimulant, this calming remains mysterious. The greater 'sociability' of the taker is difficult to quantify and whether this effect would help those already considered average, of 'superior intellect,' or at least not suffering ADHD, is questionable.
The existing research on Ritalin ranges from the pharmaceutically dense to meta-studies probing the possibility that it is a gateway drug to chemical abuse in later life (it is not). The most intricate explanation of the chemical influence on the brain comes from a University of Wisconsin-Madison study that observed there is a sweet dose, a middle chemical volume to deliver that emphasizes the existing neural efficiencies and dampens the mental white-noise. A large amount like other stimulants (Nicotine, Caffeine, Cocaine) provides a disruptive stimulation and contributes to a user's "high" or sense of euphoria. Unlike the clinically recommended amount, this dose encourages the erratic happiness that Ritalin characteristically dampens from ADHD sufferers. While further research may negate this fear, the provision of Ritalin to the average performer may do little more than provide a grande-coffee bliss.
Suppose a suitably low dose of Ritalin were administered to all people, and this low dose had a constant percentage improvement effect on each person, say an attention improvement of 15%. As an exaggerated thought experiment, suppose there a person with ADHD who, in 1 hour can do only 10 problems in a book. The average person can do 20, and the 'gifted' can do 40. If Ritalin were administered to one person of each of the three groups, then the ADHD sufferer could now complete 11.5 problems, the average 23, and the gifted 46 problems in 1 hour. By administering the drug to all people, those with the original condition the drug was meant to treat are returned to a disadvantaged position. If only the ADHD sufferer received the drug, their improvement of 1.5 problems would be a gain toward the average position. Even if this example oversimplifies the influence of the dosing, it demonstrates a problem with brain boosters for all. Those genetically organized to their own social disadvantage are meant to be compensated, brought to the median, by these pharmaceuticals. If the average and elite performers are suddenly feeling the pressure and desire to break away from the pack, doing so by using the same chemical enhancers will undermine the medical and ethical purpose of prescription treatments.
But suppose that Ritalin does not provide a 'flat rate' effect for users. That is, suppose that an individual with ADHD suffers a neural inefficiency that the the drug corrects. In a non-ADHD sufferer these little traffic-directors of the frontal lobe may have less to do and instead of providing the 15% enhancement, serve to increase efficiency by only 2.5%. Whether the drug would provide even less of a return on a 'gifted' mind depends on whether a gifted person necessarily has a more efficient mind and thus less neural distraction for the drug to dampen. Let it be assumed that he or she would at least not have the ADHD condition and therefore accrue at least the 2.5% enhancement from the drug, if not less. Therefore, by providing the average and above average performing populations this drug, it diminishes the boosting power to the original class of patients for whom the drug was invented. All drugs have potential physical consequences. Ritalin has reported side effects including insomnia, head aches, nervousness, psychosis, and increase in blood pressure. While the drug is not physically destructive, providing it to a population who has less or little reason to take on these potential health consequences again raises ethical issues. If Ritalin is capable of providing a small but definite enhancement to any individual, would the above average be more likely to abuse or overdose as they attempt to maximize the drug's potential? 
There is almost an absurd threat looming too; if such intellect enhancers become ubiquitous, will the all natural mind be inadequate? A horse and buggy in a world of BMW M5s? Man has not been shy of his own improvements on nature. Over the last half-century Americans have shown an acceptance of pharmaceuticals and trial treatments. A recent Washington Post article indicates 38% of adults in America use alternative medicine, an industry whose promises are not binding and claims are supported by scant if any scientific research. The rise in anti-aging treatment, cosmetic surgery, supplements for the healthy, and treatments for previously un-medicalized conditions have contributed to the annual $643 billion dollar industry for pharmaceuticals world-wide (2006 data), with America making up approximately half that expenditure. The total revenue on homeopathy and non-traditional treatments is estimated at $27 million a year for America alone, though this statistic includes non-pharmaceutical treatments. From a sales perspective, there is a definite consumer base for enhancing treatments, whether proven or not. Americans have shown no hesitation in purchasing vitamins they believe will prolong health or procedures to 'reverse' time and appear to have an appetite for anything producing better, stronger, more fit versions of themselves. But the potential of this vitamin R arriving as the chic aperitief of tomorrow is not without consequence.
Before generation neXt axes the X to become generation R, the national conversation that made the rounds concerning steroids and athletic performance needs to be recast for stimulants and the library. While some are ready to embrace it as synthetic dedication, its true potential is poorly understood. There is the chance that this pill can be a wonderful refinement, a task master for the neural circuits that saves us from ourselves and assists everyone. It is not the genesis of this substance that makes it suspicious; that it was born of a laboratory and not from a spring bubbling from the ground is not the indicator it needs careful ethical review. But like all resources, its distribution must be evaluated.
Perhaps one day not too long from now a prescription hut will be assembled during the first week of school at every college in the country, right next to the credit card pushers.
No comments:
Post a Comment