Performance Enhancement for the Brain

By Maia Szalavitz, for MSN Health & Fitness

Do stimulants help if you don't have ADD?

A recent online poll by Nature magazine of 1,400 readers—mainly scientists—found that one in five admitted to using stimulants to boost brain power and 80% said they thought such drug use should be permitted.

That poll was unscientific because it did not involve a random sample, but it still suggests a widespread acceptance of “cognitive enhancement” by pharmaceutical means, at least amongst scientists interested enough to respond to an online survey.

A study also found that 4 percent of students—and on some campuses, up to a whopping 25 percent—admitted to using drugs to improve academic performance.

For people with attention-deficit disorder (ADD), stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall (a form of amphetamine) clearly improve intellectual performance.

But do they boost brainpower for people without ADD—and if so, is such "cognitive enhancement" an appropriate use of these drugs?

How helpful—or potentially harmful—is it? And what do we know about how these stimulants affect different types of thinking—like creativity—anyway?

"There are plenty of laboratory studies that suggest that stimulants are somewhat helpful for most people," says Martha Farah, Ph.D., director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania.

But, she adds, the discussions of cognitive enhancement in the press have tended to imply that the science is more advanced than it is, and that the drugs are better than they are.

"We don't know how helpful they are if you are trying to learn a language or master some new area of study or write the great American novel," she says.

The Goldilocks principle

Stimulants do seem to improve learning and memory, but their effectiveness varies depending on the type of test involved and the timing of the use of the drug relative to when the test of performance occurs. Oddly enough, the smarter you are, the less benefit these drugs seem to have.

In several studies, people who usually scored low on such tests improved the most, while the scores of those who usually excelled declined slightly.

This may be because of the way the drugs affect dopamine, a neurotransmitter that is critically involved in motivation, learning and pleasure. Dopamine seems to have a "sweet spot." Too much dopamine is associated with paranoia and psychosis, while too little is linked to lack of pleasure, interest in learning and motivation.

"It's like Goldilocks and the three bears—you want just the right amount, not too much or too little," says Farah. Those who already perform well might benefit from a small boost. But, take it too far, and performance will decline.

Those who are on the low end, however, have room to improve quite a lot before they reach the point at which increasing dopamine causes problems, rather than improvement.

Unfortunately, the fact that stimulants raise dopamine levels is associated with a risk for addiction. Although most users do not become addicted, about 10 to 20 percent of those who take stimulants for non-medical reasons will develop addiction problems.

Creativity and decision making

ADD is often associated with a wandering mind that can make innovative, creative connections between ideas. Do stimulants dull this kind of creative thought?

The small number of scientific papers that exists on this topic is mixed. In one study, Ritalin increased creativity in children with ADD, possibly by keeping them on task. Another study found no effect. Yet another found a decline in some areas.

One of the most interesting kinds of intelligence that society would benefit from enhancing is judgment and decision-making ability. And, at least for ADD, stimulants seem to improve things like impulse control and poor judgment.

A recent study of 21 boys with ADD playing a gambling game found that they took fewer risks, took more time to consider their decisions, and made better decisions when given Ritalin than when taking placebo.

Should people without ADD be allowed to use these drugs?

So, studies indicate stimulants seem to enhance some types of learning, creativity and memory (except sometimes among the best performers). But if it's socially unacceptable to enhance performance in sports, why should it be okay to use these drugs for cognitive enhancement?

Here's an argument to consider. If we're racing to find a cure for cancer, who loses if some scientists boost their performance to accomplish their goals?

One might argue that this creates an unfair playing field—but some scientists are already smarter than others and already have more funding and better labs and other advantages. Everyone wins if society reaches a goal faster, so it's hard to argue against enhancement.

Farah weighs in: "I think it's a little sad that this could enable even more pressure in a 24/7 workaholic success-oriented world but I don't think it makes sense that in the name of [giving you] the freedom not to use these drugs, we'll take away your freedom to use them."

     MSN Health & Fitness

Maia Szalavitz is a journalist who covers health, science and public policy, and is a Senior Fellow at the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service (STATS). www.stats.org. She is co-author of Recovery Options: The Complete Guide, and author of a HuffingtonPost blog.

~~~~~

Related Talent Development Resources page:  Drugs and creativity.