Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Saturday, April 7, 2012
After a recent ruling, United States Supreme Court Justices may soon find themselves with their pants down.
Last Monday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that jails do not violate privacy rights by routinely strip-searching anyone for any offense, however minor, even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband. By a 5-4 vote and splitting along conservative-liberal ideologies, the high court ruled that privacy rights involving the searches were outweighed by jail’s security concerns about a suspect hiding drugs, weapons, or other contraband. While this decision may seem to have good intentions, it only highlights the incompetence of law enforcement and gives officials an excess of power.
The justices reached this decision based on Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945. In 2005, Albert W. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled over his wife for speeding. Records incorrectly showed that there was an outstanding warrant for Mr. Florence’s arrest due to an unpaid fine. Mr. Florence was held and strip-searched for a week in jails in Burlington and Essex Counties. Mr. Florence recalled that he had to stand naked in front of a guard who would require him to move intimate parts of his body and told him to, “Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks.” Mr. Florence explained that it felt more like a humiliating process than a necessary process.
The Court’s conservative wing based their decision on the importance of providing heightened measures of safety for jail personal. This opinion was held by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who represented the court’s conservative decision. Justice Kennedy cited examples of where detainees were able to sneak in contraband, including a person arrested for disorderly conduct in Washington State. This individual managed to hide a lighter, tobacco, tattoo needles, and other prohibited items in his rectal cavity. Justice Kennedy stressed the importance of catching individuals such as the Washington State arrestee because they pose a threat to both jail personal and other inmates.
Yet the first concern of many is that this violates the Fourth Amendment which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to bar strip searches of people arrested for minor offenses not involving drugs or violence, unless officials had reasonable suspicion. The fact that they committed a minor offense is not reason in of itself to warrant reasonable suspicion and these individuals have the right of privacy as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
The conservative wing of the Court acknowledged that concern, but ultimately argued that this ruling will not only protect the jail society but the public at large. This decision will impact the privacy rights of nearly 14 million jailed Americans per year, to which Justice Kennedy responded that this added measure may help them identify the most devious and dangerous criminals. To back his claim, Justice Kennedy brought up that the bomber Timothy McVeigh was first arrested for driving without a license plate and that one of the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93.
However, this just illuminates the United States government’s incompetence. First of all, it is extremely hard to believe that through an invasive strip-search we may have identified and prevented Timothy McVeigh or one of the September 11 terrorists. The Supreme Court’s decision of using strip searches to identify the most dangerous of criminals is their way of saying that law enforcement cannot differentiate the good guys from the bad guys. To believe that they will catch the most devious criminals is preposterous; at most they will catch a few people here and there with contraband, but at the cost of millions of people’s right of privacy.
What is even more worrisome is that this new power can easily be abused by law officials. Justice Breyer cited examples where people were subjected to visual strip search for humiliation purposes only. These dangerous individuals were arrested and strip searched for offenses such as driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal, and riding a bicycle without an audible bell. In one case a nun was strip-searched after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration.
Ultimately, this ruling protects the jail population and the general public far less than the conservative Justices claim and comes at the cost of our right of privacy. Acknowledging some of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, I fear that the rights belonging to us will only become more and more threatened. I believe that the Justices need to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin, “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The drug dealers of today are no longer thugs at street corners; rather, they are accredited physicians. To further complicate matters, the physicians may not even realize that they are being used as a tool by patients seeking to obtain illegitimate prescriptions.
It is getting remarkably easier and easier to visit a physician’s office and feign an illness to get scheduled medications. In addition, an unfortunate consequence of this practice is that an illegitimate increase of demand can cause shortages of medications. To combat this crisis, stricter prescription procedures are required.
To begin analyzing this issue, we should start with one of the most commonly feigned illnesses, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), for which the treatment is the prescription of Adderall. Adderall is a stimulant consisting of a racemic mixture of amphetamine salts, and in the United States, Adderall is a Schedule II controlled substance on the Controlled Substances Act for its high potential of abuse and psychological or physical dependence.
Despite the serious adverse effects of misusing Adderall, the diagnosis of ADHD and prescription of Adderall has risen 66 percent in the last decade. In 2000, just 6.2 million physician office visits resulted in a diagnosis of ADHD, but by 2010, that number had jumped to 10.4 million office visits.
One consequence of increasing the diagnosis of ADHD and prescription of Adderall is that it has caused a shortage of the drug. A January 2012 survey found 96 percent of the nation’s independent pharmacists had experienced a drug shortage in the past six months. Medicines for ADHD, especially Adderall and Ritalin, topped the list of drugs in adequate supply.
The shortage of ADHD medication is extremely devastating for individuals that actually require the medication to be functional. Patients that are not on their medication behave similarly to bipolar individuals during a mania phase, often suffering from an extreme inability to focus on one task, an elevated or irritable mood, and obsessive-compulsive tendencies.
Now then why are more and more psychiatrists diagnosing patients with ADHD? One reason is the dynamics behind how psychiatry in the United States is practiced. After establishing a diagnosis during a new patient’s first visit, the subsequent psychiatry visits are for medication management only. These visits often last only 10 minutes--just long enough to make sure that the patient is responding well to the medication prescribed for their symptoms. Psychiatrists are paid per session, so the more patients they can fit into a day the more they will get paid.
So then, if a new patient complains of ADHD symptoms financially it is in the psychiatrist’s best interests to begin treatment of the disorder immediately, as opposed to spending another two to three longer visits in order to obtain a better diagnosis of the patient’s disorder. Unfortunately, this also makes it extremely easy for patients to feign disorders. Psychiatrists would be much more likely to catch malingering patients if they were able to devote more time to obtaining a diagnosis, but spending more time not only presents them with a financial burden, it also leaves them inaccessible to their other patients.
To worsen matters, there are not very many measures or systems in place to help psychiatrists become aware of patients who are feigning a disorder. Presently psychiatrists can only hope that they catch malingering patients in a lie, and even then there is no legal obligation for the psychiatrist to report the patient to the authorities.
Before we continue on our search to fix this problem, we must recognize that it is not the psychiatrists’ fault for the rise in prescriptions of scheduled substances. The truth of the matter lies in the fact that the current dynamics of how psychiatry is practiced in the United States can easily be manipulated by drug-seekers. Chronic stimulant users acknowledge that they can satisfy their amphetamine cravings by feigning ADHD symptoms and psychiatrists will not know they are lying. In order to stay in business, psychiatrists must meet with a certain number of patients per day, and as a result they do not have the time to catch patients feigning illnesses. Unfortunately as we discussed previously, this has severe consequences for those who do have ADHD, leading to drug shortages which create difficulty in obtaining medications.
To prevent the continuing of malingers using psychiatrists as their drug source, it is in the patient’s best interests to have more intensive testing before the initial prescription of scheduled medications. At first glance, some may argue that this would be detrimental to the time of both patients and psychiatrists, but in actuality by reducing both the number of false diagnoses and malingerers we will be ensuring that there will be a steady supply of medication for those who truly need it.
One route for more intensive testing would be to require a second opinion of another accredited psychiatrist before the initial prescription of scheduled medications. While this may not be a perfect solution to the problem, it is one solution that has been gaining a noticeable amount of publicity in the field of medicine and should be more thoroughly examined.
As we continue to fight the problem of patients feigning illnesses to acquire certain medications, we must remember that whatever regulations we implement should be in the patients’ best interests. The realm of medicine was created to provide care for the people, and establishing regulations that treat patients solely as malingerers would be an extreme disservice to the purpose of the health care field. It is far worse to not provide care for those who need it, than to care for those who do not.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
As neuroscientists unravel the mysteries of the brain, every so often their discoveries are met with controversy. One recent controversial discovery is the finding of cognitive-enhancing drugs, known as nootropics. Nootropics are drugs that improve mental functions such as cognition, memory, intelligence, motivation, and concentration, while also being neuroprotective. The most famous nootropic is piracetam, which has been shown to enhance both and . The discovery of nootropics such as piracetam has caused an uproar in the academic community, especially after the drugs became popular among college students. The questions raised are whether it is fair that some college students use cognitive-enhancing nootropics to put themselves ahead of their peers, and if it is not fair then what should be done about it. Nootropics are the steroids of academia, and through an investigation as to why performance-enhancing drugs are banned in sports, we can better decide if nootropic use should be similarly regulated in educational institutions.
Anabolic Steroids & The Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports
Use of anabolic steroids may have occurred as early as ancient Greece. It is believed that the anabolic steroids they used were natural substances that promoted androgenic and anabolic effects. It was not until 1935 that anabolic steroids were isolated, identified, and synthesized. In that year, two researchers experimenting on dogs discovered that testosterone given under certain conditions increased muscle mass. Immediately afterward, the scientific community began examining the medicinal uses of anabolic steroids and discovered that anabolic steroids helped increase bone growth, stimulate one’s appetite, and increase muscle growth.
Today, the is well understood and is not a unique bodily interaction. Anabolic steroids are lipid-soluble hormones that can permeate through the cell and nuclear membrane. When the anabolic steroid enters the cytoplasm of the cell, it binds to an androgen receptor. From there the steroid-receptor compound diffuses into the nucleus of the cell, where it can either alter the expression of genes or activate processes that send signals to other parts of the cell.
By acting as a transcription factor, anabolic steroids have a notable effect on muscle mass. First, they increase the production of protein. Second, they block the effects of the stress hormone cortisol on muscle tissue. Cortisol is a glucocorticoid known for its catalytic effects; therefore, blocking its effects reduces catabolism of muscle and also greatly reduces muscle recovery time. Furthermore, anabolic steroids influence cellular differentiation by causing cells to develop into muscle cells rather than fat-storage cells.
Obviously one major argument for the scheduling of steroids are their numerous detrimental effects. Most of the negative side-effects are dose-dependent, and the most common side-effect is elevated blood pressure, especially prevalent in people with pre-existing hypertension. However, there are many other adverse side-effects that are also worth mentioning which help clarify why anabolic steroids are scheduled in the United States.
The most well-researched adverse side-effects are anabolic steroid interactions on serum lipoproteins and the cardiovascular system. Most investigations on the cardiovascular system have focused on how anabolic steroids increase risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Researchers have found that during anabolic steroid use total cholesterol tends to increase, while HDL-cholesterol demonstrates a marked decline. HDL is a lipoprotein that transports cholesterol and triglycerides throughout the bloodstream, and such as ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction. Low concentrations of HDL have been shown to increase the risk for atherosclerotic diseases.
Furthermore, anabolic steroids have been shown to increase LDL-cholesterol. Similar to HDL, LDL is a lipoprotein that transports cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood stream. However unlike HDL, . Males have been found to have higher levels of LDL to begin with, and this factor coupled with anabolic steroid use greatly increases their risk for developing atherosclerotic diseases.
Anabolic steroids also have numerous side effects on both the male and female reproductive system. In males, application of anabolic steroids leads to . In bodybuilding, where high dosages are typically used, the prolonged use of anabolic steroids leads to hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, characterized by decreased functional activity of the gonads that results in lower amounts of testosterone. The consequences of hypogonadotropic hypogonadism include: poor libido, fatigue, erectile dysfunction, and high cholesterol.
Similarly in females, anabolic steroid use is associated with decreased levels of estrogen and progesterone and inhibiting the production and release of luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulation hormone. Lower levels of luteinizing and follicle stimulation hormones inhibit follicle formation, ovulation, and cause irregularities in a woman’s menstrual cycle. Often the menstrual cycle is characterized by a prolongation of the follicular phase and a shortening of the luteal phase.
Another noteworthy side-effect is the increase of aggression, coined as “roid rage.” determined that there is a correlation between anabolic steroid use and increased aggressiveness. Furthermore, on a nationally representative sample of young adult males in the United States found an association between lifetime and past-year self-reported anabolic-androgenic steroid use and involvement in violent acts. Compared with individuals who did not use steroids, young adult males who used anabolic steroids reported greater involvement in violent behaviors. In addition, of two pairs of identical twins, in which one twin used anabolic steroids and the other did not, found that the steroid-using twin exhibited high levels of aggressiveness, hostility, anxiety, and paranoid ideation not found in the control group twin.
Although there are an overwhelming number of adverse side-effects coupled with steroid use, to fully understand why steroids are scheduled in the United States it is important to examine the different realms where steroids are banned. Currently it is illegal to possess steroids without a prescription, and steroid usage is also forbidden in athletic competitions. We will see that there are different reasons for scheduling in these two realms, and both reasons will shine light as to what should be done for nootropics in academia and personal use.
First, I would like to call attention to steroid use and scheduling in athletic competitions. The use of anabolic steroids as performance enhancing drugs began in 1954 among Olympic weightlifters. In 1956, Methandrostenolone was first marketed in the United States, which helped initiate the rise of anabolic steroids in America.
At first, only world-class athletes in high-strength sports such as weight lifting abused anabolic steroids. Unfortunately, the science behind anabolic steroids was not well understood in the 1960s, and athletes and trainers developed extremely high dose steroid regimens. Often the methods had no scientific backing and were passed along by word of mouth from one trainer to another.
The scientific community and athletic community responded to the growing use of anabolic steroids by stating that there was no evidence that steroids caused muscle growth or improved performance. They also claimed that large amounts would lead to dramatic toxic adverse effects in all users. Yet there were little to no scientific studies backing these claims at the time and athletes recognized this. Athletes and trainers discredited scientists because scientists’ claims went against the athletes’ personal experience with anabolic steroids. Also, athletes did not notice any of their colleagues having detrimental effects due to steroid-usage, which further increased distrust of scientific sources. Although the scientific claims were unwarranted, today we know the truth behind their claims. However, since the athletes discredited scientific information, anabolic steroid abuse spread to other sports and athletic levels.
Today, anabolic steroids are banned by all major sporting bodies. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) maintains the list of performance-enhancing substances banned from use by many major sports bodies; this list includes all anabolic agents. The WADA was created though a collective initiative led by the International Olympic Committee and aims at providing equal opportunities for all athletes. Punishments for being found using anabolic steroids can include being banned from the sporting event, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and possibly spending years in prison. It may be obvious to some as to why performance-enhancing drug use is considered cheating, but in actuality the argument is more complex than it appears.
Examining the issue from the most basic standpoint, one may argue that the use of performance enhancing drugs gives users an unfair advantage. But how is this advantage unfair? This unfair advantage cannot be due to monetary issues, i.e. it gives the rich an unfair advantage because they can afford to purchase the performance-enhancing drug while the poor cannot. If this were the case, then the WADA would be obligated to ban new sporting equipment that increases the user’s performance. For example, new material technologies in the construction of swimsuits have been shown to increase the speed, buoyancy, and lower the endurance required for swimmers. An excellent instance of this is Speedo who claims that their newest swimsuit design reduces passive drag by 16.6% compared to competitor models. Yet what comes alongside the increase of performance is an extreme price tag. Olympic swimsuit models easily surpass ten thousand dollars, and the latest designs by Speedo are restricted to only certain athletes.
Analyzing why it is legal for some world-class athletes to have access to far better equipment, but unethical for world-class athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs brings a level complexity to the issue that may not be immediately realized. One belief we can hold is that it is unethical that some world-class athletes have access to better equipment. Most people would argue that the point of athletic competitions is to see which individual can push themselves harder than the other competitors in a fair environment. It is not a fair environment if one athlete has access to better equipment than his competitors. This creates an athletic competition based on technology, rather than determination and skill. If in fact it is an unfair environment, athletic competitions such as the Olympics should be obligated to reduce this competitive advantage. One possible way of reducing this advantage would be banning restrictive technology ties, where only certain athletes are allowed to use a company’s newest equipment technologies. While there are other alternative solutions, I will instead move on to another possible belief we may hold in terms of equipment and performance-enhancing drugs.
This is the belief that it is fair that some athletes are allowed to use better equipment than other competitors. Yet what follows from this belief is that performance-enhancing drugs should not be banned from athletic competitions based on availability or the sheer fact that it gives some competitors an unfair advantage. Coinciding with this belief, steroids and other performance enhancing drugs cannot be banned because only some athletes—probably the richer athletes—can afford or have easier access to the substances, because if this were the case then allowing some athletes to have access to better equipment should be prohibited too. Furthermore, to hold this belief would mean that you should also believe that steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs should not be banned solely because they give those athletes a competitive edge. If we claim that it is fair that some athletes have a competitive edge due to equipment, then if all things are the same it should be fair that some athletes have a competitive edge due to drugs. There must be another difference between performance-enhancing equipment and performance-enhancing drugs that lead us to ban only the latter.
As we have discussed, there are many adverse side-effects with anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. Anabolic steroids have been now shown to elevate blood pressure, cause an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and have extremely damaging effects on testosterone levels. We now may be compelled to say that the use of performance-enhancing tools should be permitted as long as they are not antagonistically pleiotropic—i.e. the performance-enhancing tool does not have adverse side-effects. This argument seems to make sense; most people would believe that it is not fair for an athlete to sacrifice his body so that he can do better in an athletic competition. Not only would most people argue that it is not fair, but most people would assert it to be unethical, claiming athletics would be transformed into a masochistic competition where those who do best are those willing to sacrifice the most. WADA claim that this is why they have been established, and this is the core reason as to why performance-enhancing drugs are banned from professional sports. Because the beneficial gain of performance is too greatly outweighed by the alleged health threat of performance-enhancing drugs, the organization regulates what substances can be used in competitions in order to provide equal opportunity for all athletes.
Now that we know the reasoning behind why performance-enhancing drugs are banned, let us imagine a drug that does not have adverse effects or at least no known adverse effects. Would the WADA be obligated to keep this drug unregulated? If they abide by their mission statement that they want to provide equal opportunity for all athletes by regulating substances with alleged health threats, it seems that they should not regulate this drug. The fact that it increases performance is no reason to ban such a drug. If that were the case, they should not allow athletes to use equipment that gives them a competitive edge. Furthermore, it cannot be regulated for the same reason as steroids because it lacks detrimental effects. If a drug had performance-enhancing effects, yet lacked detrimental side effects, the WADA would be obligated to keep the drug unregulated, or at least until adverse side effects were discovered.
Fortunately for our thought experiment, there are performance-enhancing drugs with no known adverse side effects. One excellent example is phenylpiracetam. Phenylpiracetam was developed in Russia and goes by the trade-name of Phenotropil. Phenylpiracetam is believed to be a nootropic—cognitive enhancer—but has also been shown to increase tolerance to cold and stress. Although there are no scientific studies showing adverse side effects, the WADA banned phenylpiracetam because of its ability to provide users increased physical stamina and improved tolerance to cold. As a result of the ban, Russian biathlon Olympic silver medalist from attending events for two years following a positive drug test.
Now what does this say about performance-enhancement in professional sports? Maybe performance-enhancement drugs are banned because they are something you ingest and affect your body directly, while performance-enhancing equipment is used as a tool and indirectly interacts with your body. But what follows from this is the question of why are some substances we ingest banned and others are not. For example, caffeine is a stimulant that is not regulated by the WADA, yet the stimulant amphetamine is regulated. We cannot say that this regulation is based on adverse side-effects because caffeine and amphetamine have similar detrimental effects when abused. Furthermore, the regulation of phenylpiracetam suggests that adverse side-effects are not the key reason as to why performance-enhancing drugs are banned in the first place. Some may bring up an argument of naturality, i.e. drugs that are naturally found and naturally consumed should be permitted as long as they have no major detrimental effects. Through my own research I believe this is the best explanation of WADA regulation policy. The WADA will not ban substances that are found in nature, commonly used, and that lack detrimental effects. However, it is important to note that these substances are not considered to be drugs; rather, in these cases we use the term supplement instead.
The difference between a drug and a supplement is that a supplement is a chemical or variety of chemicals that supplement one’s diet and provide nutrients, such as vitamins, minerals, fiber, fatty acids, or amino acids, which may be missing or may not be consumed in sufficient quantities in a person’s diet. However, the term supplement is used very loosely. The steroid hormone DHEA and pineal hormone melatonin are both marketed as dietary supplements even though they are not naturally consumed, thus causing confusion as to what should be labeled a drug and what should be labeled a supplement.
Ultimately, it seems that the WADA’s regulation policies are that all performance-enhancing drugs are banned, regardless of whether they have been shown to have adverse side effects. The only types of drugs that are not banned are those considered to be supplements. Yet, there is still confusion as to what is considered a drug and what is considered a supplement. The WADA regulation policies lead to the conclusion that performance-enhancing drugs are banned because of their nature as something ingestible and not traditionally used in man’s diet. When you look at the issue this way, it really makes their reasoning seem extremely fragile, especially when performance-enhancing equipment is permitted to be used by some athletes and other athletes are limited to using outdated, inferior technology. The fact that something is ingestible and not traditionally used in man’s diet do not seem like good reasons for the banning of all performance-enhancing drugs, yet these were the rules constructed by the WADA that all major sporting bodies abide by.
Now that we have analyzed why anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs have been banned from professional sporting leagues, it is also important to analyze why these drugs are scheduled in the United States. The U.S. Congress considered placing anabolic steroids under the Controlled Substances Act following the controversy over Ben Johnson’s victory at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul. The American Medical Association, Drug Enforcement Administration, Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse all opposed listing anabolic steroids as controlled substances while the U.S. Congress deliberated. The organizations cited that anabolic steroids do no lead to physical or psychological dependence, which is a requirement for scheduling under the Controlled Substance Act. Regardless, anabolic steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990. The act defined anabolic steroids as any drug or hormonal substance chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone that promotes muscle growth.
Despite the American Medical Association, Drug Enforcement Administration, Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s protests, it appears the U.S. Congress went out of their way to schedule anabolic steroids as a publicity move. One key criteria of scheduling a substance is that it has physical or psychological dependence, which is something that anabolic steroids lack. Moreover, the controversy that followed Ben Johnson’s victory severely hurt the credibility of United States athletics. In response, the United States added anabolic steroids to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act to improve their tarnished image. Although what prompted this action may not be the best of reasons, especially when considering the detrimental health effects of improperly using anabolic steroids, it is probably in the best interest of the public that steroids were scheduled.
Now how should the U.S. Congress respond to other performance-enhancing drugs that may or may not have detrimental health effects? If they are to use the same reasoning as the original scheduling of steroids, then it seems that we are obligated to schedule these drugs too. Unsurprisingly, most of the performance-enhancing drugs are scheduled, but many have good reasons for their scheduling including narcotics, amphetamines, and growth hormones. However, there are a good number of WADA banned performance-enhancing drugs that are not scheduled in the United States. One such example are beta-blockers. Beta-blockers are beta-adrenergic antagonists that diminish the effects of epinephrine and other stress hormones. They have been banned in a number competitive sports for their ability to control social anxiety (stage fright) and reduce tremors. Regardless, the United States have not and do not plan to schedule beta-blockers at this time. This shows that the United States scheduling of performance-enhancing drugs is set at a higher standard than the banning of performance-enhancing drugs in athletic competitions.
Nootropics in Academia and the United States
Analogous to steroids in athletics, nootropics can be considered the performance-enhancing drugs of academia. The most famous nootropic is piracetam which is a cyclic derivative of GABA. As previously stated, piracetam has been found to enhance both memory and creativity in college students. Although its mechanism of action is not fully understood, it is thought to be a positive allosteric modulator of the AMPA receptor. Piracetam acts on ion channels leading to non-specific increased neuron excitability, while lacking inhibitory effects on synaptic action. Furthermore, piracetam improves the function of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine by acting on muscarinic cholinergic receptors and NMDA glutamate receptors, which are both involved in the .
However, unlike steroids and myriad other performance-enhancing drugs, piracetam and all other drugs termed “nootropics” are neuroprotective and extremely nontoxic. In a using a high-dose regime of piracetam for treatment of acute stroke, no adverse effects were found in any of the patients. Furthermore, in another that used piracetam for the treatment of cortical myoclonus, none of the patients experienced serious adverse side-effects even though they had dosages of up to 24 grams daily. Not only has piracetam been shown to have little adverse side-effects, but a of piracetam on rat cortex suggested piracetam was even neuroprotective.
Now that we have a firm understanding of nootropics and performance-enhancing drugs in sports, how should we respond to nootropics in the realm of academics? If we are to say that nootropics are the performance-enhancing drugs of academics, then should they be banned like performance-enhancing drugs are banned in sports? First we should recognize that similar to athletics, college and other education institutions are a competition. Each and every student is competing against one another for higher grades. Those who perform the best on tests, write the best essays, and complete all assignments are those that receive the highest grades. Higher grades lead to better job opportunities, acceptance into other professional programs, and quite simply the opportunity to make more money. Some students may deny that this is their motive, yet they are not the norm. Although educational institutions portray themselves as a place where knowledge flourishes, in actuality these places often promote a competition of intellect and memorization.
Furthermore, like how an athletic competition has rules to provide structure and maintain fairness and legitimacy, educational institutions have rules for similar purposes. For example, plagiarism and cheating are two forms of academic dishonesty that every single educational institution has strict policies against. By establishing these policies, the institution provides fairness for its students and grades that accurately represent the student’s knowledge of a subject. Punishment for cheating and plagiarism are extremely severe and include failure on the assignment, failure in the class, or possible expulsion. Examples of cheating include any use of external assistance during an examination. One argument against nootropics is that it is an external tool providing the user increased memory capability during examinations. And in fact, it does seem that the nootropics users are given an advantage over their peers. Yet even if we rule this advantage to be unfair, we should not restrict the individual’s intellectual capabilities just because they are using a drug. Even though they consumed a drug does not discredit the fact that they themselves acquired the knowledge of what they were studying.
However, this analysis shows that there is a difference in how we view users of performance-enhancing drugs and users of cognitive-enhancing nootropics. Although cognition is increased through the use of drugs, the scholar is still praised for their academic accomplishments. But when an athlete’s athletic performance is increased via drugs many claim that what the athlete accomplished is solely due to the drug and not of the athlete’s own ability. Is our praising the nootropics-using scholar a mistake or is it a mistake to discredit the steroid-using athlete’s abilities? In both cases, the individual’s performance is increased via a drug. There should be no difference in how we distinguish accomplishment in academia and sports, unless the rules governing the realms of academia and sports are vastly different from one another.
One way to show that the rules governing these two areas are different would be to say that academia is a not a competitive environment analogous to sports. The purpose of academics and educational institutions is to raise the level of understanding of the world. With this interpretation it would seem we that we should utilize anything non-detrimental that may help us decipher the world around us, such as nootropics. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to say that there is no competition in educational institutions, especially when students compete against one another to determine class curves and class rankings. The multiple ways of examining academia and educational institutions reflect the complexity of regulating cognitive-enhancing nootropics.
Also what may combat the idea that we should promote the use of nootropics is the light that this will shine upon academia. When we analyzed the use performance-enhancing drugs in sports, one issue focused on was the message that the use of drugs casts onto sports. If world-class athletes are required to use performance-enhancing drugs to keep up with their competitors, it alters the meaning of sports altogether. Victorious athletes will no longer represent a master of physical exertion and skill; rather, they become masochists willing to sacrifice their body to be at an athletic advantage over their opponents. Similarly, this argument can translate to academics. As students begin to use nootropics, test scores will go up and class curves will become more and more difficult. Consequently, the typical non-drug using student will be at a disadvantageous position. Instead of improving education, this transition would ultimately move academics further from its goal of promoting an information rich environment, and it would transform into a stressful environment where one must take cognitive-enhancing drugs to thrive.
Even though this analysis of whether to ban cognitive-enhancing nootropics in academia has proven to have no clear-cut answer, the U.S. Congress would be committing a disservice by scheduling the substance altogether. As previously discussed, the United States uses a higher standard for the scheduling of substances than what is used in sporting leagues. In the Controlled Substances Act there are five different Schedules. . Regardless of whether nootropics create an unfair atmosphere in academia, if the nootropics in question do not meet both scheduling criteria the U.S. Congress should not add it to the Controlled Substances Act.
Although controversial and not well understood at this time, nootropics are the future. One day we may have biological technologies that can make us vastly smarter by merely swallowing a pill, yet I expect that this technology will be met with great controversy. This in depth examination of nootropics has shown that there are both reasons to regulate its use in academia and reasons for it to be left alone. The complexity of the issue coincides with the complexity of the purpose of educational institutions and whether or not schools or a place of competition or a place where knowledge thrives. Realistically, academia is a combination of both, and because of this the decision to regulate nootropics will never be black and white. Regardless of whether nootropics are ever banned from academia, they should not be scheduled in the United States unless it is discovered they have a potential for abuse and lead to psychological or physical dependence.
Bahrke, Michael. "Abuse of anabolic androgenic steroids and related substances in sport and exercise." Science Direct. 4.6 (2004): 614-20. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
Barter, P. "HDL Cholesterol, Very Low Levels of LDL Cholesterol, and Cardiovascular Events." New England Journal of Medicine. 357. (2007): 1301-10. Print.
Beaver, K. "Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use and Involvement in Violent Behavior in a Nationally Representative Sample of Young Adult Males in the United States." Am J Public Health. 98.12 (2008): 2185-87. Print.
Centon, P. "Piracetam in the Treatment of Cortical Myoclonus." Pharmacopsychiatry. 32. (1999): 49-53. Print.
Coq, J. "Acute reorganization of the forepaw representation in the rat SI cortex after focal cortical injury: neuroprotective effects of piracetam treatment." European Journal of Neuroscience. 11.8 (1999): 2597-2608. Print.
De Reuck, J. "The Clinical Safety of High-Dose Piracetam - Its Use in the Treatment of Acute Stroke." Pharmacopsychiatry. 32. (1999): 33-37. Print.
Dimond, SJ. "Increase in the power of human memory in normal man through the use of drugs." Psychopharmacology (Berl). 49.3 (1976): 307-09. Print.
Grace, F. "Blood pressure and rate pressure product response in males using high-dose anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS)." Pub Med. (2003).
Kuzma, B. "Russian doping allegations taint biathlon competition." Canada. 9 Feb 2010: n. page. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
Meck, W. H. and Williams, C. L. 2006. Nootropic Drugs. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science.
Naets, J. "Mechanism of action of androgens on erythropoiesis." American Physiological Society. 210.2 (1966): 315-320. Print.
Pagonis, TA. "Psychiatric and hostility factors related to use of anabolic steroids in monozygotic twins.." Eur Psychiatry. 21.8 (2006): 563-69. Print.
Thiblin, I, and A Petersson. "Pharmacoepidemiology of anabolic androgenic steroids: a review.." Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 19.1 (2005): 27-44. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.
Tobin, L. "The new Olympic swimsuit." Guardian. 19 Dec 2011: n. page. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
Winnicka, K. "Piracetam--an old drug with novel properties?." Acta Pol Pharm. 62.5 (2005): 405-09. Print.