This is a response to the NY Times article "Brain Enhancement is Wrong, Right?" professor Zwicker sent us on March 9.
Personally, I do not see the use of Adderall and similar drugs as a form of genetic brain enhancement. I think there is a distinct line between use of drugs like Adderall and Provigil and brain enhancing genetic engineering.
The key difference between, say Adderall use and steroid use, is that I do not think that society is pressured into using drugs like Adderall to perform better, whereas plenty of professional athletes have felt that pressure. Furthermore, I really do not see the abuse of Adderall as something that is extremely serious. Is it cheating? I really don't think so. There doesn't seem to be a discrepancy between the students using Adderall and the non-users, whereas there is certainly a gap when talking about steroids and sports. The same can be accomplished by someone who has good time management and work ethic and someone who takes Adderall. Yet steroids and HGH actually change your body to levels that would be impossible to get to otherwise. When a classmate gets a good grade on an exam or paper, do we instantly accuse them of using Adderall? No. Adderall does not actually modify your brain in any way, it simply keeps you awake so that you can learn more with the same brain. If people want to put in this extra work, let them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The problem with Adderall goes much deeper than just classmates using it to stay up all night to get an A on an exam. The problem goes straight to the core of academia, which is extremely competitive; researchers might be pressured to produce results for grants or status or any number of reasons. In your response you claim that someone who studies hard and works efficiently can get the same results as someone who takes Adderall, but what about someone who studies hard, works efficiently, and takes Adderall on top of that?
Paul Erdős, a hugely prolific and famous mathematician was known for his amphetamine habit to help him think. When a friend bet him he could not kick his habit for a month, he said, “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.” Should we laud him for advancing mathematics as much as he did, or chastise him for setting a negative example for aspiring mathematicians? My opinion on this is mixed, because on one hand I think we should do what we can to advance the cumulative knowledge of humanity as much as possible, but on the other hand such behaviour punishes those who do not use drugs.
Post a Comment