Academia’s Use of "Scientist’s Little Helper" Drugs

By Anastacia Mott Austin

Say it ain’t so, Mr. Wizard.

A new survey published by the journal Nature reveals that many in academia – one in five – admit to taking so-called "neurocognitive" drugs to enhance their mental performance.

The survey arose after a similar one ran last year by the University of Cambridge, in which researchers polled their own colleagues on drug use.

Nature ran an editorial about cognitive-enhancing drugs in the scientific and academic arenas, which attracted so much response that the journal decided to perform its own survey. Fourteen hundred respondents from 60 different countries replied to the online survey.

The results were surprising.

"We were putting our finger in the air to see what our reader response would be," said Nature writer Brendan Maher. "And it was tremendous." Added Maher, "What it's suggesting is there are a high percentage of adults using these drugs."

The survey only asked specifically about three drugs: methylphenidate (Ritalin), modafinil (Provigil), and beta-blockers like propanolol (Inderal). Of those who admitted using the drugs, 62% of respondents said they took Ritalin, 44% admitted to using Provigil (indicating that some were using both), and 15% copped to taking beta-blockers like Inderal.

Respondents indicated they were using other drugs besides those in the survey, such as the amphetamine-derived drug Adderall, epinephrine, as well as natural supplements like ginkgo biloba and vitamin E.

They didn’t seem to feel too badly about it, either. "Science and technology will continue to generate all sorts of new enhancers, and the quest for enhancement is not necessarily unfair or unethical," wrote one respondent, John Harris (who did not indicate whether he himself had used enhancing drugs). "We humans are inveterate enhancers, striving to increase our intelligence and to improve our memory and powers of perception."

Nearly 80% of total respondents indicated that they thought cognitive-enhancing drugs should be available for those who wished to use them.

While most of the admitted users reported that they obtained the drugs through pharmacy prescriptions, the results did not indicate if they were using their own prescriptions, or whether the drugs had been prescribed for other uses. Almost a third of respondents said they got their drugs from the Internet.

Even the writers of the editorial, Cambridge neuroscience professors Barbara Sahakian and Sharon Morein-Zamir, suggested that off-label use of neuro-cognitive drugs might not be so bad. "Just as one would hardly propose that a strong cup of coffee could be the secret of academic achievement or faster career advancement, the use of such drugs does not necessarily entail cheating," they wrote.

But not everyone was so nonchalant about people using prescription drugs for their own off-label purposes. Martha Faher, director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania, told reporters at CNN that there are side effects to these drugs that can be risky, especially cardiovascular changes. "I sometimes call this America's uncontrolled experiment in pharmacology," said Farah.

In an ironic twist to the story, biologist Jonathan Eisen from the University of California engineered a complex April Fool’s joke in which he created a realistic website named WABDA, standing for the World Anti-Brain Doping Authority (www.wabda.org). The fake organization issued a press release invoking the NIH (National Institutes of Health) and stating its intention to prevent the use of brain-enhancing drugs among scientists. Eisen’s co-conspirators eagerly took up the ruse, posting on their scientific blogs that they’d received required anti-doping affidavits along with research grants. It was meant as a joke to mimic recent sports’ figures use of performance-enhancing drugs, but not surprisingly, given the results of Nature’s poll, it created a panic in academic research circles.

Eisen was taken aback by the reaction to his intended joke, saying he never thought that people would take it so seriously. Said Eisen in his blog, "Truth is imitating art here in bizarre ways."