One of my colleagues posted a recent commentary from Nature on how the idea of the smart pill has been oversold. The basic theme of the commentary is that there is no good evidence that treatment of ADHD with stimulants improves academic outcomes. The author reviews a few long term studies and contends that differences between the medication and placebo seem to wash out over time and therefore there is no detectable difference. Her overall conclusions seem inconsistent with her view that: "For most people with ADHD, these medications — typically formulations of methylphenidate or amphetamine — quickly calm them down and increase their ability to concentrate. Although these behavioural changes make the drugs useful, a growing body of evidence suggests that the benefits mainly stop there..."
A question for any cognitive psychologists out there - is it possible to improve your concentration and have that not improve learning? I can't imagine how that happens. If you go from not being able to read 2 pages at a time to suddenly reading chapters at a time, how is that not enhanced cognitive performance? If you go from staring out the window all day and daydreaming to being able to focus on what the teacher is saying how will that not lead to an improved outcome? The idea that improved attention - a central factor in human cognition will not affect anything over time suggests to me that the measures being used for follow up are not very robust or that this is a skewed sample of opinion.
For the purpose of cognitive enhancement, the typical users are students trying to gain an edge by increasing their study time. Anyone who has experienced college and professional school realizes that here is a large amount of information to be mastered and it is not presented in an efficient way. I can never recall a professor who advised us of the important guideposts along the way or gave us any shortcuts. The usual message is study all of this material in depth every day or you will fall behind. That approach in general is consistent with gaps in the ability to study either through the normal course of life or the competition for intellectual resources by 3 or 4 other professors who regard their courses as important. That typically results in a pattern of cramming for specific key exams. Although I have not seen any specific studies, stimulant medications are generally used for this purpose and in many cases the use is widespread. There is a literature on the number of college students who may be feigning ADHD symptoms in order to get a prescription and that number could be as high as 50% (4,5).
What about the issue of stimulants acting as a smart pill in people who don't have ADHD? In the most comprehensive review I could find on the subject (6) the authors review laboratory studies and conclude that in those settings stimulants enhance consolidation of declarative learning to varying degrees, had mixed effects on working memory, and mixed effects on cognitive control. On 8 additional tests of executive function, the authors found that stimulant medication enhance performance on two of those tests - non-verbal fluency and non-verbal intelligence. They have the interesting observation that small effects could be important in a competitive environment. Their review also provides an excellent overview of the epidemiology of stimulant use on campuses that suggests that the overall prevalence is high and the pattern of use is consistent with cramming for exams. They cite a reference that I could not find (7) that was a reanalysis of NSDUH data suggesting that as many as 1 in 20 stimulant users may have a problem with excessive use and dependence.
Getting back to the theme of the Nature commentary, it is ironic that the smart pill theme is being called into question when it was the subject of a Nature article years earlier advocating for the use of cognitive enhancement. In that article Greely, et al come to the somewhat astounding conclusion:
"Based on our consideration, we call for a presumption that mentally competent adults should be able to engage in cognitive enhancement using drugs."
They arrive at that conclusion by rejecting three arguments against this practice. Those arguments include that it is cheating, it is not natural and it is drug abuse. Their rejection of the cheating argument is interesting because they accept the idea that performance enhancing drugs (PEDS) in sports is cheating. They reject that in cognitive enhancement claiming that there would need to be a set of rules outlining what forms of enhancement would be outlawed and what would not (e.g. drugs versus tutors). To me that seems like a stretch. I think that sports bodies select performance enhancing drugs as a specific target because it clearly alters body physiology in a way that cannot be altered by any other means. There is also plenty of evidence that the types of PEDS are dangerous to the health of athletes and associated with deaths. Their conclusion about drug abuse: "But drugs are regulated on a scale that subjectively judges the potential for harm from the very dangerous (heroin) to the relatively harmless (caffeine). Given such regulation the mere fact that cognitive enhancers are drugs is no reason to outlaw them." That is a serious misread of the potential addictive properties of stimulants and the previous epidemics that occurred when the drugs were FDA approved for weight loss, the epidemic of street use in the 1970s and the current and ongoing epidemic of meth labs and methamphetamine use throughout much of the USA.
These authors go on to outline four policy mechanisms that they believe would "support fairness, protect individuals from coercion, and minimize enhancement related socioeconomic disparities." At first glance these lofty goals might seem reasonable if society had not already had in depth experience with the drugs in question. The clearest example was the FDA approved indication of amphetamines for weight loss. What could be a more equitable application than providing amphetamines to any American who wanted to use them for weight loss? The resulting epidemic and reversal of the FDA decision is history. A similarly equitable decision to liberalize opioids in the treatment of chronic pain had resulted in another epidemic of higher lethality due to differences in the toxicology of opioids and amphetamines.
The contrast between these two commentaries in Nature also highlight a couple of the issues about the way medical problems and treatment is portrayed in the media. This first is that you can't have it both ways. Quoting a researcher or two out of context does not constitute an accurate assessment of the science involved. Some of the authors in the first commentary are highly respected researchers in cognitive science and they clearly believe that cognitive enhancement occurs and it should be widely applied. Nature or any other journal cannot have it both ways. A more realistic appraisal of the problem is addressed in reference 6. The second issue is that in both cases the authors seem blind to the addictive properties of stimulants and they are ignorant of what happens when there is more access as exemplified by the FDA misstep of approving stimulants for weight loss. Do we really need a new epidemic to demonstrate this phenomenon again? Thirdly, all of this comes paying lip service to non - medication strategies for cognitive enhancement. We can talk about the importance of adequate sleep - a known cause of ADHD like symptoms and if we are running universities and workplaces in a manner that creates sleep deprived states, the next step is reaching for pills to balance an unbalanced lifestyle. The new rules for residency training are a better step in the right direction. Fourth, college is a peak time for alcohol and substance use in the lives of most Americans. These substances in general can lead to a syndrome that looks like ADHD. It is highly problematic to make that diagnosis and provide a medication that can be used in an addictive manner. It is also highly problematic to think that treating an addicted person with a stimulant will cure them of the addiction and yet it happens all of the time.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that cognitive enhancement is cheating. Much of my career has been spent correcting the American tendency of trying to balance one medication against another and using medications to tolerate a toxic lifestyle or workplace. It does not work and the current group of medications that are being put forward as cognitive enhancers are generally old drugs with bad side effect profiles particularly with respect to the potential for addiction.
If you want safe cognitive enhancers that can be made widely available, they have not been invented yet.
If you want safe cognitive enhancers that can be made widely available, they have not been invented yet.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
References:
References:
2: Greely H, Sahakian B, Harris J, Kessler RC, Gazzaniga M, Campbell P, Farah MJ.
Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature. 2008 Dec 11;456(7223):702-5. doi: 10.1038/456702a. Erratum in: Nature. 2008 Dec 18;456(7224):872. PubMed PMID: 19060880.
3: Feldman HM, Reiff MI. Clinical practice. Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 27;370(9):838-46. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp1307215. PubMed PMID: 24571756.
5: Suhr J, Hammers D, Dobbins-Buckland K, Zimak E, Hughes C. The relationship of malingering test failure to self-reported symptoms and neuropsychological findings in adults referred for ADHD evaluation. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2008 Sep; 23(5):521-30.
6: Smith ME, Farah MJ. Are prescription stimulants "smart pills"? The epidemiology and cognitive neuroscience of prescription stimulant use by normal healthy individuals. Psychol Bull. 2011 Sep;137(5):717-41. doi: 10.1037/a0023825. Review. PubMed PMID: 21859174
7: Kroutil LA, Van Brunt DL, Herman-Stahl MA, Heller DC, Bray BM, Penne MA. Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants in the United States. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2006; 84:135–143.10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.12.011 [PubMed: 16480836]
