Cognitive Enhancing Drugs

Imagine a world where every single person is able to instantly increase his or her intelligence without ever putting forth any effort.  Imagine a world where one could simply take a pill and instantly obtain more knowledge than he or she would have gained from reading an entire book.  This is the world of cognitive enhancement.  With the recent developments in the medical field, our society has developed several drugs which are able to enhance one’s natural mental, or cognitive, abilities.  These drugs are being prescribed to those diagnosed with mental health issues, such as ADHD or narcolepsy.  However, there are many healthy people taking these drugs in an attempt to boost their natural cognitive functions, and as with every issue, there are those who agree with this, and those who oppose it.

            According to Henry Greely, a professor at the University of Stanford, and his colleagues, the most commonly used drugs for cognitive enhancement include adderall, Ritalin, and modafinil.  These drugs are primarily prescribed to patients diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, in order to regulate their cognitive functions (702).  Doctors Edward M. Hallowell and John J. Ratey state that, when used for medicinal purposes, cognitive enhancers provide people with ADHD the focus needed to plan, organize, and overall perform at a much higher level than they would be able to do normally. Drugs such as Ritalin are able to do this by stimulating the patient’s inhibitory neurons, causing their brain to “slow down,” and allowing them to focus for long periods of time without being distracted (248).

            However, cognitive enhancers are not always being used medicinally.  Over the past few years there has been a massive spike in the number of people, primarily students, who have been taking other’s ADHD medication, “not to get high, but to get better grades” (Greely et al. 702). Some recent studies have shown that almost seven percent of students attending U.S. universities have taken cognitive enhancers in order to improve their grades (Greely et al. 702).  Within the article “Mind-enhancing drugs: Are they a no-brainer?” the author reports that those who are desperate to succeed have turned to cognitive enhancers “in preference to the traditional stimulants of coffee and cigarettes,” under the claims that they help them concentrate and focus at an elevated level.  Yet it is not only students who have reported using cognitive enhancing drugs for non-medicinal reasons.  According to Times magazine writer, Maia Szalavitz, there have been many reports of pilots, executives, and even time-pressed writers taking stimulants in order to stay focused for whatever reason, whether it is an important mission, or simply meeting a deadline for a paper. The question is no longer if people are taking cognitive enhancers without proper prescriptions, but if they should.

            There are some people who believe that the use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy is completely rational, and that the use of the drugs in this way should by no means be banned.  They argue that “the mere fact that cognitive enhancers are drugs is no reason to outlaw them,” and how society should naturally want to seek enhancement (Greely et al. 703).  When debating whether or not the use of cognitive enhancement is justified, one must consider the issue of fairness in an educational environment.  While it is apparent that the use of cognitive enhancement by only a select few would undoubtedly create some level of unfairness within a classroom, some argue that this form of unfairness already exists in that only a select few are able to provide themselves with educational advantages such as private tutors, preparatory courses, or other enrichment programs (Greely et al. 703).  So if this unfairness already exists, then to what extent would cognitive-enhancing drugs further the gap between those with these benefits and those without?

In attempts to discover the true effects of cognitive enhancement on the healthy, and see if they really would create an unleveled playing field, many professors have begun conducting tests involving drugs like Ritalin and modafinil. The results of which are somewhat surprising, showing that these drugs will indeed enhance the cognitive functions of the healthy, but also that drugs such as Ritalin can be openly used without numerous adverse effects on one’s health provided they are under proper monitoring (Mind-enhancing drugs).   However, that also means that strong risks may still be present for those who are not under careful monitoring, which could potentially lead to dangerous situations.

            Despite the very strong arguments made for the use of cognitive enhancers, there are just as many valid reasons to oppose the use of enhancement by the healthy.  “Many Americans appear to regard enhancement as cheating, unnatural or a rationalization of drug abuse” (Szalavitz).  If a student was to take a cognitive enhancer right before an examine, then that could, very easily, prevent an accurate measure of the true knowledge and ability of the student, not to mention give them an unfair advantage over the other students who did not take a cognitive enhancer (Greely et al. 704). One, somewhat obvious, solution to this problem would be to allow everyone to take the enhancers; however, if this were to occur then more problems would be created due to the fact that even if the drugs were made open to the public and anyone was able to obtain them, there would still be the same unfair advantages due to the fact that “one can't access the drugs without some amount of expendable cash” (Szalavitz).  In this situation, the advantages of cognitive enhancement would become available only to the wealthy and the privileged, creating an even more iniquitous situation than we are currently faced with.  One must also consider the issue of safety when determining if the use of cognitive enhancers is truly benefiting society.  Cognitive enhancers are drugs, and like any other drug, they have side effects.  Even if only a small percentage of people are affected by said side effects, the chance is still there. There is always a risk when taking medication, especially when one is taking others medication that was not prescribed to them directly.   Some of the immediate known side effects of stimulants include “insomnia, loss of appetite, dizziness, depression on withdrawal,” and even a loss of creativity (Mind-enhancing drugs).   Yet these are only some of the immediate side effects, many of the long term side effects of taking cognitive enhancers are unknown, which may prove to be very dangerous.

The last, and arguably most convincing point made by those against the use of cognitive enhancers is one of moral values.  Some say that the use of cognitive enhancers is “undermining the value of human effort,” (Greely et al. 703) and that this redefinition of human nature is more of a reason to not use cognitive enhancers than either the unfair situation they create, or the safety issues they present.  “We cheat ourselves out of ownership of our own success and damage our sense of self” (Szalavitz). This essentially means that we, as humans, would be losing what it means to truly accomplish something by taking a cognitive enhancer, and would untimely; lose an appreciation for work done without enhancement.

            So while it is clear that our society has indeed turned to enhancement in order to gain an elevated level of cognitive functions, it is still relatively unclear whether or not they should.  As of now, the use of cognitive enhancers without a proper prescription is considered illegal; however this is by no means stopping people from taking them.  This means that the decision of whether or not their use is justified must be a decision made by the individual.  The use of cognitive enhancers is without a doubt one of the more important issues of our time, and whether or not one agrees with their use is a completely personal choice that must be made by the individual.

As for the future of cognitive enhancement, no one can be sure.  It is impossible to know whether no one, everyone, or only the rich will be taking cognitive enhancers in the future.  They may even be deemed unsafe for anyone due to some undiscovered long term side effect, or they may be made available to anyone due to their possible benefits for society.  Until further research is done in this field, it is impossible to know, or even predict, what the future of cognitive enhancement will or could be.

Works Cited

Greely, Henry et al. “Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy.”

University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons 7 Dec. 2008: 702-705. repository.upenn.edu. Web. 10 Feb. 2012.

Hallowell, Edward and Ratey.  Delivered from Distraction.  New York:  Ballantine Books, 2005.Print.

“Mind-enhancing drugs: Are they a no-brainer?”  The Independent. 19 Jun. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.

Szalavitz, Maia. “Popping Smart Pills: The Case for Cognitive Enhancement” Time Magazine  6 Jan.

2009. Web. 13 Feb. 2012.

Conflicting Arguments Revolving Around SOPA and PIPA.

To all of those who almost saved the day, I welcome you.  As I am sure you already now there were many protests and displays against the now shelved SOPA and PIPA bills over the last few days.  What I have done below is taken three sources (all written before the shelving of the bills,) each providing their own information about the bills, and analyzed each one in order to determine what each of the articles was trying to “do,” and how exactly they went about doing so.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/248298/sopa_and_pipa_just_the_facts.html

In the article “SOPA and PIPA: Just the Facts,” Jared Newman tries to inform the general public about the SOPA and PIPA bills which are going through the House and Senate respectively.  Throughout the article the author tends to maintain a generally unbiased  point of view, only informing about what exactly the bills are and what arguments have been raised by the two side of the issue (whether we should support the bills or oppose them.) 

The article is organized in such a way to first give the reader an overview of what the bills SOPA and PIPA stand for (Stop Online Piracy Act, Protect IP Act) and what they were intended to do.  The article then organizes its information by creating several subheadings to first explain the basics behind the bills and the pros and cons of SOPA.  The article then gives both sides of the issue, in a compare and contrast structure, providing examples of those who support the bill and their arguments along with arguments from those opposed to the bill.  Organizing the information in this way was very effective in that it was able to sum up the two bills within the first few paragraphs, gradually going more in-depth near the end of the article.  This particular arrangement allows any reader to be informed about the topic right away by putting the bulk of the information at the beginning, however if the reader is interested by the topic and decides to continue reading then they are able to obtain a more complete understanding of the topic due to the article having more in-depth details farther along in the piece. 

This piece maintains a very professional tone which is not intended to lead the readers to think in a certain way; but instead keeps the readers interested while informing them of the topic at hand.  In addition to maintaining a very professional tone, the author uses no noticeable slant in their writing which may imply a bias.    Due to the fact that this article was written in order to inform the readers about SOPA and PIPA, there is no evidence which may conflict the authors opinion, (which is not shown in the first place.)   However, because this article does inform its readers, it does present both sides of the issue whether or not to support SOPA and PIPA, which do conflict each other. 

The accuracy of this article appears to be relatively solid at first glance; however there are some aspects of the article which puts its true accuracy into question.  For example, pcworld is a somewhat well known and respected site which generally provides quality information and articles; however the author, Jared Newman, while a frequent producer of quality articles revolving around internet-based topics, is by no means a politician who is experienced in the process of writing and submitting bills such as SOPA or PIPA.    This could be both good and bad because if the author is not a politician then he would not have any political standing on the bills based on party, however due to the fact that he is indeed an internet user, he may have some biased against the internet censoring SOPA and PIPA, which would make it possible for the government to censer and regulate sites.   Also, while there are many links within the article which take you to other sources, there is no clear bibliography to show where the author obtained his facts and data.  However, the article does appear to be recently updated, last being edited on January 17^th, meaning that the information presented is at least up to date.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/20/opinion/smith-sopa-support/index.html

In the article “Why We Need a Law Against Online Piracy,” Lamar Smith, attempts to persuade any and all citizens of the United States that we need the upcoming SOPA and PIPA bills to pass in order to stop illegal trade over the internet.   The author viewpoint on the SOPA and PIPA bills is that they will only benefit us as a county, and that all the negative attention they have been getting is simply misinformation. 

This article is much centered on “logos,” in that it constantly uses facts and logical information and arguments in order to persuade its readers to agree with the author.  This text is organized in a very descriptive manner, immediately giving the authors viewpoint and philosophy on the two bills, and then going into why the author is correct and how people who are against this bill are providing us with “misinformation.”  This way of writing is very effective when it comes to persuading because the article is able to constantly bombard the reader with facts in order to make them think in the same way the author does.  For example, in the article it states that SOPA could stop the traffic of stolen or counterfeit products, this fact may persuades readers to agree with the purpose of SOPA and thus support the bill as a whole.  This author clearly has a bias in that he is supporting SOPA one-hundred percent.  This bias is not only shown through intense slant within the article, but also by the presentation of very one-sided facts and opinions.  An example of the slant in this article is seen when the article states how “America's most profitable and productive industries are under attack.”  The use of the words “under attack” to describe the state of some American industries over phrases such as “in economic hardship” shows that this author is trying to make this websites appear as horrible as he possibly can in order to turn people away from those who believe we should “Stop SOPA.” 

There are also many other clear examples of this authors opinion on the information we as a nation have been receiving about SOPA; this is best shown in the paragraph where the author states how “This information does a disservice to consumers, and it is being disseminated by those who have profited from working with illegal websites that steal and sell America's intellectual property.”  While this sentence may appear insignificant at first, it is in fact making some serious claims against many major companies.  By stating that the information presented against SOPA is only being put out there by organizations who have benefited from illegal activity the author has essentially accused companies such as Google and Wikipedia, both major supporters of the anti-sopa movement, for working with illegal piracy websites; showing us that this is an undoubtedly bias piece written by an author who strongly opposes large internet-based companies.  The author then even goes on to openly accuse Google of promoting foreign illegal online pharmacies, showing that not only is he biased in his support of SOPA, but is also openly bias against Google. 

This article is written is a very intense, almost freighting tone.  This tone of writing may prove to be somewhat useful in persuading the readers, if by doing nothing else but scaring them into thinking that we need SOPA and PIPA to pass.  The only time in this article that conflicting evidence is ever addressed is when the author is stating how all the negative information we have been given about SOPA is simply misinformation created by cites who are involved in illegal activity.

 The accuracy of this article is somewhat questionable.  While the author is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, he is also a lead sponsor of SOPA.  This means that the author would of course be greatly in favor of SOPA because of the time he has put into it.    The article was however; last updated on Jan 20, 2012, meaning that all factual information given is very up-to-date.  The article is also published by CNN, a well respected news cooperation with a fairly good reputation.  Despite the fact that this article is published by CNN, there is no apparent bibliography to show where the author got their facts, which leads one to believe that the alleged “facts” in this article are only mere opinions.

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/sopa-pipa/

            In this article by Google, titled “End Piracy, Not Liberty.,” Google attempts to persuade internet users, and anyone else willing to listen, that we need to band together in order to stop the upcoming SOPA and PIPA bills which will be going through the House and Senate respectively, on the 24^th of January.  Google believes that these new SOPA and PIPA bills would not end piracy over the internet, but would in turn; kill American jobs thus creating an era of economic downslide. 

Google presents their opinion in this article in a logos manner, stating how even if these bills are passed, they would not stop piracy due to the sites flexibility, allowing them to constantly change their URL and appearance in order to hide the piracy which the site partakes in.  Google also presents several numbers and statistics, showing that large internet based companies are not the only ones concerned with these bills, and that many representatives and entrepreneurs also strongly oppose SOPA and PIPA. 

Google’s article on SOPA and PIPA is organized in such a way so that the readers are immediately shown Google’s opinion, being that the goals behind the bills are just, however SOPA and PIPA are not the way to go about stopping piracy. The article then has several subheadings, each going more in-depth than the last.  This organization of data is very effective because the first article gives a general problem that would be caused by the bill, causing the reader to feel negatively about the bill immediately, the subheadings following the first main article then present new problems that would be a result of the first problem, thus creating a strong negative association with the two bills.  This negative feeling the readers now have about the bill has effectively persuaded anyone who reads this article to protest the new SOPA and PIPA bills. 

Throughout the article, there are some very obvious examples of slant which makes these bills appear even worse.  One such example includes how the author refers to the majority of websites (those who to not partake in piracy) as “law-abiding companies,” in order to create an elevated sense of righteousness behind the sites who would be negatively affected by the bills. The author also states how the “U.S. government could order the blocking of sites,” the use of the word “order” creates an oppressive feeling, thus turning more readers against the bills. 

There is no conflicting evidence shown throughout the piece which could support the other side of the issue.  The only evidence given which could possibly support the bills is that they were created in order to stop piracy, however the author goes then goes on to disprove this by providing reasons why the bills would, in fact, not stop any form of piracy.  This article maintains a very kind and sincere tone, which is able to persuade its readers without scaring them into hating SOPA. 

 This is an extremely credible source based on their past reputation; however this exact reputation also creates a very obvious bias.  The fact that this article was published by Google allows one to feel safe in knowing that what they are reading is not completely false due to the amazingly positive reputation which Google has built up as a company.  However other than the fact that this piece was put out by Google there is very little information which could help prove the accuracy of the article.  There is no bibliography given and no external sources given which could help prove the information provided in the article.  Also because Google is an entirely internet based company which would be directly affected by SOPA and PIPA creates a very obvious bias due to the fact that almost every internet based cooperation is against SOPA because it would cause them to lose money and issue much stricter regulations.