brain doping vs. steroids

society has long shunned athletes for using performance-enhancing chemicals. congress has even gotten into the act by holding hearings on baseball and steroids. however, what about the doping that goes on in other fields - and in our everyday lives? you may even be doping up if we transfer baseball's definition to mental enhancers such as caffeine.

as zack lynch correctly points out, brain doping will only become more prevalent. it's one of the first things i noticed about my fellow graduate students. i was shocked to get texts during midterms asking, "one more paper... anyone have adderall?" students were very open about their adderall use - and most people are open about their use of caffeine as a cognitive booster. dilbert's gary larson said "that one key ingredient [for idea generation] is caffeine." mathematician paul erdos once said, "a mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems."

the only distinctions between caffeine and adderall, so far as i can tell, are duration and effectiveness. the intentions and outcomes are similar: altertness, focus. and steroids are not a muscular equivalent to these cogniceuticals simply because the effects of steroids last longer, for multiple games. so, perhaps the only reason why we're against some performance-enhancing drugs is because, quite simply, they work better than others? is that a rational exclusion criterion?

Labels: drugs, neuroscience