Introduction
Brain Gain is the article that was written by an American essayist and The New Yorker‘s staff writer Margaret Talbot and published in the magazine in 2009. Talbot starts a conversation about neuroenhancing drugs and the role that medication of such kind plays in modern people’s lives. More particularly, the author discusses the topic of non-medical prescription drug use to improve academic performance. Brain Gain describes the stressfulness of life as a student that includes balancing academic requirements with working, socializing, and relaxing. As one reads the article, they are invited to compare the examples from the text with their own experiences and reason upon whether medication for brain stimulation could be the solution to a modern person’s efficiency problems. The main issue is: while neuroenhancers provide visible advantages to those wishing to increase productivity, the lack of data on the long-term effects of these drugs must prevent ordinary people from using them excessively.
The Use of Neuroenhancers
Talbot starts her narration by telling the story of Alex, a college student who used to struggle dealing with the pace of his college life. He decided to try Adderall, a commonly prescribed stimulant for those diagnosed with ADHD. The fact is that Adderall and another stimulant named Ritalin, at some point, in time have become widely accepted as cognitive enhancers. Cognitive enhancers are drugs that highly functional, ultra-dedicated people take to become even more productive and committed to work. Talbot says that “college campuses have become laboratories for experimentation with neuroenhancement”, and Alex took part in it (605). The young man managed to receive an Adderall prescription by listing in a medical office the symptoms that were typical to his brother with ADHD. While in college, Alex would take fifteen milligrams of the drug most days, which ensured that he would maintain extreme concentration and lose an ability to sleep for many hours on end.
Evidently, Adderall and other similar drugs have their side effects, among which are headaches, nervousness, insomnia, and loss of appetite. Talbot notes that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding Adderall: it has high abuse potential and can lead to dependency (606). Alex’s criticisms differ from those of the FDA: he believes that Adderall only works as intended if one is committed to finishing the particular task; otherwise, online music libraries get organized and rooms get cleaned. In addition to that, the young man’s writing while on the drug was often flawed: he would waffle on for pages instead of getting straight to the point. However, all Alex wanted was to get the job done, and Adderall allowed him to get no less than a B on his papers.
There is a peculiar term that was introduced by a researcher to describe the practice of what Alex and many others do, which is use drugs designed for specific medical conditions to strengthen conventional cognition. This term is “cosmetic neurology”, and the specialist behind it, Anjan Chatterjee, is worried about the phenomenon but believes it will eventually become extremely widespread (Talbot 608). The thing is that, in many areas of society, there are conditions under which little advantages lead to excessive rewards. When studying and working, those who are ‘smarter’, sleep less, and learn faster are more successful than others. Talbot cites Chatterjee’s words, who predicts that, in the future, some neurologists will requalify into “quality-of-life consultants” who “provide information while abrogating final responsibility for these decisions to patients” (608). Where there is demand, there is supply: evidently, there are anxious employees in an office culture obsessed with efficiency and equipped with the latest technologies. Moreover, seeing how there are also aging people with no desire to tolerate memory loss, and overburdened parents wanting to give their children an edge over other kids, the neuroenhancement industry is destined to thrive.
Granted, today, there is a limited choice of medication for people who seek to improve their brain’s activity. However, taking into account the amount of time and money spent on the development of neuroenhancers, the common names will soon be joined by more counterparts. Yet the major concern is how these new drugs – which are developed to treat particular conditions – will affect healthy people. They might give one a temporary edge to work more productively, but it does not mean that a certain pill is “ready to replace your morning espresso” (Talbot 610). The effects of medication for treating cognitive decline on regular people simply have not been studied enough. Therefore, there is a question of whether the help that it provides comes with a cost. For instance, it has been estimated that a stimulant named Provigil can become addictive. Talbot cites a Journal of the American Medical Association study, according to which “…risk for addiction in vulnerable persons merits heightened awareness” (610). Whether there are worse consequences the use of neuroenhancers brings to ordinary people remains unknown yet.
When it comes to the paper in general, I believe that Talbot did a great job and managed to provide deep insights into the issue. As Greene and Lidinsky rightly observed, the author chooses a strategy of moving from the stories of specific people who had their experiences with neuroenhancers to a bigger picture of the problem, and it works (605). Talbot proves to the reader that, while drugs stimulating brain activity undoubtedly work, the lack of research on their long-term effects on people with no cognitive medical disorders makes excessive use of such medication concerning. I believe that if there is a chance of medical dangers connected to neuroenhancers being considerable, people should use them with great caution.
There is an intriguing question that the article raises regarding whether or not the use of neuroenhancing drugs should be considered cheating. I liked the point that was made by a man named Nicholas Seltzer, a proponent of so-called ‘mind-hacking’. He believes that everyone should be able to do what they want with their bodies as well as minds, “so long as it doesn’t impinge on the basic rights, liberty, and safety of others” (Talbot 612). Moreover, in Seltzer’s opinion, considering how complex the world is, one’s resorting to a tool that enables them to understand the world better is completely justifiable (Talbot 612). I agree with him and think that it is only a case of cheating if a person uses the drug once to achieve a particular goal – and never again. Otherwise, it is simply taking advantage of the amazing opportunities that are granted to humanity by technological developments.
Conclusion
In conclusion, neuroenhancing drugs are already a part of society, and there is nothing one can do about it. The ethical side of the use of neuroenhancers may raise questions, but, essentially, people take them and experience the desired effect without many significant consequences. More research is needed to discover what the risks might be for ordinary people, and then a person will be able to decide for themselves whether or not resorting to such medication is worth it.
Works Cited
Greene, Stuart, and April Lidinsky. From Inquiry to Academic Writing: A Text and Reader. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011.
Talbot, Margaret. “Brain Gain.” The New Yorker, 2009, pp. 605-613.