Sceptics About Nootropics

SMART DRUGS 2
THE NEXT GENERATION

Sceptics about nootropics ("smart drugs") are unwitting victims of the so-called Panglossian paradigm of evolution. They believe that our cognitive architecture has been so fine-honed by natural selection that any tinkering with such a wonderfully all-adaptive suite of mechanisms is bound to do more harm than good. Certainly the notion that merely popping a pill could make you brighter sounds implausible. It sounds like the sort of journalistic excess that sits more comfortably in the pages of Fortean Times than any scholarly journal of repute. Yet as Dean, Morgenthaler and Fowkes' (hereafter "DMF") book attests, the debunkers are wrong. On the one hand, numerous agents with anti-cholinergic properties
Here admittedly there are methodological problems. Improved test score performances on so-called smart dopaminergics can have other explanations. Not all studies adequately exclude the confounding variables of increased alertness, sharper sensory acuity, greater motor activity or improved motivation - as distinct from any "pure" nootropic action. Yet the selective dopamine reuptake blocker amineptine (Survector) is both a mood-brightener and a possible smart-drug. Likewise selegiline, popularly known as l-deprenyl, has potentially life-enhancing properties. L-deprenyl is a selective, irreversible MAO-b inhibitor with antioxidant, immune-system-boosting and anti-neurodegenerative effects. It retards the metabolism not just of dopamine but also of phenylethylamine, a trace amine also found in chocolate and released when we're in love. Deprenyl also stimulates the release of superoxide dismutase (SOD). SOD is a key enzyme which helps to quench damaging free-radicals. Taken consistently in low doses, deprenyl extends the life-expectancy of rats by some 20%; enhances drive, libido and endurance; and independently improves cognitive performance in Alzheimer's patients and in some healthy normals. It is used successfully to treat canine cognitive dysfunction syndrome (CDS) in dogs. Deprenyl also protects the brain's dopamine
In the perennial trade-off between accessibility and scholarly rigour, compromises are made on both sides. Ritual disclaimers aside, DMF's tone can at times seem too uncritically gung-ho. Their drug-profiles and cited studies don't always give due weight to the variations in sample size and the quality of controls. Nor do they highlight the uncertain calibre of the scholarly journals in which some of the most interesting results are published. DMFs inclusion of anecdote-studded personal testimonials is almost calculated to inflame medical orthodoxy. Moreover it should be stressed that the scientific gold-standard of large, placebo-controlled, double-blind cross-over prospective trials are still quite rare in this field as a