Brain-Doping at the Lab Bench
singularityhub.com
singularityhub.com
I've always liked recreational drugs, and a little boost at a critical moment can enhance work; but since one's body quickly develops a tolerance it's not compatible with any long-term work consumption (as many have found to their cost). Many (most?) articles about drugs posit some kind of linear relationship between the input and output, whereas the reality is nonlinear dynamic system with a complex feedback loop.
Thus, I love a big mug of coffee every morning, but it's not so much that it makes me super-productive as I get a bit slow and crabby on the days when I skip my coffee. It doesn't give me any edge over a non-coffee drinker. On the other hand I don't get a caffeine hangover or crash, which would be a risk with a more potent drug if I took it regularly.
Anyway...the article assumes there's only one kind of enhancement. A good scientist or engineer is just as likely to have a brekthrough idea while decompressing on the weekend with a beer or a fattie, as when sitting at their work station. Same reason many people get their best ideas while walking, soaking in the tub, or whatever.
This article from Nature discusses some of the ethical issues here rather well: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13134612/Naturrecom456702a
It seems like the drugs are being marketed as a way to improve life, not just a way to treat a pathological illness. The difference may be subtle, but it is there. Advertisements usually show a kid's life changed for the better, whether it is making more friends, or getting better grades. These are probably all accurate. But everyone has had these problems to some extent. And these ads don't really differentiate between symptoms of an illness, and symptoms caused by some other problem, and viewers can't really tell the difference themselves. So these drugs are somewhat being marketed as a brain booster.