Kognitiivsest võimendusest ehk kosmeetilisest neuroloogiast ja neuroeetikast
New Yorkeris ilmus hiljuti huvitav artikkel teemal, mis Eestis veel erilist tähelepanu pole pälvinud, kuid mis kindlasti järgmiste aastatega vaikselt tähelepanu hakkab pälvima ja lõpuks kindlasti ka laiatarbemeediasse jõuab. Jutt käib mõistagi ravimitest, mis parandavad ja isegi võimendavad meie kongitiivset suutlikust. Originaalseslt haiguste ja puuduste kõrvaldamiseks väljatöötatud medikamendid on aga kanda kinnitanud ambitsioonikamate tudengite koduapteekides ja üha rohkem ka töökohtades, mis loob uusi pingeid ja tõstab esile uusi küsimusi:
At many colleges, students have begun calling the off-label use of neuroenhancers a form of cheating. Writing last year in the Cavalier Daily, the student newspaper of the University of Virginia, a columnist named Greg Crapanzano argued that neuroenhancers “create an unfair advantage for the users who are willing to break the law in order to gain an edge. These students create work that is dependent on the use of a pill rather than their own work ethic.” Of course, it’s hard to imagine a university administration that would require students to pee in a cup before they get their blue books. And though secretly taking a neuroenhancer for a three-hour exam does seem unfair, condemning the drugs’ use seems extreme. Even with the aid of a neuroenhancer, you still have to write the essay, conceive the screenplay, or finish the grant proposal, and if you can take credit for work you’ve done on caffeine or nicotine, then you can take credit for work produced on Provigil.
Artikkel ei ole just lühike, kuid samas annab mitmekülgse ja kaalutleva vastuse küsimusele, kuidas suhtuvad arstid, kasutajad, fännid ja vastased medikamentidesse, mis parandavad mälu ja võimaldavad keskendunumalt ülesandeid täita. Mainimata ei jää ka mõned tuntumad varasemad pretsedendid:
The idea behind mind-hacking isn’t exactly new. Fortifying one’s mental stamina with drugs of various kinds has a long history. Sir Francis Bacon consumed everything from tobacco to saffron in the hope of goosing his brain. Balzac reputedly fuelled sixteen-hour bouts of writing with copious servings of coffee, which, he wrote, “chases away sleep, and gives us the capacity to engage a little longer in the exercise of our intellects.” Sartre dosed himself with speed in order to finish “Critique of Dialectical Reason.” My college friends and I wrote term papers with the sweaty-palmed assistance of NoDoz tablets. And, before smoking bans, entire office cultures chugged along on a collective nicotine buzz—at least, if “Mad Men” is to be believed. Seltzer and his interlocutors on the ImmInst forum are just the latest members of a seasoned cohort, even if they have more complex pharmaceuticals at their disposal.
Kognitiivseid võimeid parandavate medikamentide kõrvalmõjudest on samuti juttu, kuid neist kõige tõsisem tundus olevat medikamentide potentsiaalne mõju loovusele:
Chatterjee and Farah have wondered whether drugs that heighten users’ focus might dampen their creativity. After all, some of our best ideas come to us not when we sit down at a desk but, rather, when we’re in the shower or walking the dog—letting our minds roam. Jimi Hendrix reported that the inspiration for “Purple Haze” came to him in a dream; the chemist Friedrich August Kekule claimed that he discovered the ring structure of benzene during a reverie in which he saw the image of a snake biting its tail. Farah told me, “Cognitive psychologists have found that there is a trade-off between attentional focus and creativity. And there is some evidence that suggests that individuals who are better able to focus on one thing and filter out distractions tend to be less creative.”
Farah and Chatterjee recently completed a preliminary study looking at the effect of one ten-milligram dose of Adderall on sixteen students doing standard laboratory tests of creative thinking. They did not find that this low dose had a detrimental effect, but both believe that this is only the beginning of the vetting that must be done.
See, kas ja mida inimene võtab, peaks jääma minu arvates iga inimese enda otsustada, kuid ilmselgelt on praegu õige aega nendele küsimustele mõtlema hakata või vähemalt neist teadlik olla. New Yorkeri artikkel on selles mõttes kompaktne ja mitmekülgne spikker.
Kellel teema vastu sügavam ja akadeemilisem huvi, siis artiklis mainitud Anjan Chatterjee kolm neuroeetika alast uurimust on saadaval tema kodulehelt.
Categorised as: ...
Lisa kommentaar