[xaa]

A much better overview:

http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics

I am a bit torn about this subject. So, in my day job as a biomedical researcher, we would like to have a lot of evidence that something works before giving it to people.

But the FDA/research system is not set up to deal with things like this, that are not to treat a disease per se, but rather to enhance a healthy human. Many MDs would see cognitive enhancement as "cosmetic" and not worth any level of risk. You will note how almost all the evidence for putative nootropics comes from AD and similar research. Not healthy, young or middle-aged normals.

I almost wish there were some kind of network for DIY biohackers to investigate nootropics by setting up blinded studies. Because that kind of research will not otherwise be funded or performed, and despite the risks and dubiousness of data that comes outside the IRB/clinical trial system, it seems better than nothing.

[SilasX]

>But the FDA/research system is not set up to deal with things like this, that are not to treat a disease per se, but rather to enhance ... healthy, young or middle-aged normals.

So how did plastic surgery get through? Would that kind of procedure not be approved today under current standards? Would they be allowed to experiment at all, given the (in the FDA's view) limited benefits?

[xaa]

Most plastic surgery is not drug-based, so there is a lot less research that needs to be done on the molecular level to get it through. Much like nootropics, plastic surgery also has a use-case for "diseased" people: people born deformed or injured in accidents.

The big exception is Botox (aka botulinium toxin). Yes, the safety standards were a little lower in the 1960s, when it was being researched for therapeutic use. But also, botulinium toxin is very heavily researched because it is a useful molecular tool in other contexts, so we know quite well how it works, even though it is an extremely dangerous substance if used improperly. For many nootropics, we just don't know.

And if anything, the standards for something that is supposed to be operating on the brain are even higher than those applied to facial muscles, skin, etc.

[PinnBrain]

Neat. I take Modafinil or its enantiomer Nuvigil sometimes to be smarter or compensate for lack of sleep. Officially, it's for sleep apnea, which I had to take a sleep test to show. I don't see zero risk for cosmetic surgery (note the issues with any surgery), so perhaps that can serve as an analogue as we look more into enhancing "normal" people.

[xaa]

Sure. I get great results from Adderall and have heard good things about Modafinil. Tried it once with little effect, but it was from an Indian pharmacy and who knows how pure it was. I can't draw any conclusions whatsoever from this. Similarly, some people swear by racetams but I have adverse reactions to them (tired, eye strain, bad moods).

The internet is chock full of anecdotes about various nootropics, but very little empirical data. Gwern (linked above) tries to blind himself in some of his experiments, which is good, but still N=1.

What needs to happen is, IMO, people interested in nootropics sign up for a "trial", pay for the drug and any minor equipment needed to test efficacy, the trial administrator gets a pure sample of the drug and sends it out blinded to the participants. Then the results could be collected and possibly even published (in a journal that doesn't have an IRB requirement).

It could go even further if people could cough up the cash for a cheap genetic variation test like 23andme, and then the efficacy could be correlated with genetic variants.

But as it is, we are in the absolute dark ages about our knowledge about nootropic efficacy in normals. It is complicated by the fact that the most likely candidates are often controlled substances.

[Synaesthesia]

I would maybe classify Modafanil as a nootropic, but Adderall is a stimulant - Amphetamine.

[xaa]

Almighty Wikipedia: nootropics are "drugs, supplements, nutraceuticals, and functional foods that improve one or more aspects of mental function, such as working memory, motivation, and attention"

Potentially a very broad category, which absolutely includes, but is not limited to, stimulants (within a therapeutic dose range). Also, as you can see on the same Wikipedia page, there is an entire category of nootropic stimulants, including the widely used caffeine and nicotine.

[PinnBrain]

Ah, thanks. Only had Adderall once, and it didn't feel the same. Modafinil had a much more subtle effect, with few downsides (just don't overdo caffeine while on it).

[MollyR]

Isn't the military looking into nootropics ? I'm not really sure how legitimate this link is but . . . http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/03/12/the-coming-revolution-in...

I've definitely heard of some military folks looking into nootropics pretty heavily in the specific context of training drone pilots. Since those drones cost 1.3 million usd.

It seems strange, they wouldn't have some ivy league scientists on the experiments as well.