Here's a sincere informational question. Where is there a sound research base on any "nootropic" or "neuroenhancer" or "smart drug" or the like that has been subjected to thoughtful scientific examination
and has resulted in genuinely superior levels of human cognitive performance? I'm not talking about Wikipedia articles. (I'm a Wikipedian, and I know how many fudged references and commercial product-pushing there is on Wikipedia.) I'm talking about large-n, placebo-controlled, double-blind experimental studies that get published in a major, high-impact journal and pass muster with a process like Cochrane Review
or prominent mention in a major textbook or practitioner's handbook on pharmacology.
There is huge worldwide interest in people engaging in smarter behavior, but where is there the evidence that anyone really, truly becomes smarter at anything in a sustained way under the influence of any of the "smart drugs," "nootropics," or "neuroenhancers"?
I ask, because I have been reading claims for smart drugs in online communities since 1992, and I have yet to see any examples of especially smart behavior on the part of anyone making those claims. I have acquaintance with the behavior of highly smart young people,
so perhaps I know smart behavior when I see it, but I have not found, after diligent search, any reliable evidence that any drug intervention is more effective in bringing about smart behavior than drinking coffee. Where is the good quality evidence?
P.S. I just found the earlier submission, from the year of publication, to HN of this article:
There are plenty of studies showing "genuinely superior levels of human cognitive performance". However it is unclear how well these tests ("microbenchmarks" if you will) correspond with "smart behavior". It is difficult to imagine how improvements to short-term memory span, visual memory, spatial planning etc would cause a decrease in "smart behaviour", though.
Having said that, here are a couple of studies I've posted elsewhere on this story (ironically in rely to another similar comment by you, which you seem to have missed?):
Modafinil produced a similar pattern of cognitive enhancement to that observed in healthy adults, with improvements on tests of short-term memory span, visual memory, spatial planning, and stop-signal motor inhibition. On several measures, increased accuracy was accompanied by slowed response latency. This alteration in the speed-accuracy trade-off may indicate that modafinil increases the ability to "reflect" on problems coupled with decreased impulsive responding. Improvements were also seen in sustained attention, which was unaffected in healthy subjects.
Modafinil significantly enhanced performance on tests of digit span, visual pattern recognition memory, spatial planning and stop-signal reaction time. These performance improvements were complemented by a slowing in latency on three tests: delayed matching to sample, a decision-making task and the spatial planning task. Subjects reported feeling more alert, attentive and energetic on drug. The effects were not clearly dose dependent, except for those seen with the stop-signal paradigm. In contrast to previous findings with methylphenidate, there were no significant effects of drug on spatial memory span, spatial working memory, rapid visual information processing or attentional set-shifting. Additionally, no effects on paired associates learning were identified.
> Where is there a sound research base on any "nootropic" or "neuroenhancer" or "smart drug" or the like that has been subjected to thoughtful scientific examination
It's hard to get studies like this approved and funded. Some chemicals are either illegal, or they are in a legal grey area. And it's very hard to get ethics panel approving for something that is not"treating" or "curing" ill patients.
Think of all the millions of articles that have been written about caffeine, stimulants, etc. That's all the frame of reference these journalists have, so they only look for information similar to things they already know about.
It takes decades and a multi-million dollar drug company marketing budget for a new idea in medicine to become widely familiar. Take, for example, the unique nature of SSRI anti-depressants vs the ones that came before. For years most people didn't get Prozac. Is it an upper? A downer? Like speed? Like heroin? Like Valium? Like benzos? It took forever for it to become widely understood that it was something all together different.
Yes, it was disappointing that the the article conflated stimulates like Adderall with non-stimulate based nootropics like Provigil/modafinil.
It's unclear if the author understands the difference at all - for example, modafinil is supposed to let you do without sleep, and yet fall asleep when you choose. That's an important distinction compared to stimulates like Adderall, but doesn't seem to be mentioned.
But this all reads like a generation of kids amped on semilegal stimulants and nothing else. Is that really "neuroenhancing"?