Cognitive enhancement
A while ago, I had a chat with Phil Campbell, who just arrived in New York after dining with royalty., and he told me something extraordinary.
We started talking about cognitive enhancement -- taking drugs to improve your cognitive skills. Of course, drugs for conditions such as ADHD and narcolepsy have been used by some people for some time, but data on their efficacy are scarce and not well controlled. The fascinating thing is that it seems that Phil heard from a reliable source that, if you wanted, you could set up a clinical trial specifically designed for a putative cognitive enhancer here in the USA. In other words, the FDA would not get on your way if your clinical trial was not for a drug aimed at curing disease, but designed to enhance your natural abilities.
I'm frankly surprised about it and wonder if this is really the case. Can anybody out there confirm or deny this? And if this is true, what would be a reliable endpoint in a trial of a cognitive enhancer? Maybe that's why you don't hear about companies going after this dream; because one doesn't have a meaningful endpoint.
One thing I can tell you: the day we have a safe cognitive enhancer, I'll be the first one to buy it.
Comments
We opened up a forum on the use of cognitive enhancing drugs based on a recent commentary appearing in the magazine. The discussion both at Nature Network and elsewhere on the blogosphere has been pretty lively.
Posted by: Brendan Maher | December 23, 2007 10:59 PM
With all due respect to Phil and his "reliable source," conjecture about what the FDA might theoretically permit is just that - conjecture. It may indeed be possible, under a close reading of FDA regulations, to set up a trial of a cognitive enhancer. But the FDA isn't the only agency in our government with a say in the matter, and literal interpretation of the CFR is not the only relevant standard.
For starters, any company setting up such a trial would risk a potentially immense civil liability. They'd be giving a drug to people who are, by definition, clinically well. If anything went the slightest bit wrong, the subjects would sue, and they'd quite likely win, regardless of what kind of consent form they'd signed. The DEA might also have something to say about such a trial, considering their intense interest in other types of performance-enhancing and mind-altering substances.
Posted by: Alan Dove | October 30, 2007 12:11 PM