Sir

I commend the authors of the Commentary 'Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy' (Nature 456, 702–705; 2008) on what I think is a fair and insightful piece. I suspect many of the negative commenters are guilty of default outrage without careful thought.

I find that my own occasional, metered use of these drugs can make astounding increases in my ability as a researcher — which results in tangible benefit to society. It's not a competition, I'm not taking an exam. I'm doing research; research that I hope may one day improve the lives of many. I exercise, sleep, eat well and I drink coffee. Yet sometimes that significant extra boost allows me to spend 12 hours successfully working through mathematics that for weeks I was previously unequal to solving. Why is this the act of a social criminal?

Current attitudes towards such drugs seem to be that they are good if you need them to become equal, but wrong if you want to become more than equal. Can we really be so quick to condemn a striving to better ourselves? Should we tell brighter students to hold back to the median? I think not. This issue is not black and white; it requires the careful grey-scale considerations the Commentary authors recommend.

It is true that many physicians and biomedical researchers have placed themselves in quite a tangled conflict-of-interest web, and that this compromise can be dangerous.

Some of the authors of this Commentary may have some conflict of interest, which thankfully Nature requires authors to disclose. However, that possible conflict of interest does not release you, the reader, from your obligation to rationally and carefully consider their argument. They are not wrong just because some of them consult for pharmaceutical companies.

See also Risks and benefits may turn out to be finely balanced Much ado about cognitive enhancement A medical view of potential adverse effects Recall of learned information may rely on taking drug again Patterns of drug use have varied throughout history Enhancement means a broader role for physicians