By BENEDICT CAREY


Working twice as fast and doing more work, thanks to the pills.

An era of doping may be looming in academia, and it has ignited a debate about policy and ethics that in some ways echoes the controversy over performance enhancement accusations against Olympic athletes or cycling stars.
In a recent commentary in the journal Nature, two Cambridge University researchers reported that about a dozen of their colleagues had admitted to regular use of prescription drugs like Adderall, a stimulant, and Provigil, which promotes wakefulness, to improve their academic performance.
The former is approved to treat attention deficit disorder, the latter narcolepsy, and both are considered more effective, and more widely available, than the drugs circulating at colleges a generation ago.
Nature has been conducting its own, more rigorous survey, and so far at least 20 respondents have said that they used the drugs for nonmedical purposes, according to Philip Campbell, the journal¡¯s editor in chief.
The debate has also been active on the Web site of The Chronicle of Higher Education, a source of news and information for college and university administration .
But is taking prescription drugs to perform on exams, or prepare presentations and grants, the same as injecting hormones to chase down a gold medal, or win the Tour de France- Some argue that such use could be worse, given the potentially deep impact on society.
And the behavior of academics in particular, as intellectual leaders, could serve as an example to others.
In his book ¡°Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution,¡¯¡¯ Francis Fukuyama raises the broader issue of performance enhancement: ¡°The original purpose of medicine is to heal the sick, not turn healthy people into gods.
¡¯¡¯ He and others point out that increased use of such drugs could raise the standard of what is considered ¡°normal¡¯¡¯ performance and widen the gap between those who have access to the medications and those who don¡¯t .
Others insist that academic performance is different in important ways from track and field, or cycling.
¡°I think the analogy with sports doping is really misleading, because in sports it¡¯s all about competition, only about who¡¯s the best runner or home run hitter,¡¯¡¯ said Martha Farah, director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania.
¡°In academics, whether you¡¯re a student or a researcher, there is an element of competition, but it¡¯s secondary.
The main purpose is to try to learn things, to get experience, to write papers, to do experiments.
So in that case if you can do it better because you¡¯ve got some drug on board, that would on the face of things seem like a plus.
¡¯¡¯ Surveys of college students in the United States have found that from 4 percent to 16 percent say they have used stimulants or other prescription drugs to improve their academic performance .
usually getting the pills from other students.
Jeffrey White, a graduate student in cell biology who has attended several institutions, said that those numbers sounded about right.
¡°You can usually tell who¡¯s using them because they can be angry, testy, hyperfocused, they don¡¯t want to be bothered,¡¯¡¯ he said.
Mr. White said he did not use the drugs himself, considering them an artificial shortcut that could set people up for problems later on.
Yet such objections can disappear when students and junior faculty members face other questions: What if I¡¯m derailed by a bad test score, or a mangled chemistry course- One person who posted anonymously on the Chronicle of Higher Education Web site said that a daily regimen of three 20- milligram doses of Adderall transformed his career: ¡°I¡¯m talking about being able to take on twice the responsibility, work twice as fast, write more effectively, manage better, be more attentive, devise better and more creative strategies.
¡¯¡¯ Dr. Anjan Chatterjee, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania who foresaw this debate in a 2004 paper, argues that the history of cosmetic surgery .
scorned initially as vain and unnatural but now mainstream as a form of self-improvement .
is a guide to predicting the trajectory of cosmetic neurology, as he calls it.
¡°We worship at the altar of progress, and to the demigod of choice,¡¯¡¯ Dr. Chatterjee said.
¡°Both are very strong undercurrents in the culture and the way this is likely to be framed is: ¡®Look, we want smart people to be as productive as possible to make everybody¡¯s lives better.
We want people performing at the max, and if that means using these medicines, then great, then we should be free to choose what we want as long as we¡¯re not harming someone.
¡¯ ¡°I¡¯m not taking that position, but we have this winner-take-all culture and that is the way it is likely to go.¡¯¡¯


?? ??? ??, ??? ??

???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????.
?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??? 2?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??. ???? ??????, ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ? ? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ??.
????? ? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??, ? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? 20???. ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ¡®????? ?? ??? ?????¡¯??? ????.
??? ??? ? ???, ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????
??? ?? ??? ?? ? ? ???? ???? ??? ??. ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ? ?? ????? ???? ? ? ??? ???.
???? ????? ??? ? ¡®????? ??: ???????? ??? ???¡¯?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???¡±? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????. ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ¡®???¡¯? ???? ??? ? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ? ?? ? ??? ???.
??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??. ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ¡°??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????¡±? ???. ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???, ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????, ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???, ????, ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????. ¡°?? ?? ?? ? ?? ? ??? ?????? ???? ????¡±
??? ????? ???? ? ??? 4~16%? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????, ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????.
??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ? ??? ?? ?? ? ??? ???. ¡°??? ???? ??? ?? ? ???, ?????, ???? ??? ???, ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???¡± ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???.
??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??. ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? 20?????? ???? ??? ?? ? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??. ¡°???? ? ?? ??? ??, ??? ?? ???, ?? ? ????? ??, ??? ? ???, ? ?? ??, ? ? ?????, ? ???? ??? ??? ? ?? ??? ????¡±
2004?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???. ? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????, ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???, ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???.
¡°??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ? ????¡±

doping (???) ??, ?? ?? ??(??)
academia ??
in some ways ?? ???, ???? ???
echo ?????, ???? ????
attention deficit disorder (????) ?? ?? ??
narcolepsy (??) (????) ?? ??
Tour de France?????? (???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??)
chase down ????
serve as an example ???? ??
track and field ?? ??
neuroscience ????
on the face of ?? ????, ????
about right ??
junior faculty members ???(??) ??
take on ??? ????
trajectory ??, ??
winner-take-all ??? ????? ??