The Los Angeles Times has an article this week on pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement. The drugs mentioned are Provigil, Ritalin, Adderall, and a new drug Aricept.

Money quote:

There are not too many occupations where it's really good to be dumb.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 03:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

When I was contemplating an onboard robo-doctor last year, I was envisioning a surgically implanted device:

Such a device could become an onboard doctor, pharmacy, and drug manufacturer. It could diagnose a problem, prescribe a solution, manufacture, and release. Perhaps it could also insure that you get perfect nutrition from a less-than-perfect diet.

It's too good an idea not to be invented. But surgically implanted devices are problematic. Any malfunction would tend to require surgery to fix – even replacing batteries would be a problem. Fortunately there's a better idea being worked on.

IntelliDrug is an IST Program project to develop a device for controlled drug delivery that is the size of a tooth (it may be as large as several molars). The IntelliDrug device would be implanted in the mouth of a patient, where it could provide regular, measured doses of medication. The IntelliDrug micro-system will consist of the following elements:

• a medication release mechanism
• built-in microprocessor for decision-making and dosage program
• micro-sensors capable of determining concentration of selected medications in the blood stream.
• micro-actuators to release standard quantities of medication
• a reservoir for selected medications
• Full dentition (chewing surface) maintained.

The IntelliDrug device will work with a remote control to inform the patient and physician if the drug container needs to be refilled. The medication from the device can either enter the oral cavity and mix with saliva to be swallowed by the patient, or can be administered directly into the patient's bloodstream via the "root" of the tooth.

Brilliant. The system I was thinking about would have to manufacture (presumably via an onboard nanofactory) necessary medicines. Since a tooth could be easily replaced periodically, it would just hold and dispense medicine. Spooky nanotech would not be needed.

This is personalized medicine. Periodically you'd go to your pharmacist to replace your teeth. You turn in the old teeth to be refilled/recharged.

And why not make one tooth a cellphone, MP3 player, and onboard Internet connection?

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

No, not that kind.

The other kind, where the value of scientific research is measured by its alignment with a political agenda. I'm glad to see that it's being challenged in the field of climate research. And I'm disturbed to see that it's gaining ground in other areas:

IF CANNABIS were unknown, and bioprospectors were suddenly to find it in some remote mountain crevice, its discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would praise its potential for treating everything from pain to cancer, and marvel at its rich pharmacopoeia—many of whose chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body. In reality, cannabis has been with humanity for thousands of years and is considered by many governments (notably America's) to be a dangerous drug without utility. Any suggestion that the plant might be medically useful is politically controversial, whatever the science says. It is in this context that, on April 20th, America's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a statement saying that smoked marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

The statement is curious in a number of ways. For one thing, it overlooks a report made in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), part of the National Academy of Sciences, which came to a different conclusion. John Benson, a professor of medicine at the University of Nebraska who co-chaired the committee that drew up the report, found some sound scientific information that supports the medical use of marijuana for certain patients for short periods—even for smoked marijuana.

Please note that while I am personally not a pot advocate, the quoted story questioning the FDA's judgment in this case comes from that most subversive of all hippie rags, The Economist.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)