I am glad someone got around to doing a mainstream profile of Sasha Shulgin, not that he is exactly going to be a darlng of the New York Times cognoscenti who will have read about him this weekend in the magazine section. Shulgin is the Johnny Appleseed of psychedelics, having seeded the mental landscape with hundreds of phenethylamines and tryptamines he has known and loved, all with the knowledge and even the esteem of the Food and Drug Authority. He is fond of saying that he has never done anything illegal, since his compounds only find their way to Schedule I long after he has synthesized (and he, his wife and his small study group have dosed themselves with) them. The tide may be turning, however. Schedule I is supposed to be for substances with abuse potential and no redeemable medical value, which is of course in the eye of the beholder. Recently Shulgin’s faith in the value of psychedelics has gotten perhaps its first mainstream chance of vindication, with FDA approval of several research studies into psychedelic-assisted treatments. MDMA, the unique and exciting ’empathogen’ for which he is perhaps the best known, got hijacked as the raver’s choice partying drug, of course, but seems to have particularly important therapeutic uses. Of course, that is what a cadre of dedicated psychonauts originally thought about LSD too — that it was a tool for serious intrapsychic exploration rather than a playtoy.

The article uses a curious incident to describe the origins of Shulgin’s interest in pharmacology, a 1944 incident in which he fell into a stupor after drinking a glass of orange juice the crystals at the bottom of which he was convinced were a sedative, although they turned out to have been undissolved sugar. Curious, because this incident depicts an important aspect of drug study but one for which Shulgin is not particularly known — the effect of expectancy in producing effects. One of my psychiatric mentors, the late Dr. Norman Zinberg, was fond of insisting that the experience of a drug was compounded of Drug, Set and Setting (the name of one of his most famous books) — the pharmacology of the substance, the mental expectations of the user, and the context in which it is taken. Shulgin’s interest has focused almost exclusively on Drug, although as the MDMA detour indicates, the effects one gets when one uses a substance with a thoughtful deliberative exploratory set and setting will probably be quite different from its use as a club drug.

This is an unusually sober appraisal of a controversial figure from the mainstream press. Research on the morbidity and mortality of Shulgin compounds is touched upon soberly, without the histrionics that usually suffuse such discussions. The author is circumspect about what he describes as Shulgin’s “fervent libertarianism with which he has inoculated himself against any sense of personal guilt” for the negative consequences of the use of drugs he has discovered. And, I know, I know, it is only fair to include the obligatory critique from representatives of the mainstream psychiatric establishment. But the comments from emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto Vivian Rakoff are particularly lame. He scoffs at the notion that a drug can create a revelatory moment. “Every few years, something comes along that claims to be what Freud called the ‘royal road to the unconscious’.” Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I am not aware of that phrase being evoked at any time since Freud used it around a century ago in reference to dreams; it has certainly not been used in reference to psychedelics, as far as I know. And one would be hard-pressed to dismiss out of hand the claims that psychedelic exploration could be revelatory given that the rigorous research has not heretofore been allowed. Still, the classicist got in his Freud reference, even if he misused the allusion prejudicially. Hey, come to think of it, psychoanalytic techniques have not proven themselves the royal road to the unconscious they were supposed to be, when subjected to empirical research.

Those interested in taking this issue further should dip into Shulgin’s two self-published memoirs/manuals, PiHKAL and TiKHAL, or the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics site.

“Antonin Scalia for chief justice. Seriously.” Nicholas Thompson, senior editor of Legal Affairs, argues in Slate that Scalia would not be a bad idea for the next chief justice. He argues that Scalia really isn’t half-bad on some issues; that the elevation to chief justice wouldn’t worsen his impact on the issues where he is a reactionary, e.g. a woman’s right to choose, because the chief justice’s job doesn’t mean that much anyway — while the chief justice has a slightly taller soapbox to preach from, he still only votes once; and because shrewd Democrats could horsetrade for his elevation and get an associate justice who is middle-of-the-road in return. Thompson’s central argument is that Scalia is smart and that his overarching ideology is “legal clarity.” The only attractive component of this argument, for me, is the idea of Democrats leveraging a moderate onto the court in return for Scalia’s promotion. But I have no confidence either in them pulling the weight to be able to pull it off, or in Bush and Co. letting it happen.

“Antonin Scalia for chief justice. Seriously.” Nicholas Thompson, senior editor of Legal Affairs, argues in Slate that Scalia would not be a bad idea for the next chief justice. He argues that Scalia really isn’t half-bad on some issues; that the elevation to chief justice wouldn’t worsen his impact on the issues where he is a reactionary, e.g. a woman’s right to choose, because the chief justice’s job doesn’t mean that much anyway — while the chief justice has a slightly taller soapbox to preach from, he still only votes once; and because shrewd Democrats could horsetrade for his elevation and get an associate justice who is middle-of-the-road in return. Thompson’s central argument is that Scalia is smart and that his overarching ideology is “legal clarity.” The only attractive component of this argument, for me, is the idea of Democrats leveraging a moderate onto the court in return for Scalia’s promotion. But I have no confidence either in them pulling the weight to be able to pull it off, or in Bush and Co. letting it happen.

“The universe is destined to end. Before it does, could an advanced civilisation escape via a ‘wormhole’ into a parallel universe? The idea seems like science fiction, but it is consistent with the laws of physics and biology.

I don’t know how much national attention this case is getting, but we are all over it here in Boston. There has, of course, already been alot of litigation arising from the Church sexual abuse scandal, but this one is a criminal trial, and I am of two minds about it. While sexual abusers should be held responsible and punished for their actions, the prosecution here is basing their case on an unreliable and suspect accuser, several other of Shanley’s alleged victims having withdrawn from the case in the weeks before the trial. While victims of abuse become chronically psychiatrically troubled, so too do suggestible psychiatrically troubled individuals sometimes ‘become’ victims of abuse in their minds and the minds of caregivers, prosecutors and others who have zealous investments in the reality of abuse. While traumatic memories are stored in a dissociated way, protectively inaccessible to the victim until recovered, it is also demonstrable that ‘recovered memories’ can be fictitious after-the-fact creations. Human memory is malleable and, in some instances, how convincing it is is matched by how unreliable it is. I wonder if we are going to see a monumental battle of expert witnesses around the recovered memory issue in the current case. The proponents of the view that these recovered memories are false and the adherents to the trauma model are often zealots who clash as cataclysmically — and unproductively — as any do when they argue about matters of faith. Shanley and his accuser will likely become damaged icons for polemical positions in a prodigious battle played out in the Cambridge courtroom.

Visions of hell from Hieronymus Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights and the like. Some find them ironic; that caricaturing the torments of hell made them less terrifying. Not I; these have always been the pure stuff of nightmare to me.

People are invited to send in postcards revealing their secrets, usually (but not invariably) shameful ones. A gallery of these postcards is posted here. Some of the secrets people keep are fairly predictable, but in other cases I am amazed about what people torture themselves over. I was intrigued by the Apologies Project of years past, which started before the weblogging phenomenon as a telephone answering system but made the transition to a weblog. People, as in PostSecret, anonymously reported a shameful secret they were harboring about how they had treated another, but the point was to render an apology. This served more of a purpose, IMHO, than simply posting the secret, although it is even more useful, of course, to face the person you have wronged without concealing your identity. I suppose these anonymous modes of expiation take their cue from the Catholic confessional. I am not a Catholic; if you believe in sin and the theological God, can you make amends with God for your sins without making amends with the person you have wronged?

“The Animaris Rhinoceros Transport is a type of animal with a steel skeleton and a polyester skin. It looks as if there is a thick layer of sand coating the animal. It weighes 2. tons, but can be set into motion by one person. It stands 4.70 meters tall. Because of its height it catches enough wind to start moving.

…The Animaris Rhinoceros Transport is a direct descendant of the Animari or Beach Animals. For fourteen years Theo Jansen has been working on creating a new life-form. These creatures consist of walking skeletons made out of yellow electricity tubes. These skeletons are wind powered. Over the years an evolution has occurred, which can be seen in the succeeding generations. Eventually he wants to put these animals on the beach where they will lead their own lives.

The Animaris Rhinoceros Transport is an offshoot of the Beach Animal evolution. It is equipped with passanger seating and can be used for transport. As a car is a transport vehicle to the horse and an airplane is a transport vehicle to the bird, so is the Animaris Rhinoceros Transport a transport vehicle to the Animaris (latin name for Beach Animal, see www.strandbeest.com). It is meant for crossing the tundra. Due to the fact that one must wait until strong wind comes from the right direction, living quarters must be made in the animal to make travel agreeable.”

(Be sure to download the short filmclip of the rhinoceros ambulating to get the full impact.)

And <a href=”http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66356,00.html

” title=””>here is a Wired article on Theo Jansen’s work. [thanks, abby]

A great piece about what was perhaps my favorite CD of 2004, The Arcade Fire’s Funeral. (The Village Voice)

Here is who is doing it:

And here is some of what they are doing:

And here is how it may play itself out:

Hersh doesn’t make this up, and I’m damned if I know why there has not already been an attempt on his life because of the secret administration hit list I am certain he is on.

If you read the mozillaZine feedHouse weblog, you will see one announcement after another. Why doesnt’ Google just come right out and take the Mozilla Project in-house lock stock and barrel?

Related? The Fifty Most Loathsome People of the Year, according to The Beast.

This item has a particular puissance for me here in Boston, where there is mounting community concern over Boston University’s plan to build a Biosafety-Level-4 laboratory in a crowded urban neighborhood, especially after the recent news that three BU researchers were infected with a lethal strain of tularemia they mistakenly thought was harmless. And this was reportedly not the first biosafety lapse at the BU lab. Proponents of highly risky science have always argued by cost-benefit ratio, but even if we can be assured that the probability of a risk is vanishingly low, aren’t there cases in which the potential magnitude of a disaster is almost infinitely high? In other words, when does the product of a number whose limit is zero and another whose limit is infinity tend toward zero, and when toward infinity? Moreover, the probability of risk often, to my mind, relies on the hubristic assumption that people and procedures can be infallible, when thre reality is quite the contrary — time and again, it seems, if a mistake can occur, it will.

Over the past year or so, German pranksters have placed miniature American flags in 2-3000 piles of dog excrement in public parks in what has been construed as a graphic protest against US policy in Iraq and, more recently, against Bush’s reelection. Police seek to catch the culprits red-handed (or… would it be brown?) even though “legal experts say there is no law against using faeces as a flag stand and the federal constitution is vague on the issue.” (Ananova)

Boing Boing’s David Pescovitz comments on an Ananova story about a man who has puzzled medical experts by being unable to sleep for the past twenty years. There are a series of follow-up posts listing novels about insomniac characters (many of whom seem to be private eyes). I would love to see some more detailed medical investigation of real-world insomniacs. Although the ultimate necessity of spending an average of a third of our lifespan asleep remains a mystery, we are garnering knowledge about the variety of necessary functions it serves, both in terms of cognitive housekeeping and tissue repair and restoration of physiological equilibrium. How does this guy function, on both interpersonal, psychological, and physiological levels?

I’m not sure, in any case, about the veracity of the Ananova story, given that there’s a machismo about not sleeping (perhaps because sleeplessness turns us into the worst caricature of macho??) and I often run into people who boast that they need less sleep than the rest of us. There is something culturally consonant about sleep deprivation, too, as society is more and more frenetic and productivity-driven. Performance in many fields (especially medicine; more about that below) seems to be measured at least partly by how long and how far and how fast one can go on. People in general sleep less than they used to, and we are intrigued by ‘alertness agents’ like modafinil (about the value of and concerns about which I have written here), which appear to treat fatigue and compensate for sleep deprivation with fewer consequences than stimulants of the amphetamine family.

There is also a separate but related allure of the wee small hours per se. I guess it is true of many children who are curious about what mysterious and magical things might happen after they are asleep, as I was. There was always a frisson, when I went to the zoo or the natural history museum, at seeing the somehow more eerie nocturnal creatures. And, in the 1931 film, one of my childhood favorites, Dracula’s ecstatic celebration of “the children of the night” as the air was suffused with the distant howls of wolves always sent a delicious chill up my spine. I began trying to stay up late as soon as I could tell time. I would sneak my transistor radio — if any of you know what those were — into bed and put it under my pillow (it was especially exciting when I finally got an earphone for it) and try to stay awake to break the magical barrier of midnight; it was a long time before I succeeded. Since then, I have always been a night owl, as you can tell from the timestamps on many of my posts here at FmH. I have never gotten over the romance of the middle of the night, both the stillness and aloneness, the cold hard clarity of a world reduced by starlight and moonlight to nocturnal hues, and the seedy quality of the covert activities that transpire, in reality or imagination, in the dark, beyond the ring of illumination thrown by our streetlights. Many of the insomniac characters in literature seem to enjoy walking deserted city streets in the middle of the night, and so too did I. There is an element of transgressing boundaries, the thrill of doing something forbidden, in being up when no one else is, when no one is supposed to be. One of the subliminal attractions of being sleeepless may also be that one challenges the Big Sleep, pushing to transgress the ultimate boundary at the end of life. It is a medical truism, by the way, that Death comes for people disproportionately in the wee hours. Perhaps I have always wanted to be staring her in the eye when she arrives. Sensuality, too, if of course intimately associated with the nocturnal.

“I’ll sleep when I’m dead,” Warren Zevon and others have said. One can cheat death too by packing more into life, I have thought, by spending more of one’s living hours as waking hours. For most of my life, I felt that I did not have the time to waste on sleeping, and (here comes that macho boast?) felt that I could get away for many days running with shorting myself on sleep if there was something compelling to read, write or watch instead. There is a sort of machismo associated with being able to function while sleep-deprived during medical training, when the sleep deprivation is, of course, outrageous and, I am convinced, gratuitous. Training directors, or caricatures of them, supposedly reason that decision-making skills are shaped, and character built, by sleep deprivation, and that “if it was good enough for me when I trained, it’s good enough for the new generation of whiners.” When there is an egregious medical error, like that which caused the celebrated death of Libby Zion in New York some years ago, there is anguished handwringing about the liability and morbidity caused by our proclivity for sleep-depriving medical house officers making life-or-death decisions, but it never seems to change anything. The real incentive the system has to make residents do round-the-clock shifts, of course, is not a training need at all; it is the easiest way to use the indentured servitude of medical residency to meet the manpower needs of a modern healthcare facility.

My acceptance of sleep deprivation during my medical school years had an added momentum, though. When I went through medical school, I was hellbent on not ‘becoming’ a doctor, in the sense of that being all there was to my identity forever after. It needed to be just one of the things I did in my life, not my defining attribute. That created an added impetus to stay up late to do other things after keeping up with the literature in my field, writing consultation reports, etc. And after my wife and I started a family, I also took to my parenting responsibilities by carving out the wee small hours for my other pursuits after a full day of being present and active as a father as well as a doctor.

There is an intimate relationship between sleep disruption and depression, as we know in psychiatric practice. Depressions come in sleepless and hypersomnic varieties. Part of the difference is surely biological, but people are also built differently in terms of their characteristic coping strategies. Some people are escapists, and may sleep more in an effort to avoid distress. (They also seem to be the ones, in my experience, who can can entertain thoughts of suicide for the purposes of relief or escapism, among the various purposes that suicide can serve in my patients’ psyches.) But, even for people who try to use sleep as an escape mechanism, I have long suspected that sleep can promote depression, and there is a body of literature supporting me, even speculating that some sort of depressogenic neurochemical is produced during sleep. Depressed patients often feel most depressed upon awakening and their mood improves as the day proceeds (so-called “diurnal mood variation”). If they take a daytime nap, they often face another period of renewed depression after they get up from the nap. Even if it is not biological, you can imagine how difficult it is to face depressing realities immediately upon awakening from a period of blissful ignorance. The possibility that sleep promotes depression has led to speculation that some people may be sleep-depriving themselves as a sort of inadvertent self-medication for depressive tendencies. In other words, is the sleeplessness of some depressions a consequence of, or an attempt at compensation for, the depressed mood? Noting that I tend to push my bedtime further when my mood is bluer, I have wondered as well. It may also be that those are the times it is more urgent to do more for myself.

It took me literally several decades to realize that burning the candle at both ends was making me far more impatient and irritable than I needed or wanted to be, and that sleep-depriving myself was not a free lunch. This dawned on me at approximately the same time as, studying the physiological necessity of sleep and the psychiatric consequences of sleep disruption, I began to take note of medical research showing that sleep deprivation shortened organisms’ lifespans. So, ironically, cheating death by shoe-horning more wakefulness into a fixed lifetime turns out not to be as simple as I had assumed. Of course, it is also well-known that sleep deprivation reduces cognitive efficiency in certain empirically measurable respects. So even if one is up more, one may end up paying for that quantity of waking hours with quality. Moreover, I realized, sleep deprivation is cumulative; the commonsense notion that you can pay back your deficit by ‘sleeping in’ the next weekend doesn’t work. If you are supposed to sleep eight hours a night, let’s say, you can’t go three nights in a row with four hours a night and then erase the damage with a twenty-hour night’s sleep.

One of the other skills I developed as a medical resident on call was the ability to rapidly return to sleep after I had dealt with a challenge in the middle of the night. It was never as extreme for me as for some of my colleagues, however, who could seemingly conduct their on-call duties without waking up fully at all. One of my friends, a surgical resident, eventually learned that she was managing many of her patients’ problems — always clinically appropriately, to hear her tell it — over the phone in the middle of the night without remembering what she had done when her surgical team did morning rounds on the patients the next day. She finally arranged for the hospital operator who paged her to listen in on the calls and take notes about what orders she issued. She would swing by the switchboard in the morning, before rounds, and use the notes as a cribsheet when reporting on the care she had given the night before. (I don’t know if this was a liability or an adaptive strategy to her work as a surgeon; she has since gone into a different field of medicine. Dream on…)

So now I want to sleep more. Now that I realize it is not necessarily desireable to short myself so much on sleep, when I am awakened in the middle of the night by my beeper going off from the hospital, I want to get back to sleep again as soon as I have dealt with the call. But, in middle age, I am finding, ironically, that I can no longer get back to sleep rapidly. If I am awakened, I am typically going to be up for at least a couple of hours. Of course, I could do something boring and soporific with the time, to hasten my return to sleep, but it still sticks in my craw to waste wakefulness. So some of the middle-of-the-night FmH entries you will see these days are, in a sense, under duress. Enjoy them anyway; I do. I still do some of my clearest thinking in the holy stillness, or at least so I imagine.

Andrew Sullivan on Abu Ghraib:

I had missed this essay, originally published on the front page of the New York Times Book Review. I have long been a proponent of a take similar to Sullivan’s about how the rhetoric about the war and the duplicitous shaping — from the top — of the American attitide about Iraqis, terrorists, and other poorly differentiated spooks created a culture in which these atrocities could happen. I differ with Sullivan on one account, which is his assertion that those who “unwittingly made this torture possible” were not as guilty as those who inflicted it. First of all, it is hard for me to see how it was “unwitting.” And secondly, decisions from the president and the upper echelon of his administration henchmen not only “made the torture possible” but essentially mandated it. Early in the essay, Sullivan is unsure whether to take solace in the fact that the torture occurred in a free society where the chilling evidence of it was able to come to light.

I am afraid that the pieties about the persistence of freedom in America are gross self-deception. Free expression and inquiry are the merest, illusory, window-dressing on a society that permits such atrocity as a matter of policy, fails to make a meaningful inquiry into or condemnation of the abuses, and reelects those responsible, enabling them to claim a ‘mandate’ for business as usual. What did the American people do other than stand by and shake their heads in the face of the war crimes committed in their name, and allow ourselves to be sated by the punishment of some sacrificial lambs? The failure to make the atrocities, and the similar demonization of those we hold prisoner in Guantanamo, Afghanistan (and God knows what other places around the world we have not even heard of), a core campaign issue was scandalous. The moral failures involved must be kept in the forefront of American consciousness if those who act in our name are to be prevented from permitting and encouraging further atrocities.

Not one damn mention of his name here today, you will notice.

Circadiana is a new weblog devoted to sleep and chronobiology, for your late might surfing enjoyment. [via MetaFilter]

Salon‘s reviewer finds Gladwell’s Blink more entertaining than important. I beg to differ; this is sort of like how hypnotism, while elucidating profound and basic principles of human cognition and volition, has often been thought of as a mere parlor game. The extent to which we can stand to learn alot about our implicit assumptions, about how we often make decisions on very different bases than we think we do, and how we can learn to accept and utilize such intuitions, cannot be underestimated. An important segment of the review, for example, is a convincing argument, supported by much social psychological research (perhaps my social psychologist friend Dennis Fox will have some amplifying comments if he reads this on his return from the Middle East), that our racial biases go deeper than we suspect, even if we are convinced we are not racist. (Of course, although it has social psychological implications, at base this is a cognitive-psychological exploration.)

As walker reminded me, there is a website where you can take Implicit Assumption Tests to root our your hidden biases and automatic preferences, but be careful. For those who, unlike mental health professionals, have not embraced the idea of the ubiquity of unconscious influences on our perceptions, appraisals and choices, it can be quite alarming to recognize how far away from the ideal of rationality and control over our thinking we really operate. That is the impact I hope Gladwell’s book may have, now that he is a hip sexy trendsetter author.

…and it’s orange! (Yahoo News!)

“Ever wonder what happened to: Eddie The Eagle? The chick who shot Andy Warhol? That ‘Mikey’ kid from the Life Cereal commercial? Well you’ve come to the right place, this is where we track the has-beens, the flash-in-the-pans and those pseudo-celebrities who were all too annoying during their 15 measly minutes.”

Our government becomes more and more an outlandish caricature of a ludicrous semblance of a contemptible simulacrum of democratic process. [Sorry, I seem to be compelled to use the same adjectives over and over again. Probably the only one in the previous sentence that doesn’t really apply is ‘democratic’…]

Meek, mild (and white) Brooklyn resident Russell Jones encounters the Ol’ Dirty Bastard. (New Yorker)

They have also

They have also

This is circulating widely via email. I’m reposting it here in FmH’s role as a community bulletin board (or, some might say, a spam amplifier).

A collection of links to amateur videos of the tsunami, of variable quality. Since I do not watch TV news, I hadn’t experienced the visual impact until I watched some of these. There is a link at the page to donate to Red Cross disaster relief, if you haven’t already given all you can.

“Adam’s only chore in the Garden of Eden was naming the beasts and birds. The book of Genesis doesn’t tell us whether he found this task difficult or burdensome, but today the need to name and number things has become a major nuisance.” (American Scientist via abby)

Sen. Barbara Boxer explains “why she felt compelled to object to the certification of Ohio’s electoral votes.” (AlterNet)

Astronomy Picture of the Day: “A mere 6,000 light-years distant and sailing through the constellation Vela, star cluster RCW 38 is full of powerful stars. It’s no surprise that these stars, only a million years young with hot outer atmospheres, appear as point-like x-ray sources dotting this x-ray image from the orbiting Chandra Observatory. But the diffuse cloud of x-rays surrounding them is a bit mysterious… (A) source of energetic electrons, such as shockwaves from exploding stars (supernova remnants), or rotating neutron stars (pulsars), is not apparent in the Chandra data. Whatever their origins, the energetic particles could leave an imprint on planetary systems forming in young star cluster RCW 38, just as nearby energetic events seem to have affected the chemistry and isotopes found in our own solar system.”

Oh, White Noise is not from the Don DeLillo novel??

And could this — ‘surreality’; ‘celebreality’ — be the death throes of reality TV? Not to make too much of this over-the-top, unbelievable spectacle, but in a country that can elect George W. Bush president, it is no wonder they think they can get away with exploiting the American public’s credulity to this extent. Nothing can be taken as an insult to our national intelligence any longer…

An array of brain-boosting medications — some available and others in development — promise an era of better thinking through chemistry. New potential mind-enhancing drugs may bring more powerful, more targeted and more lasting improvements in mental acuity than the rudimentary cognition boosters — e.g. amphetamines — with which many are familiar from college all-nighters or long-haul drives.

The last two decades’ neuroscience discoveries about localization of brain functions and delineation of the roles of various neurotransmitters, with the ‘deep pockets’ of the US military’s vested interest in enhancement of pilots’ and soldiers’ combat functions under stress and fatigue, have created an unprecedented climate for the development of these agents. Aging baby boomers are an enormous potential market for the brain enhancing chemicals.

Modafinil, whose approved indication is to treat narcolepsy, may be the first ‘smart drug’. It is not clear by what mechanism it combats fatigue, but it appears to enhance mental functioning even in healthy nonfatigued subjects, with little in the way of complications or side effects. Research subjects who have takenmodafinil pay closer attention and use information more effectively than subjects given a placebo. Faced with conflicting demands, people on modafinil shift from task to task and alter their cognitive strategies more efficiently.

Some speculate that the use of cognition-enhancing drugs will become as commonplace as having a cup of coffee, ushering in an era of ‘cosmetic neurology’. But neuroscientists say two factors could prevent total capitulation to the allure of smart drugs. First, their performance may not live up to expectations. This is a common phenomenon in science — a statistically significant effect is not necessarily significant enough in the real world. And, second, ‘There is no free lunch.’ Again, as is often true in clinical drug development, the extent of complications from the real-world use of these drugs may not be apparent from the outset. A drug that causes users to remember too much detail could clutter the brain with irrelevancies. Sharpening attention might cause excessively intense focus, making it more difficult to shift attention with new demands. In short, someone who notices or remembers everything may end up understanding nothing.

One skeptical psychologist commented:

“The brain was designed by evolution over the millennia to be well-adapted because of the lives we lead. Our lives are better served by being able to focus on the essential information than being able to remember every little detail. We meddle with these designs at our peril.” (LA Times)

A Neurobiological Diagnosis With Aesthetic, Cultural and Philosophic Implications (University of London, Saturday 15th, and Sunday 16th, January 2005) :

If you have any interest in this, you can scroll down the page and read the abstracts of the conference presentations. Neurologist Peter Brugger, for example, “(tries) to delineate the scope of a proper ‘phantomology’ (Stanislaw Lem) whose aim is to study the virtual reality of bodily awareness – from phantom limb to phantom body.”

Harvard psychoanalyst Arnold Modell finds the creation of the unreal phantom limb intriguingly analogous to the process of the construction of the (equally unreal) self and its agency. And neuropsychologist Chris Frith sees the phenomenon as a paradigm of the brain’s mechanisms for the active construction of reality.

Artist Andrew Patrizio asks, “Am I, like others, (ab)using the phenomenon like many other intellectual and cultural activists? Phantom limbs are typical of many flowing and contested scientific discourses around at the moment, whose very elusiveness and ambiguity seems attractive in a multi-disciplinary kind of way. Rather than studying phantom limbs per se, I am currently asking – Does the exhibition as a format deal well with such subjects of an unsolved nature? Would my interest as a curator diminish if an explanatory model were accepted? How are artists working with the mystery, symbolism and science of phantom limbs, erecting a platform for creativity without dismantling the enigma?” Patrizio propounded an artistic expression of the phantom limb phenomenon by having an exhibition which hung no art (stipulating artists from whom works would not be borrowed).

Artist Nicola Diamond considers bodily expression as a culturally specific form of language and wonders how phantom limb would be experienced cross-culturally; there is little evidence of the phenomena in cross-cultural work. Novelist Stuart Brisley relates phantom limb to body dysmorphic disorder. Photographic artist Janet Sternberg finds phantom limb a potent metaphor as well. “Each of us has the condition, someone or something no longer with us who nonetheless continues — for better and for worse — to feel part of us.”

And UCLA philosopher Eleanor Kaufman explores Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception through the apposition of phantom limb — a sensation that an absent body part is still present — and one of my professional interests, anosognosia — the sensation that a present body part is absent. (I find the neurological phenomenon of anosognosia an analogy for some aspects of my patients’ constricted awarenes of themselves and the world.)

From the New York Times science section, this article explained much about which I had been curious. It starts out with the commonplace:

But it rapidly goes to the astounding:

And:

And, although others dispute the science behind this prediction:

You know how, once you notice something, all of a sudden you see it everywhere? I just stumbled upon this fascinating weblog written by an EMT working for the London Ambulance Service, and now I notice that numerous and disparate people are linking to it.

Remember the analysis of photos showing bulges in his suit suggesting that Bush was being fed his debate lines through a wireless link? This site concludes that Bush’s equipment is actually a ‘Lifevest’ wearable defibrillator. Like his father, Bush may have atrial fibrillation, a cardiac arrhythmia that can cause syncopal episodes (fainting spells; recall the famous Bush ‘pretzel-choking’ episode in January, 2002?) as well as cerebrovascular accidents (strokes or mini-strokes), some of which might account for Bush’s apparent cognitive deficits and psychological instability. One sign of a possible stroke is a facial droop, which Bush appears to demonstrate at times and which may, it is suggested, be the reason we find him sneering. [I think however it is more likely that Bush sneers because he is simply a haughty, inadequate and contemptuous man… — FmH]

For good measure, the post throws in some speculation about hyperthyroidism (Graves’ Disease) — which is the likely cause of his father’s atrial fibrillation — and Wernicke-Korsakoff’s Syndrome — essentially cognitive deterioration from chronic alcohol abuse — that I find less compelling. The piece also invokes the scurrilous ‘psychoanalysis’ of Bush by Washington analyst Dr. Justin Frank, about which I have previously posted. I joined many others in the psychiatric community in condemning Dr Frank’s conclusions about Bush’s psychopathology as irresponsible and unethical but — hear me out here — there is a good rational for raising concerns about behavioral observations, given that the President’s actions are in the public domain. The post makes an interesting case that some of these observations could be accounted for by cerebrovascular cognitive impairments.

As the poster concludes, only Bush’s doctors know for sure. As I have said before, just as the results of the President’s annual physical exam are made public, so too should a comprehensive annual ‘mental status’ evaluation bearing on his emotional and cognitive functioning. Despite doctor-patient privilege, the potential consequences of behavioral or cognitive impairment of the man in the Oval Office demand that the Presidential physicians level with the public about aspects of his health that could affect his public functions. Barring that, their responsibility demands at least that they privately steer him out of office if they find him substantially impaired. Who here has any confidence that the fact that the people around Bush have not done so indicates that he is not in fact impaired and that we can rest easy that his hand is on the trigger?

A US physicist fed up with having to revise his course schedule due dates every year proposes a 364-day year, which means every date falls on the same day of the week every year. A ‘leap-week’ unattached to any month is added every five to six years. Many months would have different lengths than they now do. To answer expected criticism from people whose birthdays are ‘stuck’ on an undesireable day of the week, he gives us all permission to celebrate our birthdays on the weekend before or after their actual date. (New Scientist)

The article is actually talking about just one crazy idea on one weblog; but, hey, The New York Times knows a trend when they see one, and don’t stand in their way! The article does laud, however, the self-correcting nature of weblogging reality, in which the accumulation of readers’ comments is (usually) precipitated by a crackpot post. Except, of course, on FmH, which operates off in its own little corner of the universe in defiance of consensus reality, unperturbed…