h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Modafinil is a cognitive enhancer. It increases your ability to focus on work and reduces the need for sleep. Like every single other drug in the world ever, it is not 100% safe.

Sabisky got in trouble for (among all the other things) suggesting that "From a societal perspective the benefits of giving everyone modafinil once a week are probably worth a dead kid once a year".

Would it be controversial to say "from a societal perspective the benefits of everyone getting cheap/free dental treatment on the NHS is probably worth a dead person every couple of weeks"? No? Because those are the facts - a couple of dozen people every year die at the dentists. It's worth it. it obviously sucks if that person is your or your child, but on a societal level we judge the tiny risk acceptable.

And all Sabisky said is that the tiny risk of modafinil is acceptable given what he perceives as its positive benefits.

Did ANYONE rationally debate this? Not that I've seen. What IS the risk? I don't know. What ARE the benefits? I don't know. All I know is this guy expressed an opinion and the papers caught fire.

And now he's left his job. He'd be justified in blaming moronic snowflakes for jerking their knees.

This is not the way to beat the Right, this is the way to prove to them that they're right.

Increasing the focus on work, and reducing the need for sleep? Somewhat similar claims have been made for caffeine and nicotine. (I say "somewhat," because people under the influence of these drugs *think* they need less sleep, when what is really going on is that their need may not have changed at all. They just think they don't need as much sleep. ?)

A reality check would be good in this discussion.

I hadn't heard about modafinil before, and I hope it won't become so ubiquitous that I have to spend lots of time researching the competing claims for it. I do try to judge the pros and cons; it's just that an awful lot of things seem to need scrutiny .

"Somewhat similar claims have been made for caffeine and nicotine"

Not really. For instance: caffeine and nicotine aren't issued to US Air Force pilots and astronauts on the ISS to "optimise performance while fatigued". Modafinil is.

It has low potential for addiction and by the standards of many drugs pretty minor and tolerable side effects which in any case affect only a small minority of users.

Battleday and Brem (2015) found "modafinil appears to consistently engender enhancement of attention, executive functions, and learning. Importantly, we did not observe any preponderances for side effects or mood changes".

On that basis, Sabisky's statement that the societal benefits would outweigh one dead kid a year would seem to me to be valid.

The longterm effects of caffeine and nicotine have been observed over a much longer span of time than those of Modafinil, which was introduced in 1998. A society composed of pilots and astronauts might benefit. I'm retired, I get exactly the right mount of sleep, and I know when my biorhythms are lined up for best concentration. No one will fire me for sleeping on the job .

So, I'm just being cautious here.

I see here that it is now deemed safe for widespread use
http://qz.com/485020/the-worlds-first-true-smart-drug-enhances-cognition-and-is-deemed-safe-by-health-experts/

again,. I don't need it, and I hope it really is as safe as the testers think it is. Students in the U.S. and U.K. seem to use it the most heavily. Fifty years from now, will those students find longterm problems that we can't yet know about?