Date: 12/7/2008
By MALCOLM RITTER
AP Science Writer
NEW YORK (AP) — Healthy people should have the right to boost their brains with pills, like those prescribed for hyperactive kids or memory-impaired older folks, several scientists contend in a provocative commentary.
College students are already illegally taking prescription stimulants like Ritalin to help them study, and demand for such drugs is likely to grow elsewhere, they say.
“We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function,” and doing it with pills is no more morally objectionable than eating right or getting a good night’s sleep, these experts wrote in an opinion piece published online Sunday by the journal Nature.
The commentary calls for more research and a variety of steps for managing the risks.
As more effective brain-boosting pills are developed, demand for them is likely to grow among middle-aged people who want youthful memory powers and multitasking workers who need to keep track of multiple demands, said one commentary author, brain scientist Martha Farah of the University of Pennsylvania.
“Almost everybody is going to want to use it,” said Farah.
“I would be the first in line if safe and effective drugs were developed that trumped caffeine,” another author, Michael Gazzaniga of the University of California, Santa Barbara, declared in an e-mail.
The seven authors, from the United States and Britain, include ethics experts and the editor-in-chief of Nature as well as scientists. They developed their case at a seminar funded by Nature and Rockefeller University in New York. Two authors said they consult for pharmaceutical companies; Farah said she had no such financial ties.
Some health experts agreed that the issue deserves attention. But the commentary didn’t impress Leigh Turner of the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics.
“It’s a nice puff piece for selling medications for people who don’t have an illness of any kind,” Turner said.
The commentary cites a 2001 survey of about 11,000 American college students that found 4 percent had used prescription stimulants illegally in the prior year. But at some colleges, the figure was as high as 25 percent.
“It’s a felony, but it’s being done,” said Farah.
The stimulants Adderall and Ritalin are prescribed mainly for people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but they can help other people focus their attention and handle information in their heads, the commentary says.
Another drug called Provigil is approved for sleep disorders but is also prescribed for healthy people who need to stay alert when sleep-deprived, the commentary says. Lab studies show it can also perk up the brains of well-rested people. And some drugs developed for Alzheimer’s disease also provide a modest memory boost, it says.
Ritalin is made by Switzerland-based Novartis AG, but the drug is also available generically. Adderall is made by U.K.-based Shire PLC and Montvale, N.J.-based Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., and some formulations are also available generically. Provigil is made by Cephalon Inc. of Frazer, Pa.
While supporting the concept that healthy adults should be able to use brain-boosting drugs, the authors called for:
—More research into the use, benefits and risks of such drugs. Much is unknown about the current medications, such as the risk of dependency when used for this purpose, the commentary said.
—Policies to guard against people being coerced into taking them.
—Steps to keep the benefits from making socio-economic inequalities worse.
—Action by doctors, educators and others to develop policies on the use of such drugs by healthy people.
—Legislative action to allow drug companies to market the drugs to healthy people if they meet regulatory standards for safety and effectiveness.
Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said she agreed with the commentary that the nonprescribed use of brain-boosting drugs must be studied.
But she said she was concerned that wider use of stimulants could lead more people to become addicted to them. That’s what happened decades ago when they were widely prescribed for a variety of disorders, she said.
“Whether we like it or not, that property of stimulants is not going to go away,” she said.
Erik Parens, a senior research scholar at the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank in Garrison, N.Y., said the commentary makes a convincing case that “we ought to be opening this up for public scrutiny and public conversation.”
One challenge will be finding ways to protect people against subtle coercion to use the drugs, the kind of thing parents feel when neighbor kids sign up for SAT prep courses, he said.
And if the nation moves to providing a basic package of health care to all its citizens, it’s hard to see how it could afford to include brain-boosting drugs, he said. If they have to be bought separately, it raises the question about promoting societal inequalities, he said.
___
On the Net:
Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Nap without guilt: It boosts sophisticated memory
Date: 11/24/2008
By LAURAN NEERGAARD
AP Medical Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Just in time for the holidays, some medical advice most people will like: Take a nap.
Interrupting sleep seriously disrupts memory-making, compelling new research suggests. But on the flip side, taking a nap may boost a sophisticated kind of memory that helps us see the big picture and get creative.
“Not only do we need to remember to sleep, but most certainly we sleep to remember,” is how Dr. William Fishbein, a cognitive neuroscientist at the City University of New York, put it at a meeting of the Society for Neuroscience last week.
Good sleep is a casualty of our 24/7 world. Surveys suggest few adults attain the recommended seven to eight hours a night.
Way too little clearly is dangerous: Sleep deprivation causes not just car crashes but all sorts of other accidents. Over time, a chronic lack of sleep can erode the body in ways that leave us more vulnerable to heart disease, diabetes and other illnesses.
But perhaps more common than insomnia is fragmented sleep — the easy awakening that comes with aging, or, worse, the sleep apnea that afflicts millions, who quit breathing for 30 seconds or so over and over throughout the night.
Indeed, scientists increasingly are focusing less on sleep duration and more on the quality of sleep, what’s called sleep intensity, in studying how sleep helps the brain process memories so they stick. Particularly important is “slow-wave sleep,” a period of very deep sleep that comes earlier than better-known REM sleep, or dreaming time.
Fishbein suspected a more active role for the slow-wave sleep that can emerge even in a power nap. Maybe our brains keep working during that time to solve problems and come up with new ideas. So he and graduate student Hiuyan Lau devised a simple test: documenting relational memory, where the brain puts together separately learned facts in new ways.
First, they taught 20 English-speaking college students lists of Chinese words spelled with two characters — such as sister, mother, maid. Then half the students took a nap, being monitored to be sure they didn’t move from slow-wave sleep into the REM stage.
Upon awakening, they took a multiple-choice test of Chinese words they’d never seen before. The nappers did much better at automatically learning that the first of the two-pair characters in the words they’d memorized earlier always meant the same thing — female, for example. So they also were more likely than non-nappers to choose that a new word containing that character meant “princess” and not “ape.”
“The nap group has essentially teased out what’s going on,” Fishbein concludes.
These students took a 90-minute nap, quite a luxury for most adults. But even a 12-minute nap can boost some forms of memory, adds Dr. Robert Stickgold of Harvard Medical School.
Conversely, Wisconsin researchers briefly interrupted nighttime slow-wave sleep by playing a beep — just loudly enough to disturb sleep but not awaken — and found those people couldn’t remember a task they’d learned the day before as well as people whose slow-wave sleep wasn’t disrupted.
That brings us back to fragmented sleep, whether from aging or apnea. It can suppress the birth of new brain cells in the hippocampus, where memory-making begins — enough to hinder learning weeks after sleep returns to normal, warns Dr. Dennis McGinty of the University of California, Los Angeles.
To prove a lasting effect, McGinty mimicked human sleep apnea in rats. He hooked them to brain monitors and made them sleep on a treadmill. Whenever the monitors detected 30 seconds of sleep, the treadmill briefly switched on. After 12 days of this sleep disturbance, McGinty let the rats sleep peacefully for as long as they wanted for the next two weeks.
The catch-up sleep didn’t help: Rested rats used room cues to quickly learn the escape hole in a maze. Those with fragmented sleep two weeks earlier couldn’t, only randomly stumbling upon the escape.
None of the new work is enough, yet, to pinpoint the minimum sleep needed for optimal memory. What’s needed may vary considerably from person to person.
“A short sleeper may have a very efficient deep sleep even if they sleep only four hours,” notes Dr. Chiara Cirellia of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
But altogether, the findings do suggest some practical advice: Get apnea treated. Avoid what Harvard’s Stickgold calls “sleep bulimia,” super-late nights followed by sleep-in weekends. And don’t feel guilty for napping.
___
EDITOR’S NOTE — Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By LAURAN NEERGAARD
AP Medical Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Just in time for the holidays, some medical advice most people will like: Take a nap.
Interrupting sleep seriously disrupts memory-making, compelling new research suggests. But on the flip side, taking a nap may boost a sophisticated kind of memory that helps us see the big picture and get creative.
“Not only do we need to remember to sleep, but most certainly we sleep to remember,” is how Dr. William Fishbein, a cognitive neuroscientist at the City University of New York, put it at a meeting of the Society for Neuroscience last week.
Good sleep is a casualty of our 24/7 world. Surveys suggest few adults attain the recommended seven to eight hours a night.
Way too little clearly is dangerous: Sleep deprivation causes not just car crashes but all sorts of other accidents. Over time, a chronic lack of sleep can erode the body in ways that leave us more vulnerable to heart disease, diabetes and other illnesses.
But perhaps more common than insomnia is fragmented sleep — the easy awakening that comes with aging, or, worse, the sleep apnea that afflicts millions, who quit breathing for 30 seconds or so over and over throughout the night.
Indeed, scientists increasingly are focusing less on sleep duration and more on the quality of sleep, what’s called sleep intensity, in studying how sleep helps the brain process memories so they stick. Particularly important is “slow-wave sleep,” a period of very deep sleep that comes earlier than better-known REM sleep, or dreaming time.
Fishbein suspected a more active role for the slow-wave sleep that can emerge even in a power nap. Maybe our brains keep working during that time to solve problems and come up with new ideas. So he and graduate student Hiuyan Lau devised a simple test: documenting relational memory, where the brain puts together separately learned facts in new ways.
First, they taught 20 English-speaking college students lists of Chinese words spelled with two characters — such as sister, mother, maid. Then half the students took a nap, being monitored to be sure they didn’t move from slow-wave sleep into the REM stage.
Upon awakening, they took a multiple-choice test of Chinese words they’d never seen before. The nappers did much better at automatically learning that the first of the two-pair characters in the words they’d memorized earlier always meant the same thing — female, for example. So they also were more likely than non-nappers to choose that a new word containing that character meant “princess” and not “ape.”
“The nap group has essentially teased out what’s going on,” Fishbein concludes.
These students took a 90-minute nap, quite a luxury for most adults. But even a 12-minute nap can boost some forms of memory, adds Dr. Robert Stickgold of Harvard Medical School.
Conversely, Wisconsin researchers briefly interrupted nighttime slow-wave sleep by playing a beep — just loudly enough to disturb sleep but not awaken — and found those people couldn’t remember a task they’d learned the day before as well as people whose slow-wave sleep wasn’t disrupted.
That brings us back to fragmented sleep, whether from aging or apnea. It can suppress the birth of new brain cells in the hippocampus, where memory-making begins — enough to hinder learning weeks after sleep returns to normal, warns Dr. Dennis McGinty of the University of California, Los Angeles.
To prove a lasting effect, McGinty mimicked human sleep apnea in rats. He hooked them to brain monitors and made them sleep on a treadmill. Whenever the monitors detected 30 seconds of sleep, the treadmill briefly switched on. After 12 days of this sleep disturbance, McGinty let the rats sleep peacefully for as long as they wanted for the next two weeks.
The catch-up sleep didn’t help: Rested rats used room cues to quickly learn the escape hole in a maze. Those with fragmented sleep two weeks earlier couldn’t, only randomly stumbling upon the escape.
None of the new work is enough, yet, to pinpoint the minimum sleep needed for optimal memory. What’s needed may vary considerably from person to person.
“A short sleeper may have a very efficient deep sleep even if they sleep only four hours,” notes Dr. Chiara Cirellia of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
But altogether, the findings do suggest some practical advice: Get apnea treated. Avoid what Harvard’s Stickgold calls “sleep bulimia,” super-late nights followed by sleep-in weekends. And don’t feel guilty for napping.
___
EDITOR’S NOTE — Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Brain’s reaction to yummy food may predict weight
Date: 10/16/2008 2:04 PM
By LAURAN NEERGAARD
AP Medical Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Drink a milkshake and the pleasure center in your brain gets a hit of happy — unless you’re overweight.
It sounds counterintuitive. But scientists who watched young women savor milkshakes inside a brain scanner concluded that when the brain doesn’t sense enough gratification from food, people may overeat to compensate.
The small but first-of-a-kind study even could predict who would pile on pounds during the next year: Those who harbored a gene that made their brain’s yum factor even more sluggish.
“The more blunted your response to the milkshake taste, the more likely you are to gain weight,” said Dr. Eric Stice, a senior scientist at the Oregon Research Institute who led the work, published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
A healthy diet and plenty of exercise are the main factors in whether someone is overweight. But scientists have long known that genetics also play a major role in obesity — and one big culprit is thought to be dopamine, the brain chemical that’s key to sensing pleasure.
Eating can temporarily boost dopamine levels. Previous brain scans have suggested that the obese have fewer dopamine receptors in their brains than lean people. And a particular gene version, called Taq1A1, is linked to fewer dopamine receptors.
“This paper takes it one step farther,” said Dr. Nora Volkow of the National Institutes of Health, a dopamine specialist who has long studied the obesity link. “It takes the gene associated with greater vulnerability for obesity and asks the question why. What is it doing to the way the brain is functioning that would make a person more vulnerable to compulsively eat food and become obese?”
It’s “very elegant work,” she added.
First, Stice’s team had to figure out how to study the brain’s immediate reactions to food. Moving inside an MRI machine skews its measurements, which ruled out letting the women slurp up the milkshakes. Yale University neuroscientist Dana Small solved that problem, with a special syringe that would squirt a small amount of milkshake or, for comparison, a tasteless solution into the mouth without study participants moving. They were told when to swallow, so researchers could coordinate the scans with that small motion.
Then they recruited volunteers, 43 female college students ages 18 to 22 and 33 teenagers, ages 14 to 18. Body mass index calculations showed the young women spanned the range from very skinny to obese.
Brain scanning showed that a key region called the dorsal striatum — a dopamine-rich pleasure center — became active when they tasted the milkshake, but not when they tasted the comparison liquid that just mimicked saliva.
Yet that brain region was far less active in overweight people than in lean people, and in those who carry that A1 gene variant, the researchers reported. Moreover, women with that gene version were more likely to gain weight over the coming year.
It’s a small study with few gene carriers, and thus must be verified, Volkow stressed.
Still, it could have important implications. Volkow, who heads NIH’s National Institute of Drug Abuse, notes that “dopamine is not just about pleasure.” It also plays a role in conditioning — dopamine levels affect drug addiction — and the ability to control impulses.
She wonders if instead of overeating to compensate for the lack of pleasure — Stice’s conclusion — the study really might show that these people with malfunctioning dopamine in fact eat because they’re impulsive.
Regardless, most people’s tongues find a milkshake quite tasty; the brain reaction is subconscious.
But if doctors could determine who carries the at-risk gene, children especially could be steered toward “recreational sports or other things that give them satisfaction and pleasure and dopamine that aren’t food … and not get their brains used to having crappy food,” said Stice, a clinical psychologist who has long studied obesity.
“Don’t get your brain used to it,” he said of non-nutritious food. “I would not buy Ho Hos for lunch every day because the more you eat, the more you crave.”
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By LAURAN NEERGAARD
AP Medical Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Drink a milkshake and the pleasure center in your brain gets a hit of happy — unless you’re overweight.
It sounds counterintuitive. But scientists who watched young women savor milkshakes inside a brain scanner concluded that when the brain doesn’t sense enough gratification from food, people may overeat to compensate.
The small but first-of-a-kind study even could predict who would pile on pounds during the next year: Those who harbored a gene that made their brain’s yum factor even more sluggish.
“The more blunted your response to the milkshake taste, the more likely you are to gain weight,” said Dr. Eric Stice, a senior scientist at the Oregon Research Institute who led the work, published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
A healthy diet and plenty of exercise are the main factors in whether someone is overweight. But scientists have long known that genetics also play a major role in obesity — and one big culprit is thought to be dopamine, the brain chemical that’s key to sensing pleasure.
Eating can temporarily boost dopamine levels. Previous brain scans have suggested that the obese have fewer dopamine receptors in their brains than lean people. And a particular gene version, called Taq1A1, is linked to fewer dopamine receptors.
“This paper takes it one step farther,” said Dr. Nora Volkow of the National Institutes of Health, a dopamine specialist who has long studied the obesity link. “It takes the gene associated with greater vulnerability for obesity and asks the question why. What is it doing to the way the brain is functioning that would make a person more vulnerable to compulsively eat food and become obese?”
It’s “very elegant work,” she added.
First, Stice’s team had to figure out how to study the brain’s immediate reactions to food. Moving inside an MRI machine skews its measurements, which ruled out letting the women slurp up the milkshakes. Yale University neuroscientist Dana Small solved that problem, with a special syringe that would squirt a small amount of milkshake or, for comparison, a tasteless solution into the mouth without study participants moving. They were told when to swallow, so researchers could coordinate the scans with that small motion.
Then they recruited volunteers, 43 female college students ages 18 to 22 and 33 teenagers, ages 14 to 18. Body mass index calculations showed the young women spanned the range from very skinny to obese.
Brain scanning showed that a key region called the dorsal striatum — a dopamine-rich pleasure center — became active when they tasted the milkshake, but not when they tasted the comparison liquid that just mimicked saliva.
Yet that brain region was far less active in overweight people than in lean people, and in those who carry that A1 gene variant, the researchers reported. Moreover, women with that gene version were more likely to gain weight over the coming year.
It’s a small study with few gene carriers, and thus must be verified, Volkow stressed.
Still, it could have important implications. Volkow, who heads NIH’s National Institute of Drug Abuse, notes that “dopamine is not just about pleasure.” It also plays a role in conditioning — dopamine levels affect drug addiction — and the ability to control impulses.
She wonders if instead of overeating to compensate for the lack of pleasure — Stice’s conclusion — the study really might show that these people with malfunctioning dopamine in fact eat because they’re impulsive.
Regardless, most people’s tongues find a milkshake quite tasty; the brain reaction is subconscious.
But if doctors could determine who carries the at-risk gene, children especially could be steered toward “recreational sports or other things that give them satisfaction and pleasure and dopamine that aren’t food … and not get their brains used to having crappy food,” said Stice, a clinical psychologist who has long studied obesity.
“Don’t get your brain used to it,” he said of non-nutritious food. “I would not buy Ho Hos for lunch every day because the more you eat, the more you crave.”
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.