is

I’m noted for being on record with the BBC as saying “Champagne is a whole food; there’s nothing in the bottle but grapes and bubbles!” Now science is backing up what I said! Over the years, I’ve been so far ahead of the curve, often decades ahead, that I have invented my “I Told ‘Em!” […]

I’m noted for being on record with the BBC as saying “Champagne is a whole food; there’s nothing in the bottle but grapes and bubbles!” Now science is backing up what I said! Over the years, I’ve been so far ahead of the curve, often decades ahead, that I have invented my “I Told ‘Em!” […] The post Champagne is a whole food and good for your health! appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.

A big story broke this week with discussion of the ethical use of brain boosting drugs (known imposingly as “cognitive enhancement” drugs). The row was triggered by an editorial in the prestigious journal; Nature (Dec 11th 2008), calling for the freedom to take such substances. Nature, a very “upmarket” science journal, had polled its readers and found 20% of top scientists already took cognitive enhancement substances. Studies have already suggested that between 5% and 15% of college students use brain-boosting drugs, mostly Ritalin or Adderall. Banned street drugs, such as marijuana, ecstasy and LSD are also “cognitive enhancement” substances, remember. So the outcry is understandable. Even if the must-meddle-in-other-peoples-freedoms crowd had failed to notice and get involved, the how-do-we-know-its-safe group, which includes me, might want to express their concerns. Then there is the issue of “Is it fair?” Are people who take drug enhancements not leap-frogging over everyone else? We ban sports performers from doing that because it’s considered not quite nice! What’s different about getting the edge intellectually and is that cheating? Maybe the fact that we could all join in means it’s not quite cheating. But then many people may not want to take such substances (I have never taken a mind-enhancing drug in my life and have no intention of doing so, even to keep up with the herd); are we not being left at a disadvantage?

A big story broke this week with discussion of the ethical use of brain boosting drugs (known imposingly as “cognitive enhancement” drugs). The row was triggered by an editorial in the prestigious journal; Nature (Dec 11th 2008), calling for the freedom to take such substances. Nature, a very “upmarket” science journal, had polled its readers and found 20% of top scientists already took cognitive enhancement substances. Studies have already suggested that between 5% and 15% of college students use brain-boosting drugs, mostly Ritalin or Adderall. Banned street drugs, such as marijuana, ecstasy and LSD are also “cognitive enhancement” substances, remember. So the outcry is understandable. Even if the must-meddle-in-other-peoples-freedoms crowd had failed to notice and get involved, the how-do-we-know-its-safe group, which includes me, might want to express their concerns. Then there is the issue of “Is it fair?” Are people who take drug enhancements not leap-frogging over everyone else? We ban sports performers from doing that because it’s considered not quite nice! What’s different about getting the edge intellectually and is that cheating? Maybe the fact that we could all join in means it’s not quite cheating. But then many people may not want to take such substances (I have never taken a mind-enhancing drug in my life and have no intention of doing so, even to keep up with the herd); are we not being left at a disadvantage?