Where you just pop a quick pill and turn your problems into answers
See them all around campus spreading like malignant cancers
From the nerds to team dancers, for free or costly transfers
Some get a type of high that's got you feeling tall
From Concerta to Ritalin, and most commonly Adderall
Add 'em all up and your hand will never scrawl
So you score above the curve leaving others so appalled
Sure it might be illegal, but there is no real harm to me
It's a safe drug, it means well, it's from a pharmacy!
My friend with ADD said work will get done, he promised me
He said your brain just keeps on running like Lake Washington's Argosy
Took some pills with coffee, I call it heaven's mix
Stayed up hours on end reading ANTH 4-7-6
With very little appetite, I ate a half a bar of Twix
Enought to get through a workload weighing like a bag of bricks
I still work hard hard and put my time in, but won't let focus decay
They say it's bad if you're not prescribed, what's the side-effect, FDA?
You say there's risk of heart problems, but that is so cliche
There's more good from working harder than just letting it all delay
But why do these drugs summon me?
Does it mean more profit for the company?
More kids faking diagnoses got pharmaceuticals saying "come money!"
Now we all reach in the basket of the corporate Easter bunny
And grab colorful energy packed eggs without the Red Bull aroma
Pulling all nighters for that distant, daunting diploma
Until the internal clock expires and you crash out on the sofa
Wake up from the coma, and pop the next Brave New World soma
(February 21, 2011)
After reading Nikolas Rose’s “Neurochemical Selves” from The Politics of Life: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century and Margaret Talbot’s article “Brain Gain: The Underground World of ‘Neuroenhancing’ Drugs” on The New Yorker, it has become apparent that the perspective on concentration and hard work has shifted to the performance of one’s brain power. People are led to believe that their brain’s capacity can reach higher levels of operation to meet society’s normal standard of functionality, as others choose to exceed the normal standard of functionality whether or not they are actually prescribed to a particular medication. This controversial perspective has been rooted from the progressive research designed around neuroscience and psychopharmacology. With new research and newly discovered brain functions, processes, reactions, and agents, a new army of drugs emerge. It has been emphasized by Rose several times that “when mind seems visible within the brain, the space between person and organs flattens out – mind is what brain does” (Rose 194), and by the 1950’s, there was a connection established between neurochemistry and its resultant, the behavior. “Across this bridge was to flow an accelerating stream of traffic between the clinic, the laboratory, and the factory. Each variety of disorder was soon assigned to an anomaly in a particular neurotransmitter system, and intensive research in the laboratories of universities and pharmaceutical companies sought to isolate the compounds whose specific molecular structure would enable them to target, modify, or rectify that anomaly” (Rose 196). Here we begin to see how neuroscience takes its shape as it is today. One question I had in mind after reading this was how much neuroscience’s research is devoted to solving illnesses as opposed to generating revenue. Has research produced illnesses in the last fifty years as a profitable marketing scheme?
This is the topic I want to address. Is it evident that pharmaceutical companies and drug manufacturers are in it for the money without looking into its widespread effects (medically and socially)? Depression could be a possible analogical step-up stool for pharmaceutical companies in history because “Prozac did not become an iconic drug because it was more effective than previous antidepressants. Its status was based on its claim to be the first drug whose molecule had been deliberately fabricated to disrupt one, and only one, aspect of a single neurotransmitter system,” (Rose 201) and in turn it has been trialed and marketed to millions of people, a lot of whom refused to take it after some time because they “didn’t want see [themselves] in that light or be stigmatized with that label” (Rose 197). It seems like more and more research is going into the brain for the wrong reasons, because if you can lead a diagnosis to somewhere in the brain where medications prove to be the only source of help, then that is a money-making opportunity for commercial companies. This is how psychopharmaceuticals in America manage to make up to $19 billion as described by Rose.
Fast forwarding to the 21st century, from depression to ADD and ADHD, we see an even more widespread use of prescription medication because their markets have gotten a lot bigger. As I’ve mentioned before, more in-depth research could produce more illnesses, and in turn “disorders often become widely diagnosed after drugs come along that can alter a set of suboptimal behaviors. In this way, Ritalin and Adderall helped make ADHD a household name” (Talbot 5). As we see in the YouTube videos shown above, students with or without a prescription claim that they use the drug Adderall. In Margaret Talbot’s “Brain Gain,” we are given the story about ‘Alex’ who was diagnosed with ADHD by describing his brother’s symptoms, so those without ADHD can also obtain a prescription for the medication. In the second part of the video Adderall U., they ask the boy if he thinks his school is aware of the use of the brain stimulant, and he says yes. In The Truth About Adderall, they ask a girl if she thinks the administration is aware of the use, she says she doesn’t know, but that a lot of people are open about claiming that they do. So, assuming that pharmaceutical companies know that these drugs are being used and distributed illegally, why isn’t there much being done about it? How come there hasn’t been as much research done on people who don’t necessarily need the medication, so that more people are aware of its long term effects? Cephalon’s founder and CEO, Frank Baldino Jr. says “I think if you’re tired, Provigil will keep you awake. If you’re not tired, it’s not going to do anything” (Talbot 6), yet studies on his company’s drugs have proven that non-sleep-deprived volunteers had significantly shown more effects than those who received a placebo.
What we are seeing from the videos above and the articles of interest is a clash between controversial usage and the widespread prevalence and distribution, both prescribed and illegally, and this has formed a sort of acceptance in society and in college campuses. My belief is that this could potentially stem from corporate greed and profitable pharmaceutical marketing schemes.
Here's an example of how Adderall is so readily available. The first three posts on YahooAnswers is about the drug and how they got it from a friend:
Works Cited
"YouTube - Adderall U. Part Two." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 21 Feb. 2011.
"YouTube - The Truth About Adderall." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 21 Feb. 2011.
Yahoo! Answers - Home. Web. 21 Feb. 2011.
Nikolas Rose, 2007. Neurochemical Selves, IN The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twety-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pp. 187-223.
Margaret Talbot, "Brain Gain: The Underground World of 'Neuroenhancing' Drugs." The New Yorker, April 27, 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment