3 ms·

On the subject of ethics, I've been looking into Modafinil (Provigil, etc) lately. If you're unfamiliar with it, it's a drug which eliminates the cognitive eff

On the subject of ethics, I've been looking into Modafinil (Provigil, etc) lately. If you're unfamiliar with it, it's a drug which eliminates the cognitive effects of sleepiness. Its current approved use is for treatment of narcolepsy. The effects last for around eight hours, and the drug doesn't induce jitters or negatively impact decision making. Quoting off the top of my head, a military test showed sleep-deprived helicopter pilots operating within 17% of their well-rested accuracy after 36 hours of continuous duty. It can be used to stay awake for very long periods, but it's more interesting for its effects in normal waking periods. Not only does it prevent sleepiness, it increases focus and seems to have anti-depressant properties. I'm pretty well convinced that over the next decade we'll see this and similar drugs proliferate among white collar jobs. Let's face it: our work is boring and the body is not well adapted to it. It's difficult to keep the mind engaged when the body thinks it's a good time to nap or chat with the tribe. If you look back at photos of the space race, two things are likely to be prominent: coffee and cigarettes. The brilliant engineers who put men on the moon using slide rules also dosed themselves with stimulants in order to maintain focus. These days, cigarettes are on the wane, and something will need to replace and improve upon them. A common criticism is, "what if everyone is on them?" Well, so what if they are? The automatic assumption is that we'll all be working 16 hour shifts, but I don't see any reason to expect that. If I can maintain focus and do a day's worth of highly productive work in four hours, why not expect the work day to drop to four or six hours (six giving a net benefit to the employer) over time?

HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
Based on the common programmer complaint of being on call/working very long hours, I think your conclusion is rather naive. Everyone doing it will just result in it being the expected behavior to get more work out of 8+ hours on the job.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  Several issues: 1) How do we quantify the number of programmers subjected to these conditions? Squeaky wheels get noticed. Personally, I've had only a few stretches where I was expected to work more than around 40 hours per week. I've also had several stretches where I only worked less. 2) How do we compare what is still a very young field (computer programming) to other fields? How do we compare knowledge work with manufacturing? How many hours per week do you work compared to a textile manufacturing worker in the late 1800s? Did their productivity scale directly with hours? Does yours? 3) You simply don't have any reason other than pessimism to reach your conclusion.
  - cheatercheater 15y ago
    Being the lazy type I ask that you answer those yourself and report back.
dj_axl 15y ago
Beware, there is a 2 in 933 chance of developing a severe skin rash reaction, and the FDA has rejected modafinil for this reason. From Wikipedia: "The FDA advisory committee voted 12 to 1 against approval, citing concerns about a number of reported cases of skin rash reactions in a trial that included 933 patients on modafinil, including two severe cases which appeared to be "definite" erythema multiforme or Stevens–Johnson syndrome. One of the two severe cases involved hospitalization."
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  That was in a trial for ADHD treatment in adolescents. As a result, they don't advise the use of Modafinil in children. It is unclear to me whether the 933 studied were adolescents, and if so, whether or not a similar rate of rashes are seen in adults. The Wikipedia page also says: "From the date of initial marketing, December 1998, to January 30, 2007, FDA received six cases of severe cutaneous adverse reactions associated with modafinil, including erythema multiforme (EM), Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) involving adult and pediatric patients. I have to admit, six cases in eight years doesn't strike fear into me.
  - gwern 15y ago
    Those six cases cover somewhere upwards of 700,000 patient-years; the final estimate I found was that the risk roughly doubled from 3 SJS cases per million people to 6 cases per million people in modafinil users. (None were fatal, incidentally.)
  - mvzink 15y ago
    Given that they are all different conditions, I'm guessing it's more likely to be reactions with other drugs, diet, conditions, etc. than a side effect worth worrying about.

HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago

Based on the common programmer complaint of being on call/working very long hours, I think your conclusion is rather naive. Everyone doing it will just result in it being the expected behavior to get more work out of 8+ hours on the job.

georgieporgie 15y ago
Several issues: 1) How do we quantify the number of programmers subjected to these conditions? Squeaky wheels get noticed. Personally, I've had only a few stretches where I was expected to work more than around 40 hours per week. I've also had several stretches where I only worked less. 2) How do we compare what is still a very young field (computer programming) to other fields? How do we compare knowledge work with manufacturing? How many hours per week do you work compared to a textile manufacturing worker in the late 1800s? Did their productivity scale directly with hours? Does yours? 3) You simply don't have any reason other than pessimism to reach your conclusion.
- cheatercheater 15y ago
  Being the lazy type I ask that you answer those yourself and report back.

dj_axl 15y ago

Beware, there is a 2 in 933 chance of developing a severe skin rash reaction, and the FDA has rejected modafinil for this reason. From Wikipedia: "The FDA advisory committee voted 12 to 1 against approval, citing concerns about a number of reported cases of skin rash reactions in a trial that included 933 patients on modafinil, including two severe cases which appeared to be "definite" erythema multiforme or Stevens–Johnson syndrome. One of the two severe cases involved hospitalization."

georgieporgie 15y ago
That was in a trial for ADHD treatment in adolescents. As a result, they don't advise the use of Modafinil in children. It is unclear to me whether the 933 studied were adolescents, and if so, whether or not a similar rate of rashes are seen in adults. The Wikipedia page also says: "From the date of initial marketing, December 1998, to January 30, 2007, FDA received six cases of severe cutaneous adverse reactions associated with modafinil, including erythema multiforme (EM), Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) involving adult and pediatric patients. I have to admit, six cases in eight years doesn't strike fear into me.
- gwern 15y ago
  Those six cases cover somewhere upwards of 700,000 patient-years; the final estimate I found was that the risk roughly doubled from 3 SJS cases per million people to 6 cases per million people in modafinil users. (None were fatal, incidentally.)
- mvzink 15y ago
  Given that they are all different conditions, I'm guessing it's more likely to be reactions with other drugs, diet, conditions, etc. than a side effect worth worrying about.