Comments on: Why isn’t there more research on cognitive enhancement? http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/2008/04/11/why-isnt-there-more-research-on-cognitive-enhancement/ A synthesis of ideas about open science and social technology. Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:35:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Mr. Gunn http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/2008/04/11/why-isnt-there-more-research-on-cognitive-enhancement/#comment-8711 Mr. Gunn Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:44:14 +0000 http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/?p=187#comment-8711 Well, the wikipedia article only goes back to 2004, so I can't compare it a decade ago with it now. Checking the page I don't really see anything new or novel there either, though. Actually, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolcapone" rel="nofollow">Tolcapone</a> seems to be novel, though not really suited for nootropic use due to the dangers associated with its use. Well, the wikipedia article only goes back to 2004, so I can’t compare it a decade ago with it now. Checking the page I don’t really see anything new or novel there either, though.

Actually, Tolcapone seems to be novel, though not really suited for nootropic use due to the dangers associated with its use.

]]> By: cariaso http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/2008/04/11/why-isnt-there-more-research-on-cognitive-enhancement/#comment-7869 cariaso Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:31:44 +0000 http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/?p=187#comment-7869 checking usenet? wikipedia seems more applicable today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_drugs seems to be considerably more comprehensive. checking usenet? wikipedia seems more applicable today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_drugs
seems to be considerably more comprehensive.

]]>