More About tDCS and a Response

     It has come to my attention that there have been some strong opinions thrown around after I made my last post about the tDCS craze. This is fine, of course; people are allowed to have their own opinions on this topic, and it’s not my job to correct them. However, when I was reading a few other blogs on the subject, I found one that I felt like I needed to respond to: Randall Boone’s latest post, “Thinking Cap.” In his post, Boone takes a position that is opposite mine (like I said before, he’s entitled to his own opinion), but I wanted to address a few of the points that he brought up in the process and discuss what he says about them.

(http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/superman/2013/04/tdcs_and_rtms_is_brain_stimulation_safe_and_effective.html)

      Before I get into Boone’s argument, I need to establish that he takes on a slightly more specific topic. Boone decided to focus more on “thinking caps,” which are a more specific type of tDCS device that sit on the heads of testers and transmit tDCS pulses to their brains while they learn or perform their activity. That being said, both of us are talking about basically the same thing: whether or not tDCS should be used on a wide scale.
      Unlike me, however, Boone is all for tDCS being used on a wide scale. He points to the treatment’s painless administration and long-lasting effects in his claim that tDCS treatments are the future of human learning. I conceded this much in my initial article because, yes, tDCS treatments seem like great ideas on the surface, and I understand that other people might not be quite as hesitant to accept this amazing-sounding non-food, non-drug treatment.
      However, Boone complete discredits my side of the argument in one section. When talking about the long-term effects of tDCS, Boone says, “While some of these [potentially dangerous long-term effects] are a possibility, none of those things have been proved in testing.” So what he’s saying is that because nothing has been shown yet, we can throw caution to the wind and start using this technology on a wide scale. That’s not okay! Just because nothing negative has been found yet doesn’t mean that we can’t find something with further research. For example, the FDA takes many years to approve anything and has a purposefully long trial-and-error process where even simple drugs are heavily scrutinized before they make their ways onto pharmacy shelves. Because of its relative newness and the fact that it is a non-food, non-drug treatment that has no precedent, I would like to see tDCS undergo a three-to-five-year government-sponsored testing process just so that we can tell what can see what the long-term effects of this treatment are. Also, while that testing is being done, I’d like to see tDCS be regulated to the point where “do-it-yourself” stimulation machines are taken off of the market.
      Boone tries to compare tDCS to common focus-heightening drugs like Ritalin and Adderall, saying that tDCS has fewer proven side effects. However, he neglects to note that the reason why Ritalin and Adderall are commonly used and tDCS isn’t is because tDCS is new. Scientists have had time to evaluate Adderall and find out what its side effects are. On the other hand, tDCS is new enough that scientists still need time to find out what the long-term effects of electric brain stimulation are. The biggest reason why we shouldn’t be using tDCS is because it is unlike anything we’ve ever seen and we need to be careful with it.
      There is another flaw in his main argument that I want to address. For one, he pushes the point that tDCS should be used because cognitive-enhancing drugs currently on the market are more addictive. He even goes on to say that tDCS “has had no side effects of … people becoming dependent on them to think.” While this statement is technically correct, there is a little more to the story. Earlier in the piece, he mentions an important article by writer Sally Adee. He uses many quotes from this work, but there is one that he conveniently leaves out. Following her test, Adee mentions that she cannot keep her mind off of “getting zapped” again, saying “I hope you can sympathize with me when I tell you that the thing I wanted most acutely for the weeks following my experience was to go back and strap on those electrodes.” This is a dangerous statem
ent, and if people really think this way after a tDCS session, can it really be said that the treatment is not addictive in any way? And while I will concede that there are many addictive substances out on the market right now that we accept in society like nicotine or caffeine, we have a good gasp of what those substances do to our bodies through thorough research. However, right now, that research isn’t there for tDCS. Is this craving a major problem? We won’t know until we have more information.
      The big point here, though, is that while there are definitely positive benefits to tDCS treatments, because they’re so unlike anything we’ve ever seen, they pose some real concerns because we don’t know what to expect from them. We shouldn’t be rushing this into the open market just because nothing bad has happened so far. We need to spend some time feeling out this treatment and getting a better grasp of its benefits and drawbacks so that we can more smartly use it to improve people’s lives.