I just came across this thought-provoking opinion article in the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/o...gs-dont-work-long-term.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 It raises some important questions so many years into using medications to treat ADD, including whether we're really treating the problem or slapping a temporary band-aid on it, and if these medications really improve educational outcomes in the kids taking them. They've been in use a long time now, so it's a good time to look back and make sure they're working, having the intended effect, and aren't having any long-term detrimental effects. This evaluation should be done for any therapy or treatment regimen. Afterall, I think the major reason people worry about treating the behavioral condition is that it is generally perceived that the behavior hinders learning and treatment will improve learning. If treating the behavior doesn't improve learning, does the behavior still warrant treatment? There are other issues the article raises as well, such as what NIH currently funds and how it is limiting scientific progress to very narrow views, but I'll save that more political debate for another day. That is an opinion piece, so for the remainder of the thread, the goal is to explore the peer-reviewed literature to date on this issue to verify or refute those claims.