I'm really looking forward to the day when technology can more directly measure the effects of various substances on the body, rather than the inexact observation methods used today.
Take SSRIs, for example. Here's how it works. Patient tells doctor "I feel depressed". Doctor prescribes medicine. (A few weeks or months go by.) Doctor asks, "Well, how do you feel?"
We need to be able to say: "Over the course of your treatment, you ingested X milligrams of Zoloft, with an average concentration of Y in your bloodstream. Here's the 1-month graph. Your avg levels of serotonin were Z% higher than usual during this time. Your cortisol (stress hormone) level was C% lower. You slept an average of S hours per night, with E% improvement in deep sleep efficiency." etc.
At some point, the former is going to sound quaint and old-timey.
Definitely agree that our understanding is only really beginning in these kinds of areas though ultimately you are often going to be treating a disorder of subjective experience with these drugs. That makes it very hard for us not to be wishy-washy these days
Until we're able to analytically evaluate perception (which we are no where close to understanding), what you're describing isn't possible
Maybe if you only consider the chemicals that are normally considered.
Your "need to be able to say" can have no effective equivalent placebo, and any conclusion you drew from such a case study would be unpublishable and invalid.
This is not to say that I think modern science is correct in this, but it does already recognises the flaws in what you suggest - recording accurate data is not necessarily an existing major problem of science. You can easily record all that data yourself (if you have the resources/cash/time to arrange it), which will probably work out great for you, but it won't prove anything more generally.
Some day we'll look back on our methods of prescribing and follow-up with the same horrified face we make when we look at Civil War amputations.
We already look back at the early 20th century futurism's optimism as comical, but if we manage to hold our civilization together for another century or more I suspect we'll look back at today's faith in the practical power of data science as equally naive.
"The exact mechanism of X is unknown, however..."
It's kind of frightening.
(two off the top of my head: http://www.drugs.com/pro/klonopin.html & http://www.drugs.com/pro/prozac-capsules.html)
This is why I am working on a line of medication whose only effect is to make people tell doctors that they feel much better now. It's showing great promise in early trials.
If the patient still feels bad and the data shows no serotonin change, then the doctor can conclude that maybe serotonin is still the problem, but Zoloft isn't the right drug to fix it (or the dosage was wrong).
In other words, more data = better ability to get a real answer.
A former coworker was just the opposite - put a few espressos in him and the creativity almost oozed out.
I feel more in control of my vehicle when I've had alcohol, but objectively I know that's not the case.
Also, concluding through controlled study that alcohol consumption impairs your ability to safely control an automobile is much easier than concluding that caffeine intake impairs creativity.
Creativity for one thing can be highly influenced by inspiration. Driving ability not so much.
(disclaimer, not a doctor)
Although I partook very much in my younger years I no longer indulge. Not that I'm against it... I just have too much to remember at this stage.
but to your point... I suspect lots.
Caffeine is a central nervous stimulant that increases alertness, reaction speed and short-term memory, not necessarily creativity. If you want increased creativity you are looking at the wrong type of chemical and may be more interested in an area like nootropics or entheogens.
