Hector Kociak suggests that my argument in support of "smart drugs" rested on a flawed analogy with the Luddites. "Historical analogies," he writes, "are like black socks; they may never get dirty, but the more you wear them, the worse they smell." He thus sought to deconstruct a "stinker of an argument". But he fails to recognise that, when the shoe is on the other foot, his own case has a whiff about it too.

Kociak suggests readers take a “cursory glance” at clinical trials from PubMed and states that they undermine my claim that such drugs can improve cognitive ability. I wonder whether he expected readers to take him on his word, because the consensus is that “Modafinil has been shown to promote wakefulness and some studies suggest the drug can improve cognitive function”. Indeed, the headline of the first study listed on PubMed reads “Modafinil improves information processing speed”.

Yet even if Kociak were to take a harder look at his precious PubMed, he would still not budge an inch, since, he tells us, Modafinil does not increase one’s “qualitative ability” to think “better”. He locates this “qualitative ability” in the brain’s “neural architecture”. All this neurological babble is, however, a sleight of hand, for what Kociak is doing is shifting the goal posts.

Once stripped of its jargon and dismissive references to “magic pills”, Kociak’s argument amounts to this: if Modafinil does not affect “deep rooted” changes in neural make-up, it does not affect hard-wired intelligence (whatever that means). He ignores the fact that nowhere in my article do I suggest that it does.

What I argued - and maintain - is that “smart drugs” can confer an increased level of concentration. This might “only” be a quantitative improvement, but so what? In Outliers: The Story of Success the sociologist Malcolm Gladwell argues that ten thousand hours of hard practice is needed to reach the top. The backgrounds of the Beatles and Bill Gates confirm as much. Those ten thousand hours are not sufficient to ensure success, but the evidence suggests that they come close to a necessary condition.

After dismissing the efficacy of “smart drugs”, Kociak then moves to make an ideological case against them on the presumption that they work. First, he suggests that those who can work without a stimulant will presumably be denied the drug. He does not explain why. Given that my case rests on the freedom of the individual, it is a puzzling charge. Second, he propounds an anachronistic argument in favour of “natural ability” (whatever that means) and argues that only the rich could afford the drugs. Considering they retail for £1 a pill online, a stronger case could be made for outlawing a cup of coffee.

Finally, Kociak concludes that, “if anything,” I present “the perfect argument for an intellectual Luddism against hypothetical mind enhancers”. That was my intention. If those who can work long hours without artificial stimulation want to protect their position, they should oppose the introduction of Modafinil to the marketplace. If, on the other hand, they want to form part of the “common intellectual endeavour” that Kociak supposedly supports, then they should welcome a more liberal policy. As for whether individuals want to become reliant on “smart drugs”, it is ultimately a matter for them and not for Kociak to decide.