Medical Marijuana and the Degradation of
Science -- NIDA Funds More Than 85 Percent Of The Worlds Research On Health Aspects
Of "Drug Abuse" And Addiction and Suppresses Medical Marijuana.
March 2, 1998Scientists are worried about the
public perception of "science" itself. In last months Science
magazine Harvard paleontologist and former medical marijuana user Stephen Jay Gould
says, "Science has become least popular and most feared at the height of its
influence and intrinsic weaving with our daily lives and activities," and just when
science is "most essential to the core of education for all thinking people," it
is "least pursued and cherished."
And in current issue of The Scientist magazine dated March 2, 1998 Mildred S.
Dresselhaus, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and an
Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has an article whose
title tells of her worries: "What Scientists Can Do To Fight The Frankenstein
Myth."
She says, "As scientists, we can do more than simply fret about increased public
scrutiny. We can take direct action to see that science and technology are better
understood as staunch allies, and not enemies, of the public good."
Now, I would not begin to suggest that the medical marijuana fiasco is a major part of
sciences public relations problems, but it certainly can be taken as a model for
where many of these problems arise. When the public really finds out about the suppression
of medical marijuana, the public relations disaster will escalate. So, for a literary
analogy, they would do better to look a Faust rather than Frankenstein.
Yes, people fear that mad scientists may "blow up the world," but on a day to
day basis they see that science has prostituted itself to keep the government funding on
which it has become dependent. Science has sold its soul, meaning its worldly
integrity, to the government.
Ironically, a clear illustration of this can be found in two articles in the February
issue of Scientist magazine itself. The first is below. The second is an
interview with NIDA head, Alan Leshner. NIDA funds
more than 85 percent of the worlds research on health aspects of drug abuse and
addiction.
JUST SAY RESEARCH: ANTIDRUG PROGRAM STRESSES SCIENCE
The Scientist, Vol:12, #3, p. 1,6
By Ricki Lewis
(Ricki Lewis, a freelance science writer based in Scotia, N.Y., is the author of
several biology textbooks. She can be reached online at 76715.3517@compuserve.com.)
February 2, 1998
editorial@the-scientist.com
The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104
http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/index.html
A new program from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), "Mind Over
Matter," is using neuroscience research results to teach, rather than preach to,
students about the dangers of addictive drugs. "People have historically seen drug
abuse as purely a social problem that results from voluntary behavior and remains
voluntary. But science has taught us that addiction is expressed in a behavioral way [and] comes about from the
result that drugs have on the brain," says NIDA director Alan Leshner. (Ed. note: Did "science" really teach us that, or did we
learn it by watching cigarette smokers twitch and drunks stagger? Is "science"
something that teaches us, or is it a way of learning? If "science" teaches, why
do scientists disagree?) The program will help fulfill the December 1997
recommendation of the Institute of Medicines Committee to Identify Strategies to
Raise the Profile of Substance Abuse and Alcoholism Research that the science of addiction be more prominent in curricula, from elementary
school to medical school.
Neuroscience-based teaching about drug addiction uses imaging technologies such as
positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to show what
happens when addictive drugs flood the brain. The approach can work, according to Cathrine
Sasek, science education coordinator at NIDA, the project officer who developed the
program. She frequently talks to middle- and high-school classes. "If you even so much as hint at giving an anti-drug talk, you lose them,"
she reports. "You can, however, talk about the brain - they pay attention to the
neurobiology of drug abuse."
The programs developers also hope it may spark interest in science. "Young
people are intrigued by their bodies, particularly at the middle-school level. We know
that science is interesting to them, and it is a vehicle to teach
about science and drugs," says Leshner. (Ed. note:
Professors Gould and Dresselhaus, wake up and smell the
caffeine beverage! These people have totally discredited "drug education," now
they do it for "science.")
But theres no guarantee that Mind Over Matter will either prevent drug abuse or
propel students onto a science career track. "Showing pictures of a brain on drugs
will interest those kids already interested in science, but for the others, it wont
mean much," predicts Godfrey Pearlson, a professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins
Medical Institutions. He uses PET scans to study cocaine-induced binding of dopamine to
receptors on brain neurons (see accompanying story). Still, he adds, the approach is worth
a try.
Funding for Mind Over Matter came from NIDA, with about $50,000 used to develop the
written materials. These include six glossy magazines that open out into posters and a
long booklet for teachers on "The Biological Effects of Drugs" that is packed
with facts and figures. Ten NIDA staffers with scientific expertise provided the
information and reviewed the content of the program, and several outside artists and
writers contributed. Feedback for the program, which was field-tested in classrooms, has
been overwhelmingly positive, according to Sasek. "We have taken the materials to
several teachers meetings [National Association of Biology Teachers and National
Science Teachers Association], and the teachers have loved the materials," she says.
"In addition, the prevention community is also very enthusiastic about the
materials." Materials are free at these conferences or available from the National
Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information.
Many drug-education efforts differ markedly from the science-based approach. A fried
egg sizzles on a television screen, with the message "this is your brain on
drugs." Celebrities and law-enforcement officers tell classes
that drugs kill, while teachers and parents urge students to "just say no." But
statistics indicate that these efforts are not effective in reaching many young people.
Statistics On Teen Drug Use
Facts and figures on drug use are abundant. The National Longitudinal Study on
Adolescent Health, sponsored by the Department of Educations Safe and Drug-Free
Schools Program, queried 12,118 seventh- to 12th-graders in 1997. The study
found that 25.7 percent of respondents smoked cigarettes, 17.9 percent drank alcohol, and
25.2 percent smoked marijuana. These figures, however, varied considerably among school
districts.
Data on trends, while useful, sometimes send mixed messages. For example, a survey by
Atlanta-based Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE) conducted in 1996 and
1997 of 141,077 junior and senior high schoolers found a statistically significant
increase in monthly drug use among sixth- to eighth-graders but unchanged monthly use
among high-school students. And a United States Department of Education survey of 10,000
fifth- and sixth-graders as they progressed in school from 1991 to 1995 found a similar
increase in drug use by eighth grade. Yet the 23rd annual Monitoring the Future
Survey, released Dec. 20, 1997, by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), showed increased drug use among 10th- and 12th-graders,
but a leveling off among eighth-graders. Leshner and HHS Secretary Donna Shalala interpret
the findings to reflect a glimmer of success in drug abuse education programs, but all the
studies conclude that the absolute numbers on drug use remain alarming. (Ed. note: Is "alarming" a scientific term? Exactly at what
point do numbers on teenage marijuana experimentation become "alarming," as
opposed to the numbers on teenage binge drinking? In fact, where is that mentioned?)
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, based at Columbia University,
found that from 1995 to 1996, the proportion of teens who said that they would never try illegal drugs fell from 86 percent to 51 percent.
Several of the centers studies identified school as the most common place to procure
drugs-suggesting that this might also be the best place to introduce drug abuse
education programs such as Mind Over Matter.
Enter NIDA
Mind Over Matter targets grades five to nine, which includes youngsters typically not
yet tempted to try drugs as well as those in the highest-risk age group. Program materials
include six oversized brochures in which a cartoon character, Sara Bellum, takes students
on a guided tour of the brain on drugs. (The original name, Nerve Anna, was rejected
because students would associate her with Kurt Cobain, guitarist and singer of the band
Nirvana who had a well-known drug abuse problem and died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound
in 1994.) The idea is that packaging science information attractively will hold
students attention.
The Mind Over Matter magazines discuss marijuana, inhalants, opiates, hallucinogens,
steroids, and stimulants. A seventh magazine on nicotine will be available soon. Each
magazine opens into a poster that is a real image of a neuron. The writing is vibrant. The
narrative on opiates, for example, describes the Cowardly Lion and Dorothy succumbing to
the effect of poppies in The Wizard of Oz. The neurobiology is presented in
easy-to-understand language, such as: "These cells grow so used to having the opiate
around that they actually need it to work normally." A cartoon story introduces
neurons, synapses, neurotransmitters, and receptors, and a teachers guide provides
background. Success will be determined by how quickly the initial 2,000-copy print run is
depleted and from teacher feedback.
Scientific Approach Not New
Using science to teach about drug abuse is not a new idea. The American Council for
Drug Education, based in New York City, has used information on the nervous system in its
publications since its inception in 1977, says director Martha Gagné. Plus, the
councils Web site features exercises to demonstrate the effects of particular drugs
on the brain and other organs. "The Web site offers scientifically accurate data on
substances and their abuse to counteract the often-misleading material that now clogs up
traffic on the information highway," she adds. The site has been active since June
1997. According to Gagné, several hundred teachers access it monthly, mostly to retrieve
lesson plans and curriculum tips.
The College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) is a Philadelphia-based professional
organization of about 400 scientists who research drug abuse and addiction. According to
the groups mission statement, CPDD "serves as an interface among academic,
governmental, and corporate communities, interacting with regulatory and research agencies
as well as with educational, treatment, and prevention facilities in the drug abuse
field." The organization has a journal and an annual meeting; its members provide
consulting services and expert witness testimony and sponsor programs to attract young
investigators to drug abuse research, says president Linda Dykstra, William Rand Kenan Jr.
Professor of Psychology and Pharmacology at the University of North Carolina in Chapel
Hill.
Television also is embracing a scientific approach to drug abuse education. On March
29, PBS stations will present the first installment of "Moyers on Addiction: Close to
Home," a five-part documentary exploring social, political, and scientific aspects of
drug addiction. The second part, "The Hijacked Brain," will feature the work of
Anna Rose Childress, a clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and a clinical psychologist with the drug
dependence treatment unit of the Philadelphia Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center. In their research, she and her coworkers show participants videos of
cocaine-related scenes while their brains are being PET scanned. "We have confirmed
that limbic structures indeed activate in response to signals which trigger cocaine
craving in humans; this does not happen in response to viewing nature videos or in control
subjects who have no cocaine history," Childress says. Such signals include people,
locations, objects, sounds, sights, and smells that are associated with the drug, she
adds.
The Neuroscience Approach
Some drug-education programs may backfire because inquisitive students do not believe
the information given. Threats that marijuana use inexorably leads to heroin use do not
ring true to students who know this is not always the case. "We learned in the
70s and 80s that hyperbole and exaggeration do not work," says Leshner.
Lynn E. Zimmer, a professor of sociology at Queens College in New York and coauthor
with John Morgan of Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence
(New York, The Lindesmith Center, 1997), agrees with Leshner. "It is hard to scare
kids away from anything. I am concerned that massive exposure to antidrug messages is
counterproductive. How could they possibly believe all the bad things about drugs?"
she asks. (Ed. note: Saying that Lynn Zimmer agrees with Leshner is
just a bit too cute. In fact, they have entirely different value systems. Zimmer is one of
the most intellectual rigorous thinkers that I have ever met.
See
JAMA Book Review: Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts --
"Extraordinarily Well-Researched And Passionately Argued"
and
Marijuana Myths; Marijuana
Facts Reviewed by Travis Charbeneau Might as Well Face it, We're Addicted to Lies
Zimmer does not believe that any current drug education programs work. The Partnership
for a Drug Free America, she maintains, overloads kids from preschool age with antidrug
messages. The D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, in which police officers
teach fifth- and sixth-graders drug-resistance skills, has also had mixed results.
"Kids exposed to the program have a stronger antidrug attitude during that time, when
they are not really thinking about drugs, and you can get them to respond. But there is no
benefit once kids pass that age," Zimmer says.
The Mind Over Matter approach may penetrate typical adolescent
arrogance because it is not judgmental. But some researchers think this might not
be enough to overcome human nature. "We have known for years that cigarettes are bad,
and that has had no effect," Pearlson points out.
The best way to cut drug use among youth, suggest Zimmer and Pearlson, is to take a
variety of approaches. But the key to any program, Zimmer maintains, is to provide
information, not a guilt trip or fear. "Many places in Europe have a more
harm-reduction form of drug education. Young people are given more information about how
at one point, drugs go from potentially dangerous to quite risky. This is not done in the
U.S.," she contends. If a student in the U.S. asks a teacher what a dangerous dose of
a particular drug is, Zimmer says, the teacher must refer the student to a drug counselor.
A science-based view of drug abuse education is most effective, according to Gagné,
when it follows other programs that begin in preschool.
"The best approach to preventing drug use is to start as early as possible and
instill life skills in children that allow them to accept drug prevention education as
they get older," she says. Children need to learn ways to build self-esteem, coping
strategies, and decision-making abilities. "Then, if scientific facts are presented
-unlike media dramatization and scare tactics- children and youths
get a sense of truthfulness and reality, and they are more likely to believe what they
hear," she concludes.
Copyright © The Scientist, Inc.
The Scientist Does a Reverent Interview with NIDA head,
Alan Leshner.
|