Scientists are worried about the public perception of "science" itself. In last month’s 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 science’s 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 world’s 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.comThe 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 Medicine’s 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 program’s 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 there’s 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 won’t 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 Education’s 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 center’s 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 teacher’s 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 council’s 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 group’s 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.