Self Administration

[Ham-milton]

What exactly does it mean when something will be self administered?

For instance, cannabis, obviously abusable, is not something primates self administer. We obviously do, though.

Diphenhydramine is something that primates will SA'd, but only by IV. Humans don't seem to enjoy it at all (except a little when IV'd, I guess).

Apomorphine will be SA'd- but only by primates who have a history of stimulant abuse (I guess that means monkeys who were given cocaine forcibly until they were hooked).

What exactly can we take away from the factual information of whether or not a monkey will shoot up something when their tastes are so different.

 

[fastandbulbous]

Self administration generally relates to activation of the reward system in the limbic system - which is to say is due to an increase in dopaminergic activity. As drugs with dopaminergic activity covers most of the drugs of abuse, it's generally a good indicator that it's something to be watched for abuse in humans. The only exception to this seems to be hallucinogens such as LSD, cannabis etc, which although voluntarily administered by humans are not generally self administered by animals; this seems to be linked with the state of self awareness in humans and a desire for altered states. Without the capacity for self awareness, they just become sensory distorters in animals which inhibits survival instincts etc.

As a general guide though, self administration correlates with abuse potential - there are only 2 drugs that animals will self administer to the point of overdose & death - cocaine & nicotine - which correlates with them being classified as the two that produce severe psychological dependance in humans

 

[Ham-milton]

What about things like Apomorphine though? They don't seem to do either.

Is that a new avatar, btw?

 

[MurphyClox]

The tendency to "abuse" a drug by an animal (i.e. to self-administer) doesn't reflect at all the huge differences in the psyche between humans and animals (dogs, rats, apes, monkeys...all alike).
As F&B already elaborated it nicely, self administration is just an indicator for theoretical abuse potential in humans. IMO not more. The mentioned 2 big exceptions (LSD & THC) show the major discrepancies in this way of comparing a drug's action in an animal compared to a human being.

If we (i.e. humans) wouldn't be such aware of our own existence, I bet LSD wouldn't be "fun" at all. The body load is annoying, the risk for horror trips without proper preparation is significant, the length of the trip can be frightening if you do not expect it, the visuals are disturbing, etc... I guess, you understood my point.

PEACE! Murphy

 

[Ham-milton]

So you think that the lack of SA of THC and LSD in non-human animals says more about the brains of the animals than the abuse potential of the drug?

That makes sense to me.

 

[fastandbulbous]

Actually primates will self administer DMT, but only if kept in conditions of sensory deprivation. Lack of stimulation seems to be a big factior regarding inclination to (ab)use a drug

Set & setting taken to it's logical extreme eh?

 

[negrogesic]

I was reading this a few weeks ago:

Drug self-administration behavior has been one of the most direct and productive approaches for studying the reinforcing effects of psychoactive drugs, which are critical in determining their abuse potential. Cannabinoids, which are usually abused by humans in the form of marijuana, have become the most frequently abused illicit class of drugs in the United States. The early elucidation of the structure and stereochemistry of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in 1964, which is now recognized as the principal psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, activated cannabinoid research worldwide. This review examines advances in research on cannabinoid self-administration behavior by humans and laboratory animals. There have been numerous laboratory demonstrations of the reinforcing effects of cannabinoids in human subjects, but reliable self-administration of cannabinoids by laboratory animals has only recently been demonstrated. It has now been shown that strong and persistent self-administration behavior can be maintained in experimentally and drug-naïve squirrel monkeys by doses of THC comparable to those in marijuana smoke inhaled by humans. Furthermore, reinforcing effects of some synthetic CB1 cannabinoid agonists have been recently reported using intravenous and intracerebroventricular self-administration procedures in rats and mice. These findings support previous conclusions that THC has a pronounced abuse liability comparable to other drugs of abuse under certain experimental conditions. Self-administration of THC by squirrel monkeys provides the most reliable animal model for human marijuana abuse available to date. This animal model now makes it possible to study the relative abuse liability of other natural and synthetic cannabinoids and to preclinically assess new therapeutic strategies for the treatment or prevention of marijuana abuse in humans.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=19f9d121d55548b085b9e3924f36cda1

 

[Sturnam]

As a general guide though, self administration correlates with abuse potential - there are only 2 drugs that animals will self administer to the point of overdose & death - cocaine & nicotine - which correlates with them being classified as the two that produce severe psychological dependance in humans

Is this SA to the point of death even with other stimuli? I think I remember reading a paper on erowid about the methodological flaws of SA studies, saying that the only reason that rats would SA cocaine to the point of death was because they were deprived of social contact. And that when rats were allowed to SA and have social contact, they administered much less, and never came close to OD.

Hmmm, have never heard the nicotine one. But it doesn't surprise me. It's quite insidious drug. I have some friends that "quit" smoking and chewing years ago, but every time i'm over at their house i still see nicotine gum and patches.

 

[ebola?]

>>Without the capacity for self awareness, they just become sensory distorters in animals which inhibits survival instincts etc.
>>

I think also that the cognitive effects would be different and hold different significance for non-human animals. What we find to be worthwhile meanderings through abstraction, they might experience as severe confusion, and then terror.

ebola

 

[BurnOneDown]

Though it hasn't been mentioned, I assume that primates would self administer endorphin releasing endorphin releasing drugs.

THC creates sensation similar to endorphins. In fact, they are not that unlike aside from the psychedelic effects. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that it would be self administered by anything but humans. It's presence in cannabis is to deter animals from consuming it. In the wild this makes sense. It's consumption would significantly lower chances of survival. Perhaps this tendency is ignored in a laboratory with no threatening stimuli. If concern for survival isn't factored into an animals behavior, self administration of THC seems likely. It causes very pleasurable feelings.

I'd think self-administration of psychedelics could be a sign intelligence in animals. We appreciate these drugs because we can reflect on our thinking and experience. That ability shows the sense of self-awareness which is likely to have enabled man to forgo instant gratification, think for the future, and overcome the environment. If an uninhibited ability to think, experience, and reflect could be appreciated by an animal, then it probably wouldn't fit the description of animal.

 

[djsim]

Is this SA to the point of death even with other stimuli? I think I remember reading a paper on erowid about the methodological flaws of SA studies, saying that the only reason that rats would SA cocaine to the point of death was because they were deprived of social contact. And that when rats were allowed to SA and have social contact, they administered much less, and never came close to OD.

You're right. The conditions were "abnormal", such that the monkey had nothing else to do except SA cocaine. However there was another study that said monkeys would choose SA cocaine over social contact, so it's far from clear.
There are clear differences in the neurochemistry/physiology of humans and other animals. For example, morphine administered to a human or rabbit causes the same effect; Sedation and decreased pain. However mice administered morphine show markedly different behaviour to control mice. The mice who have morphine will display strange behaviour where they are more active than the controls, running in single file at a faster rate around the perimeter of the cage. Furthermore, their tails are erect due to the effect of morphine on the muscle above the bae of the tail.
So when it was said above that SA tests give an indication of abuse liability in humans it i just that. The data from one animal cant be extrapolated... many different animal SA studies for a given drug need to integrated

 

[fastandbulbous]

There have been numerous laboratory demonstrations of the reinforcing effects of cannabinoids in human subjects, but reliable self-administration of cannabinoids by laboratory animals has only recently been demonstrated. It has now been shown that strong and persistent self-administration behavior can be maintained in experimentally and drug-naïve squirrel monkeys by doses of THC comparable to those in marijuana smoke inhaled by humans.

I know this is anecdotal, but I could have told them this years ago due to having a cat who would go to incredible lengths to swipe my cannabis - I had to eventually resort to keeping it in a box with a press button latch to keep him out, he was so determined to get at it for the purposes of self administration (OK this wasn't a Skinner box in a lab, but I think it clearly shows all the characteristics of self administration).

Admittedly he was quite a neurotic cat due to being abused as a kitten (we got him as a rescue case when he was 8 months old) and animals made experimentally neurotic respond differently to well balanced ones when it comes to drugs, but his was a blantent case of drug seeking behaviour & self administration of a cannabinoid.

He also used to leave big globs of saliva on the buds he didn't filtch, that made it look like slugs had been at them - my other half said I should treat it as rare & exotic, like the coffee made from beans that have passed through civit cats!

 

[MattPsy]

Someone I know has a cat that jumps up on top of couches and such to get in the optimum position for smoke inhalation when they're smoking bongs, and meows if it can't get any... haha. Never heard of a dog doing that though. *shrug*

 

[5-HT2]

Self-administration is exactly what the term implies: an animal will perform an action in order to receive a drug (usually by IV infusion, though they have smoke delivery systems for monkeys as well). In most self-administration studies, a time-out period is imposed after each drug infusion to prevent the animal from overdosing by taking too much too fast.

The drugs which the biomedical community consensually considers to carry a high risk of addiction are alcohol, nicotine, most dopaminergic psychomotor stimulants (e.g. cocaine, (meth)amphetamine, 4-MAR), and most opiates/opioids. The rate of addiction, as defined by DSM-IV criteria, among human users of each of these substances is reported to be around 20%, suggesting that they recruit common neural mechanisms (such as those described by f&b) despite their disparate molecular targets. Other drugs of which the magnitude of addiction risk is controversial, such as THC and MD-class substances, have lower addiction rates in human populations. It is also harder to get animals to self-administer these substances.