haste
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- May 21, 2000
- Messages
- 7,641
Retracted Study Raises Questions About Federal Research
2/25/2004
A retracted ecstasy study has raised concerns about whether the dangers of the drug have been overstated for political reasons, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported Feb 25.
At issue is research conducted by George Ricaurte, associate professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University and the nation's most prominent researcher on methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), the chemical name for ecstasy.
Ricaurte's research, which dates back to the mid-1980s, was the first to suggest that ecstasy harmed the serotonin system, which regulates mood, sleep, appetite, and other functions.
In 2002, he released a study that purposted to uncovered new dangers linked to ecstasy use, among them severe brain damage and neurological diseases such as Parkinson's. However, a year after the study was released Ricaurte issued a retraction, saying he erred in the research: the primates used in the study had been injected with methamphetamine, not ecstasy.
Over the last seven years, Ricaurte has received $10 million in federal funds, including support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), to conduct drug-related research that became key evidence in the development of the federal government's war on drugs. But Ricaurte's research has had numerous critics, including other leading researchers who say that Ricaurte's studies are flawed, biased, and overstate the danger of illicit drugs to appease government backers.
"It kind of gives science a black eye because people start to question whether NIDA has an agenda," said Glen Hanson, professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Utah and a former director of NIDA.
Charles Grob, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, said the retraction should prompt a thorough review of Ricaurte's previous work.
"The whole thing about Ricaurte really demands a thorough, objective re-evaluation of the whole record of MDMA research going back 15 years," he said.
But Ricaurte said the retraction should bolster his credibility. "Anybody who looks at this current situation would see that here is a scientist who recognized an error and immediately did everything in his power to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible," he said.
Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and another former NIDA head, said the retraction was "unfortunate" but shouldn't end Ricaurte's career.
"I don't think he should be tarnished for a mistake that he very rapidly retracted," said Leshner.
But Martha Rosenbaum, a staff member at the Drug Policy Alliance, which opposes current drug policy, said Ricaurte's studies have resulted in a flow of misinformation about ecstasy that has led to fear-driven legislation.
"I'm now convinced that any information coming out of the government is suspect," said Rosenbaum.
Nora Volkow, the new director of NIDA, is concerned that the retraction may lead people into thinking that ecstasy is harmless, which is not true.
"The question that comes to light is, why has this attracted so much attention?" she said. "And I think perhaps it's because some people are exaggerating the adverse effects of drugs."
Link
2/25/2004
A retracted ecstasy study has raised concerns about whether the dangers of the drug have been overstated for political reasons, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported Feb 25.
At issue is research conducted by George Ricaurte, associate professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University and the nation's most prominent researcher on methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), the chemical name for ecstasy.
Ricaurte's research, which dates back to the mid-1980s, was the first to suggest that ecstasy harmed the serotonin system, which regulates mood, sleep, appetite, and other functions.
In 2002, he released a study that purposted to uncovered new dangers linked to ecstasy use, among them severe brain damage and neurological diseases such as Parkinson's. However, a year after the study was released Ricaurte issued a retraction, saying he erred in the research: the primates used in the study had been injected with methamphetamine, not ecstasy.
Over the last seven years, Ricaurte has received $10 million in federal funds, including support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), to conduct drug-related research that became key evidence in the development of the federal government's war on drugs. But Ricaurte's research has had numerous critics, including other leading researchers who say that Ricaurte's studies are flawed, biased, and overstate the danger of illicit drugs to appease government backers.
"It kind of gives science a black eye because people start to question whether NIDA has an agenda," said Glen Hanson, professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Utah and a former director of NIDA.
Charles Grob, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, said the retraction should prompt a thorough review of Ricaurte's previous work.
"The whole thing about Ricaurte really demands a thorough, objective re-evaluation of the whole record of MDMA research going back 15 years," he said.
But Ricaurte said the retraction should bolster his credibility. "Anybody who looks at this current situation would see that here is a scientist who recognized an error and immediately did everything in his power to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible," he said.
Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and another former NIDA head, said the retraction was "unfortunate" but shouldn't end Ricaurte's career.
"I don't think he should be tarnished for a mistake that he very rapidly retracted," said Leshner.
But Martha Rosenbaum, a staff member at the Drug Policy Alliance, which opposes current drug policy, said Ricaurte's studies have resulted in a flow of misinformation about ecstasy that has led to fear-driven legislation.
"I'm now convinced that any information coming out of the government is suspect," said Rosenbaum.
Nora Volkow, the new director of NIDA, is concerned that the retraction may lead people into thinking that ecstasy is harmless, which is not true.
"The question that comes to light is, why has this attracted so much attention?" she said. "And I think perhaps it's because some people are exaggerating the adverse effects of drugs."
Link
