Archive for the 'Drug Abuse Science' category

The Daily Show is just plain wrong on pot being non-addictive

Apr 21 2015 Published by under Alleged Profession, Cannabis, Drug Abuse Science

In the 420 bit from this week, Jessica Williams asserts that marijuana is "a non-addictive proven medical treatment".

Marijuana is most certainly addictive.

In 2012, 17.5% of all substance abuse treatment admissions had marijuana as their primary abused drug. Alcohol alone was 21.5%, heroin 16.3% and cocaine 6.9%.

Daily marijuana smokers use 3 times a day on average and have little variability from day to day.

Pregnant women are unwilling or unable to stop smoking pot almost daily. Increasing numbers of pregnant women are seeking help to discontinue pot use.

At least one woman found out her hyperemesis during pregnancy was the pot, not morning sickness.

Marijuana is addictive in adolescents.

When adolescents stop smoking weed, their memory gets better.

About six percent of High School seniors are smoking pot almost every day.

Clinical trials of medications to help people who are addicted to marijuana stop using are far from rare.

Francophones are addicted to pot.

Yes, Dutch people are addicted to pot.

Many Cases of cannabis hyperemesis syndrome are unable to stop smoking pot, even though it is severely incapacitating them.

Marijuana is addictive.

About 37% of frequent pot users will transition to dependence in three years.

Oh, and pot users are not awesome, friendly and mellow, actually nondependent users are impulsive and hostile on the day they use pot compared with nonsmoking days.

55 responses so far

FLAKKA! (and other failures of the alleged profession of journalism)

Apr 20 2015 Published by under alpha-PVP, Bath Salts, Cathinone, Drug Abuse Science

Flakka is just the latest in a long line of stimulant drugs that can, in some very rare cases, result in astonishing public behavior.

Such as running nude through the streets to escape "unknown people trying to kill him".

Such as trying to kick in the door of a police station to get IN so as to escape cars that were supposedly chasing him.

Such as trying to shoot oneself on a rooftop, naked.

Such as trying to have carnal relations with a tree after proclaiming oneself to be Thor.

These stories are like crack to the mainstream media. They have been telling these stories for years, encompassing public scares over PCP, crack cocaine and methamphetamine over the decades past. More recently we've seen these types of stories about synthetic cathinones, in particular under the generic term "bath salts".

Sprinkled amongst the stories about classical psychomotor stimulant effects, we have stories of overdose involving synthetic opioids, MDMA and/or Molly and stories of adverse psychotropic effects of synthetic cannabinoid products. I've addressed some of these issues in prior posts and for today I want to discuss the stimulants of more traditional effect.

My greatest frustration with the reporting is not actually the breathless sensationalism, although that runs a close second. The biggest problem is the lack of verification of the bizarre behavior (or overdose) being associated with ingestion of the drug that is alleged in the initial reporting. I have not see one single verification of alpha-PVP in the body tissues of these recent Florida cases where the subjects reported consuming Flakka. We still do not know exactly what drugs were consumed by the 11 Wesleyan University students who became ill enough to hospitalize. We don't know what caused the death of Kimchi Truong at last year's Coachella music festival.

Oftentimes there are multiple media reports which, to their credit, mention that toxicology testing will take some weeks to verify. And yet. Rarely is there ever a follow-up accounting. And when there is a followup, well, it gets very poor penetration and people often parrot the wrong information even years later.

The Florida Causeway Cannibal is a case in point. At the time of the initial event it was almost universally reported to be due to "bath salts", i.e. MDPV. Toxicology reporting found no sign of any synthetic cathinone in Mr. Eugene.

It is long past time for us to hold the media as accountable for accuracy and followup on drug-related stories as we do for, say, sports reporting.

Now, there are a couple of bright lights in this generally dismal area of news reporting. Here's a local story that reported MDA, not MDMA, was at blame for a death (although they still screw up, MDA is not a "parent" drug of MDMA). In 2013 there was followup in three music festival deaths in New York to confirm MDMA, methylone and the combination of the two caused the three fatalities. We need this kind of attention paid to all of these cases.

Getting back to the current media storm over "Flakka", which is alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (alpha-PVP), I have a few links for you if you are interested in additional reading on this drug.

@forensictoxguy posted a list of scientific papers on alpha-PVP at The Dose Makes the Poison blog. It is not a very long list at present! (Marusich et al, 2014 is probably the place to start your reading.)

The Dose Makes the Poison discussed alpha-PVP back in early 2014....this is not a new 2015 drug by any means.

Michael Taffe from The Scripps Research Institute [PubMed; Lab Site] gives a preview of a paper in press showing alpha-PVP and MDPV are pretty similar to each other in rat self-administration.

There was also a post on the Taffe blog suggesting that alpha-PVP samples submitted to ecstasydata.org were more consistently pure than MDPV and some other street drugs.

Wikipedia, NIDA brief

Jacob Sullum has written a pretty good Opinion piece at Forbes Fear Of Flakka: Anti-Drug Hysteria Validates Itself.

Review of the above information will help you to assess claims in the media that Flakka is "[insert more addictive, more dangerous, more powerful, worse] than [insert bath salts, MDPV, methamphetamine, cocaine]".

tldr; It isn't.

It will also assist you in coming to an understanding that Flakka is likely to be just as addictive and problematic as these previously sensationalized stimulants.

tldr; It is.

In my view, the scope of the Flakka problem over the coming years will be dictated by user popularity and availability, and not by anything particularly unique about the molecular structure of alpha-PVP.

24 responses so far

Why PMA if dealers don't want to kill their clients?

Mar 13 2015 Published by under MDMA

There's an interesting piece on Ecstasy in Mixmag that addresses something that is a side issue of the MDMA overdose issue that I've talked about on the blog. These issues bubble up to our conscious consideration every time there is a mysterious Ecstasy-related cluster of adverse events such as at Wesleyan University. Until there is confirmation of the drug(s) involved from toxicological testing we can only speculate as to the cause of the events.

Even though we know that MDMA itself is always a top suspect, PMA, (para-Methoxyamphetamine), is a fine Usual Suspect of a non-MDMA substance sold to users as "Ecstasy" but resulting in adverse consequences.

The Mixmag piece reminds us of the MDMA drought in the UK that launched mephedrone into the recreational pharmacopeia.

One of the easiest ways to make MDMA is to use an essential oil called safrole, which occurs naturally in the roots and bark of the yellow camphor tree, found in Cambodian rainforests and elsewhere. The UN has targeted the trade repeatedly in the last decade, with the noble aims of protecting the rainforest, which is being chopped down by the gangs that steam-distil the oil out of the bark in giant, bubbling cauldrons in jungle labs. The UN burned 33 tonnes of it in 2008, which caused a worldwide drought of MDMA and the emergence of mephedrone as both gangsters and clubbers looked for alternatives. In September 2010, 50 tonnes were burned in Thailand.

Yep, we recall.

However, this previous preferred-method for synthesizing MDMA leads on to the reason why PMA is sometimes pushed out on the market for consumers to use, unsuspectingly in many cases. Mixmag proposes this hypothesis:

PMA is made from an oil called anethole, which is legal, cheap, and easy to get hold of.

Professor David Nutt agrees that the likely scenario is that clandestine chemists use anethole in a trial run, to test new lab set-ups, and then sell the resulting PMA to unscrupulous pill pressers. Making PMA involves an identical set of chemical reactions to making MDMA – only the precursor is different. Think about it: if you had a limited amount of very expensive safrole or PMK, and you had a new lab, or a new chemist, you’d want to test your kit out. A trial run making PMA from anethole would help you practice the technique and avoid losing valuable precursors – and you’d make some money back.

They then ask any chemists reading to confirm so one must take this as speculation rather than journalistically confirmed with clandestine labs.

14 responses so far

Health report from Colorado: Recreational marijuana harms

Dec 15 2014 Published by under Cannabis, Drug Abuse Science

a Reader put me onto a new Viewpoint in JAMA:

Monte AA, Zane RD, Heard KJ. The Implications of Marijuana Legalization in Colorado.JAMA. 2014 Dec 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17057. [Epub ahead of print][JAMA; PubMed]

The authors are from the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center. They set out to describe a few health stats from before and after the recreational legalization of marijuana.

Interesting tidbits:

However, there has been an increase in visits for pure marijuana intoxication. These were previously a rare occurrence, but even this increase is difficult to quantify. Patients may present to emergency departments (EDs) with anxiety, panic attacks, public intoxication, vomiting, or other nonspecific symptoms precipitated by marijuana use. The University of Colorado ED sees approximately 2000 patients per week; each week, an estimated 1 to 2 patients present solely for marijuana intoxication and another 10 to 15 for marijuana-associated illnesses.

This one is obviously frustratingly anecdotal in that there is no real measure of the rate before legalization.

The one on cyclic vomiting syndrome is better:

The frequent use of high THC concentration products can lead to a cyclic vomiting syndrome. Patients present with severe abdominal pain, vomiting, and diaphoresis; they often report relief with hot showers. A small study at 2 Denver-area hospitals revealed an increase in cyclic vomiting presentations from 41 per 113 262 ED visits to 87 per 125 095 ED visits (prevalence ratio, 1.92) after medical marijuana liberalization (A. A. Monte, MD, unpublished data, December 2014).

We've discussed the phenomenon of cannabis hyperemesis before on the blog. One thing we do have to be careful about is that since it has only been recently that the medical community has been alerted to the possibility of cannabis hyperemesis, we should expect the detection rate to increase. Thus, even against a stable rate of cannabis hyperemesis I would expect the reported rate to be increasing.

The University of Colorado burn center has experienced a substantial increase in the number of marijuana-related burns. In the past 2 years, the burn center has had 31 admissions for marijuana-related burns; some cases involve more than 70% of body surface area and 21 required skin grafting. The majority of these were flash burns that occurred during THC extraction from marijuana plants using butane as a solvent.

This is the e-cigarette and vape market at work people. In South Florida they apparently call it 'Budda'.

Apparently some basic pharmacology 101 would be of help to the good citizens of Colorado.

Edible products are responsible for the majority of health care visits due to marijuana intoxication for all ages. This is likely due to failure of adult users to appreciate the delayed effects of ingestion compared with inhalation. Prolonged absorption complicates dosing, manufacturing inconsistencies lead to dose variability

Interesting. I recall the language in the original initiative was very vague about product testing, labeling, etc. Looks like this is a problem.

Ten to 30 mg of THC is recommended for intoxication depending on the experience of the user; each package, whether it is a single cookie or a package of gummy bears, theoretically contains 100 mg of THC. Because many find it difficult to eat a tenth of a cookie, unintentional overdosing is common. Furthermore, manufacturing practices for marijuana edible products are not standardized. This results in edible products with inconsistent THC concentrations, further complicating dosing for users. According to a report in the Denver Post, products described as containing 100 mg of THC actually contained from 0 to 146 mg of THC.8

Oh, and the children. Don't forget about the children.

The most concerning health effects have been among children. The number of children evaluated in the ED for unintentional marijuana ingestion at the Children’s Hospital of Colorado increased from 0 in the 5 years preceding liberalization to 14 in the 2 years after medical liberalization.3 This number has increased further since legalization; as of September 2014, 14 children had been admitted to the hospital this year, and 7 of these were admitted to the intensive care unit. The vast majority of intensive care admissions were related to ingestion of edible THC products.

This Viewpoint certainly draws attention to the edibles/consumables products as being a problem. Seems pretty clear that maturation of product regulation would be a start, so that people are informed about what they are getting. This should probably be supplemented with some sort of public information campaign on the pharmacokinetics of ingested products compared with smoking marijuana. And, you know, keep it away from your kids.

13 responses so far

Szalavitz on marijuana addiction

Oct 15 2014 Published by under Cannabis, Cocaine, Drug Abuse Science

If I'm going to bash a journalist when she writes something horrible about drug abuse, I must take pains to congratulate her when she writes something pretty good.

Maia Szalavitz' latest "Of course Marijuana addiction exists and it's (almost) all in your head" is actually not bad.
Continue Reading »

4 responses so far

Repost: The War on Drugs Didn't Work, Eh?

Sep 02 2014 Published by under Cannabis, Drug Abuse Science, Public Health

There's a strawman-tilting screed up over at substance.com from my current favorite anti-drug-war-warrior Maia Szalavitz. She's trying to assert that Trying to Scare Teens Away From Drugs Doesn’t Work.

In this she cites a few outcome studies of interventions that last over relatively short periods of time and address relatively small populations. I think the most truthful thing in her article is probably contained in this quote:

Another study, which used more reliable state data from the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey, concluded that “When accounting for a preexisting downward trend in meth use, effects [of the Montana Meth Project] on meth use are statistically indistinguishable from zero.”

This points out the difficulty in determining broad, population based outcomes from either personal introspection (where a lot of the suspicion about anti-drug messaging comes from, let's face it) or rather limited interventions. Our public policy goals are broad- we want to affect entire national populations...or at least state populations. In my view, we need to examine when broad national popular behavior shifted, if it did, if we want to understand how to affect it in the future.

The following originally appeared 21 July 2008.


If you are a reader of my posts on drug abuse science you will have noticed that it rarely takes long for a commenter or three to opine some version of "The (US) War on Drugs is a complete and utter failure". Similarly, while Big Eddie mostly comments on the liberty aspects (rather than the effectiveness) of the WoD himself, a commenter to his posts will usually weigh in, commenting to a similar effect.

Now I'm open to all the arguments about personal liberty trade offs, economic costs, sentencing disparities, violations of other sovereign nations and the like. Nevertheless, I'm most interested in the fundamental question of whether the War on Drugs worked. That is, to reduce drug use in the US. For those who believe it has not worked, I have a few figures I would like explained to me.

Continue Reading »

10 responses so far

Insinuations, misdirections, straw arguments and obsfucation in drug abuse journalism

Jul 18 2014 Published by under Drug Abuse Science, Public Health

Maia Szalavitz has penned a new article on addiction that has been circulated, credulously and uncritically, on social media by people who should know better. So, once more, into the breech, Dear Reader.

The article in question is Most of Us Still Don't Get It: Addiction is a Learning Disorder is posted at substance.com.

We can start with the sub-header:

Addiction is not about our brains being "hijacked" by drugs or experiences—it's about learned patterns of behavior. Our inability to understand this leads to no end of absurdities.

From whence comes learning if not from experiences? And what is the ingestion of a psychoactive drug if not an experience? She is making no sense here. The second sentence is pure straw-man, particularly when you read the entire piece and see that her target is science, scientists and the informed public rather than the disengaged naive reader.

Academic scientists focused on drug abuse have talked about the learning aspect, of habits and of the lasting consequences of drug experiences since forever. This is not in the least little bit unknown or novel.
Continue Reading »

13 responses so far

The most replicated finding in drug abuse science

Ok, ok, I have no actual data on this. But if I had to pick one thing in substance abuse science that has been most replicated it is this.

If you surgically implant a group of rats with intravenous catheters, hook them up to a pump which can deliver small infusions of saline adulterated with cocaine HCl and make these infusions contingent upon the rat pressing a lever...

Rats will intravenously self-administer (IVSA) cocaine.

This has been replicated ad nauseum.

If you want to pass a fairly low bar to demonstrate you can do a behavioral study with accepted relevance to drug abuse, you conduct a cocaine IVSA study [Wikipedia] in rats. Period.

And yet. There are sooooo many ways to screw it up and fail to replicate the expected finding.

Note that I say "expected finding" because we must include significant quantitative changes along with the qualitative ones.

Off the top of my head, the types of factors that can reduce your "effect" to a null effect, change the outcome to the extent even a statistically significant result isn't really the effect you are looking for, etc

  • Catheter diameter or length
  • Cocaine dose available in each infusion
  • Rate of infusion/concentration of drug
  • Sex of the rats
  • Age of rats
  • Strain of the rats
  • Vendor source (of the same nominal strain)
  • Time of day in which rats are run (not just light/dark* either)
  • Food restriction status
  • Time of last food availability
  • Pair vs single housing
  • "Enrichment" that is called-for in default guidelines for laboratory animal care and needs special exception under protocol to prevent.
  • Experimenter choice of smelly personal care products
  • Dirty/clean labcoat (I kid you not)
  • Handling of the rats on arrival from vendor
  • Fire-alarm
  • Cage-change day
  • Minor rat illness
  • Location of operant box in the room (floor vs ceiling, near door or away)
  • Ambient temperature of vivarium or test room
  • Schedule- weekends off? seven days a week?
  • Schedule- 1 hr? 2hr? 6 hr? access sessions
  • Schedule- are reinforcer deliveries contingent upon one lever press? five? does the requirement progressively increase with each successive infusion?
  • Animal loss from the study for various reasons

As you might expect, these factors interact with each other in the real world of conducting science. Some factors you can eliminate, some you have to work around and some you just have to accept as contributions to variability. Your choices depend, in many ways, on your scientific goals beyond merely establishing the IVSA of cocaine.

Up to this point I'm in seeming agreement with that anti-replication yahoo, am I not? Jason Mitchell definitely agrees with me that there are a multitude of ways to come up with a null result.

I am not agreeing with his larger point. In fact, quite the contrary.

The point I am making is that we only know this stuff because of attempts to replicate! Many of these attempts were null and/or might be viewed as a failure to replicate some study that existed prior to the discovery that Factor X was actually pretty important.

Replication attempts taught the field more about the model, which allowed investigators of diverse interests to learn more about cocaine abuse and, indeed, drug abuse generally.

The heavy lifting in discovering the variables and outcomes related to rat IVSA of cocaine took place long before I entered graduate school. Consequently, I really can't speak to whether investigators felt that their integrity was impugned when another study seemed to question their own work. I can't speak to how many "failure to replicate" studies were discussed at conferences and less formal interactions. But given what I do know about science, I am confident that there was a little bit of everything. Probably some accusations of faking data popped up now and again. Some investigators no doubt were considered generally incompetent and others were revered (sometimes unjustifiably). No doubt. Some failures to replicate were based on ignorance or incompetence...and some were valid findings which altered the way the field looked upon prior results.

Ultimately the result was a good one. The rat IVSA model of cocaine use has proved useful to understand the neurobiology of addiction.

The incremental, halting, back and forth methodological steps along the path of scientific exploration were necessary for lasting advance. Such processes continue to be necessary in many, many other aspects of science.

Replication is not an insult. It is not worthless or a-scientific.

Replication is the very lifeblood of science.

__
*rats are nocturnal. check out how many studies**, including behavioral ones, are run in the light cycle of the animal.

**yes to this very day, although they are certainly less common now

20 responses so far

CPDD 2014: The XLR-11 synthetic cannabinoid is looking nastier by the day

XLR-11_structureA session on synthetic cannabinoids at the Experimental Biology meeting in April included a talk on nephrotoxicity consequent to use of synthetic cannabinoid products. I covered it in a post. As with a prior report of Cases in Wyoming, the scientist from Oregon reported being able to identify XLR-11 in two of the cases presented. There is not much available on PubMed at the moment regarding the effects of this cannabimimetic. (The XLR-11 structure at the right is courtesy of "meodipt" who submitted it to the Wikipedia page for free use.)

New data presented by Michael Gatch at the recent meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence in San Juan, PR (lovely venue, btw) caught my eye because of an unusual property of XLR-11. Previously, Gatch has looked at a lengthy series of synthetic cathione ("bath salt") drugs in mouse locomotor and rat drug-discrimination assays. This new work is similar, save for the different drug class, so if you want some background reading, that prior paper would be a good complement.

The key, for me, was the drug-discrimination data. This is an assay in which animals are trained to discriminate saline from a reference drug, in this case good old Δ9Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). In essence the rat is reinforced for responding on one lever if it has received saline just prior to the operant session and on the other lever if it has received THC. Then, on critical test days, you can substitute a dose of some other drug and determine the extent to which the rat responds on the drug-paired versus saline-paired lever. As I've mentioned before, this seems imprecise to the newcomer since seemingly any intoxicant would be scored as "drug" to a rat. Not so. They are actually highly specific in categorizing drugs of similar pharmacological activity.

The interesting thing in the presentation by Gatch was that he showed time-course with bins of about 5 minutes after the start of the session. One drug, XLR-11, popped out as having rapid onset of activity (i.e., full THC responding at 5 min when it takes maybe 10 or 15 for this to occur for THC itself) and a short duration of action (THC-lever responding disappeared after about 15 minutes). I say it popped out because out of a series of cannabimimetic drugs he presented, this one was the only one to have this profile (to my recollection).

This is interesting because in a general sense this tells me two things. First, this is the profile of a drug that is going to engender rapid on/off subjective effects and therefore very likely frequent re-dosing. From a comparative perspective this sounds like enhanced abuse liability to me...i.e., better chances of causing addiction.

The second aspect only hit me when I recalled that XLR-11 was the compound associated with nephrotoxicity. Now, admittedly, it may be the case that XLR-11 itself has a pyrolosis product produced during the smoking of plant matter containing it. But it also strikes me that this rapid on/off pharmacological profile might lead to recreational users simply using more of the products containing this compound than they ever would of products containing some longer acting synthetic cannabinoid. And that might get us back to thinking about what is contained in the various plants used in the products being sold to users.

8 responses so far

The NIH says investigators must incorporate sex-differences analyses in their studies

May 14 2014 Published by under Drug Abuse Science, NIH, NIH funding, Sex Differences

For some reason I am having a DOI error on the actual comment from Clayton and Collins. So until that is resolved, the sourcing is from the journalists who got the embargoed version.

Apparently Janine Clayton and Francis Collins have issued a commentary on a new policy that the NYT describes as:

The N.I.H. is directing scientists to perform their experiments with both female and male animals and include both sexes in sufficient numbers to see statistically significant differences. Grant reviewers will be instructed to take the sex balance of each study design into account when awarding grants.

Yeah, that sounds pretty clear. My studies just doubled...which means really that they were just cut in half. I'm cool with that. I actually agree that it would be good if we did almost everything as a sex-differences study.

There's the money though. Sex difference studies in a behaving animal are not just a doubling as it happens (and as I inaccurately described it just above). From a prior post on this topic entitled: The funding is the science II, "Why do they always drop the females?"

As nicely detailed in Isis' post, the inclusion of a sex comparison doubles the groups right off the bat but even more to the point, it requires the inclusion of various hormonal cycling considerations. This can be as simple as requiring female subjects to be assessed at multiple points of an estrous cycle. It can be considerably more complicated, often requiring gonadectomy (at various developmental timepoints) and hormonal replacement (with dose-response designs, please) including all of the appropriate control groups / observations. Novel hormonal antagonists? Whoops, the model is not "well established" and needs to be "compared to the standard gonadectomy models", LOL >sigh<.

The money and the progress.

Keep in mind, if you will, that there is always a more fundamental comparison or question at the root of the project, such as "does this drug compound ameliorate cocaine addiction?" So all the gender comparisons, designs and groups need to be multiplied against the cocaine addiction/treatment conditions. Suppose it is one of those cocaine models that requires a month or more of training per group? Who is going to run all those animals ? How many operant boxes / hours are available? and at what cost?

Oh, don't worry bench jockeys. According to the NYT article:

Researchers who work with cell cultures are also being encouraged to study cells derived from females as well as males, and to do separate analyses to tease out sex differences at the cellular level.

“Every cell has a sex,” Dr. Clayton said in a telephone interview. “Each cell is either male or female, and that genetic difference results in different biochemical processes within those cells.”

“If you don’t know that and put all of the cells together, you’re missing out, and you may also be misinterpreting your data,” Dr. Clayton added. For example, researchers recently discovered that neurons cultured from males are more susceptible to death from starvation than those from females, because differences in the ways their cells process nutrients.

"Encouraged". Okay, maybe you CultureClowns have an escape clause here. Animal model folks are facing "demanded" language.

Final observations are ridiculous:

But [the new policies] are likely to be met with resistance from scientists who fear increased costs and difficulty in performing their experiments. Studying animals of both sexes may potentially double the number required in order to get significant results.

“There’s incredible inertia among people when it comes to change, and the vast majority of people doing biological research are going to think this is a huge inconvenience,” Dr. Zucker said.

...

Margaret McCarthy, a neuroscientist at University of Maryland School of Medicine who studies sex differences, agreed. “The reactions will range from hostile — ‘You can’t make me do that’ — to ‘Oh, I don’t want to control for the estrous cycle,'” she said.

This has nothing to do with whether a scientist "wants" to or not.

Let me be clear, I want to do sex-differences studies. I am delighted that this will be a new prescription. I agree with the motivating sentiments.

What I "fear" is that grant applications will be kicked in the teeth if they include sex differences comparisons. What I "fear" is that my research programs will be even less productive on the main area of interest, to the tune of a lot of extra work that will simply confirm a lot of what we already know. For example, female rats tend to self-administer more drug than males do. A lot of my colleagues have been working on these topics for a long time. The identification of those areas where it actually matters (i.e., sex difference effects that haven't yet been detected) are going to come along with a lot of negative findings. What I "fear" is that when we are interested in a certain thing, there is a bit of sex-differences literature and the hypothesis is going to be "males and females are the same" or even "females are more/less sensitive to drug" that this is going to bring down the holy hells of reviewer wrath over what hypothesis we are testing.

I fear a lot of things about this. What I don't fear is my own interest in the topic. What I don't fear is the "inconvenience". I don't even fear "difficulty". It just isn't that difficult to add female groups to my studies.

What it takes is additional grant funding. Or tolerance on the part of P&T committees, hiring committees and grant review panels for apparently reduced progress on a scientific topic of interest. And those things are not at all easy to come by.

The funny thing is, we've been taking steps in the lab toward this direction in the past year anyway. So I should be grateful I have at least that little tiny bit of a head start on this stuff.

21 responses so far

Older posts »