an autodidact meets a dilettante…

a dialogue/monologue promoting humanism, science, skepticism, globalism and femocracy, and demoting ignorance, patriarchy, thuggery and zero-sum game nationalism

Posts Tagged ‘drugs

is this the best use of journalism?: attn Katie McBride and Outline magazine

leave a comment »

Rat Park, in colour

Jacinta: Now we’re going to do something slightly unpleasant but wholly necessary: take someone to task, as teachers must occasionally do.

Canto: Yes, it relates to a previous post, a recent one, about Rat Farm and the war on drugs.

Jacinta: In writing that post we happened upon an article entitled  ‘This 38-year-old study is still spreading bad ideas about addiction” – which kind of shocked me with its provocative title. It was written by Katie MacBride and published by Outline, an online magazine. I only skimmed the article at the time, bemused to find the Rat Park experiment still creating such negative vibes after all these years, but some obvious problems in the article stood out, even on the most cursory reading, so I’ve decided to revisit it with a more careful analysis, with Canto’s help.

Canto: Well the first red flag with the article comes with the first words, before even the title. Pop science. In other words, this article, or rather its subject, should be filed in the category of ‘pop science’, as opposed to real science. This is designed to instil prejudice in the reader from the outset, and is clearly a cheap trick.

Jacinta: Yes, and for an immediate antidote to this kind of cheapsterism, I’d advise anyone to read the Wikipedia article on the rat park experiment, which is calmly and reasonably presented, as is usual. And let me here heap praise on Wikipedia for its general reliability, its objectivity and its pro-science approach. It’s one of the greatest gifts the internet has provided to our world, IMHO.

Canto: The next red flag comes with the title – ’38 years old and still spreading bad ideas’…. As if the date of the study is relevant. There are a number of landmark psychology studies even older than Bruce Alexander’s Rat Park, and also ‘flawed’ – of which more later, – which continue to resonate today for obvious reasons…

Jacinta: Yes, for example Stanley Milgram’s electric shock experiments, over fifty years ago now, and the Stanford Prison experiment of 1971. These, and Alexander’s Rat Park experiment, deserve to be regarded as landmark pieces of work because they make you think. And they often overturn previous thinking. They shake our complacency.

Canto: And what about the latter part of the title, that Alexander’s work is still spreading bad ideas?

Jacinta: It’s interesting that she claims this, considering that the main reason Alexander embarked on this study was to combat bad ideas – particularly the war on drugs itself, and the prevailing view, promoted by the likes of Harry Anslinger and his zero tolerance approach to drugs such as cannabis and cocaine, that use of these drugs led inevitably to a kind of madness that was extremely harmful to self and others. Remember the rat adverts of the time, which showed rats dropping dead after regularly imbibing morphene-laced water, with the message ‘this could happen to you’.

Canto: Yes, and the rats may well have been choosing the drug over plain water because, like many lab rats of the time – hopefully things have changed – the conditions they were kept in made their life something of a living hell. What Alexander’s experiment showed was that, given a far more enriched environment, rats made far less simplistic and self-destroying choices. That’s all. So how could this be a ‘bad idea?’

Jacinta: MacBride doesn’t say. But to be fair, Alexander’s thesis may have been that opiates aren’t addictive at all, which is not what his results showed – they showed that environment matters hugely in respect to the willingness to get hooked on drugs. And that’s a really really important finding, not a ‘bad idea’.

Canto: And we’re still on the title of MacBride’s essay, which is followed by a tiny summary remark, ‘The Rat Park study was flawed and its findings have been oversimplified, but it keeps getting cited.’ Any comments?

Jacinta: Yes – as a regular listener to the podcasts of the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe (SGU) over the years, as well as a reader of Ben Goldacre and other science-based critics of medical/psychological studies and experiments, I can safely say that every piece of research or experimentation, since the dawn of time, is flawed. Or imperfect. Or limited. Some more than others. of course. So to say the study is flawed is to say nothing at all. Every episode of SGU, and I’ve listened to hundreds, features one piece of published research or other, which Steve Novella picks to pieces to determine whether it’s very or mildly interesting, or a piece of rubbish, but even with the best study, the mantra is generally ‘needs more research’. So a critic needs to show how an experiment is flawed, and how those flaws affect the results. And MacBride’s effort to do this is pretty abysmal.

Canto: Okay, before we examine that effort, I’d like to quote something from early on in MacBride’s article:

The Rat Park study undermined one popular misconception about addiction, that chemistry of drugs is the single most important factor in addiction. But instead of pushing the popular understanding forward, it merely replaced that misconception with a new one: that environment is the most important factor.

What do you make of that? Do you think it a fair description of the study?

Jacinta: It’s an odd description, or mis-description, of the study. The first sentence you quoted isn’t problematic. The study did undermine the idea that it was all about chemistry. Or rather it would have, had anyone paid attention to it. It should have, as MacBride implies, but instead of then regretting that the study didn’t have any impact, she presents it as deserving of oblivion. It doesn’t make much sense.

Canto: The quote claims that it’s a misconception that environment is the most important factor in drug addiction. Do you agree?

Jacinta: I don’t know if it’s the most important factor, but it’s obviously an important factor, and the Rat Park experiment provided strong evidence for this. It seems MacBride is confusing Alexander’s possible claims or commentary on the study with the study itself. The study doesn’t prove that environment is the most important factor, but it certainly makes you think about addiction in a very different way from the horrific but dumb rat ads  that prompted it. It makes you think, as all good studies do, and that’s something MacBride seems extremely reluctant to admit. And I wonder why.

Canto: But MacBride does provide cogent criticisms of the study, doesn’t she?

Jacinta: Well, she quotes one particular critique of the study, by a Dr Sam Snodgrass, who found that the Rat Park environment, in which rats were no longer isolated and therefore mated, as rats are wont to do, would have rendered the findings questionable. According to Snodgrass, “You can’t have one group of subjects mating and with pups and compare it to a group that doesn’t engage in these behaviors and say that the difference between the two groups is caused by environmental differences.” But I beg to differ. An environment in which you’re isolated and unable to have sex is obviously very different from an environment in which you breed as normal – especially for rats. As to the rat pups ruining the experiment, I think if you looked closely at any rat study in which rats get to live together and breed, the actual experiment would be more messy than the published results indicate, but I doubt the problems would be so great as to invalidate those results.

Canto: And what about attempts to replicate the experiment?

Jacinta: Well there seem not to have been enough of them, and that’s not Alexander’s fault. Above all, similar experiments should have been conducted with different drugs and different concentrations etc. And of course rats aren’t humans, and it’s hard to bridge that gap, especially these days, as lab testing of other non-human animals (and rats too) is increasingly frowned upon, for good reason. I note that MacBride briefly mentions that others did replicate Alexander’s results, but she chooses to focus almost wholly on those who found differences. She’s also quite brief in describing the obvious parallel, presented in much greater detail in Johann Hari’s Chasing the scream, of American soldiers taking heavily to heroin in the alienating environment of Vietnam and giving them up on their return to what was for them an obviously more enriched environment. The facts were startling – 20 time the heroin addiction in Vietnam, as MacBride admits – but not much is made of them, as she is more concerned to pour cold water on Rat Park, so to speak.

Canto: Yes it’s strange – MacBride admits that the war on drugs has been an abject failure, but her obsession with criticising Rat Park prevents her from carrying through on that with, for example, the alternatives to this American approach in Europe. She mentions the again startling fact, reported by the Brookings Institute, that the combined hardcore user rate for hard drugs was approximately 4 times higher in the US than in Europe, after decades of the US war on drugs, but fails to note that the Rat Park experiment was one of the main inspirations in implementing more humane and vastly more successful policies, not only in Europe but, more recently, in some US states.

Jacinta: Yes MacBride is clearly concerned to get everyone’s facts straight on the opioid epidemic that’s currently gripping the US, and about which I honestly know little, but I think she has gone overboard in seeking to vilify the Rat Park study, which surely has little to do with that epidemic. The Rat Park experiment hardly promotes drug-taking; what it does strongly suggest, as does Johann Hari’s book, is that environment is one of the most important factors in determining a person’s willingness to escape into drugs. My own personal experience tallies with that, having been brought up in a depressed and disadvantaged region, hard-hit in the seventies by economic recession, and watching the illicit drug trade take off around me, as houses and gardens became more and more derelict.

Canto: Yes, it’s hard to understand why she’s focusing so negatively on Rat Park, when the problem is really one of interpretation, insofar as there is a problem. And I don’t know how it relates negatively to the opioid crisis. Maybe we should find out more about this crisis, and do a follow-up?

Jacinta: Maybe, but it’s so hard trying to fix the world’s problems… but of course that’s what we’re here for…


Written by stewart henderson

April 13, 2018 at 11:53 am

The rat park experiment and the war on drugs

with one comment

I’ve always intuitively felt that all drugs should be legal, along with just about everything else. I’m happy with age limits on drinking alcohol and driving cars – in fact I think the age for driving should be raised, based on evidence about youth and car accidents, but since all the evidence says that alcohol, along with tobacco, is one of the most dangerous and destructive of all consumable substances, and yet perfectly legal, why turn dope smokers, or sellers, into criminals?

Smoking tobacco kills 650 out of every hundred thousand people who use it, while using cocaine kills four.

I’d worked out that much as a teenager – it naturally took me a lot longer to work out my views on heroin, cocaine, acid, meth and other drugs I knew about mainly from TV. More recently, the Portuguese drug policy, which has decriminalised usage and invested in harm reduction and drug treatment services, and was introduced due to Portugal’s disastrous death toll due to HIV and other drug-related illnesses, has been held up as an alternative to a take-no-prisoners ‘war on drugs’ strategy which, like the old prohibition on alcohol in the US, has only led to a spike in organised crime and a massive boost for privatised prison systems (worth some $5 billion in the USA alone).

People overdose because [under prohibition] they don’t know if the heroin is 1% or 40%… Just imagine if every time you picked up a bottle of wine, you didn’t know whether it was 8% or 80% [or] if every time you took an aspirin, you didn’t know if it was 5 milligrams or 500 milligrams.”

Johann Hari’s book Chasing the scream: the first and last days of the war on drugs, from which all indented and bolded quotes here are taken, provides, inter alia, countless challenges to the war on drugs strategy. What causes people to become drug addicts? This is a very different question from – What causes people to take drugs? I take drugs all the time, more or less exclusively alcohol and caffeine. I’m not sure if caffeine is even considered a drug. In any case, I don’t think I have any chance of becoming addicted to either of them. Unlike Billie Holiday and many many others who live or have lived with unbearable psychic or physical pain, or a sense of total emptiness, or worthlessness, or loneliness.

And anyone can find themselves in these circumstances. They don’t even have to be human. Scientific studies and trials about the chemical impact of drugs, promoted by anti-drug governments, have often been conducted on rats. The most convincing of these studies, for the war-on-drugs advocates, involved feeding laboratory rats on cocaine or some other powerful drug, and observing the effect, which was predictably negative, and ultimately fatal. The obvious flaw in such a study was that the lab rat, caged, isolated, unstimulated, in just about the most reduced circumstances possible, had no alternative but to accept what was offered, and would have quite rationally preferred, if you can see reason in a rat, the excited state offered by the drug, whatever the consequences, to the death-in-life alternative of her lonely imprisoned situation.

“Only one drug is so addictive, nine out of ten laboratory rats will use it. And use it. And use it. Until dead. It’s called cocaine. And it can do the same thing to you.”

As Hari points out, fatally flawed studies of this sort have been utilised – or weaponised, to use the in-jargon – in the war against drugs, which Trump has recently sought to re-energise to distract from his current woes. The most convincing rat study regarding drugs and addiction points to a very different approach, unsurprisingly. It’s described thoroughly in Kelly Lambert’s book The lab rat chronicles, which is a hymn of praise to ‘the planet’s most successful mammals’. Both Lambert and Hari share a strong sense of surprise and frustration at the failure of this study to be recognised as seminal, not only for drug use and abuse, but for our understanding of depression, anomie, nihilism and the like, or alternatively our understanding of the importance of community, activity and stimulation as a source of well-being.

Bruce Alexander, a psychology professor in Canada, noted, in his research on addicts in the seventies and eighties, that a disproportionate number of them came from dysfunctional backgrounds. This raised questions for him about the ‘hard drugs capture the brain and slowly kill it off’ scenario presented in the anti-drugs ads of the time. He noted that the rats in the experiments the ads were based on appeared to be kept in deprived, unstimulating conditions, so that even when given the choice between drug-laced and drug-free fluids, they preferred the drugs. Even an illusion of freedom was better than no freedom at all.

Alexander led a team at Simon Fraser University to develop an experiment to test how an enriched environment compares to a deprived environment in dealing with drug use and addiction. Lambert provides the detail:

The habitat they created was about two hundred times larger than the standard rat cage, had walls with colourful murals painted on them, as opposed to wire mesh, and contained lots of objects to interact with and climb on. Also important, rats didn’t occupy the new environment in isolation. Groups of sixteen to twenty rats of both sexes were placed in the environment. The pictures Alexander shared with me are fabulous: The rats interact with their complex environment, hang out with each other, and take naps in hiding places, for example. The researchers dubbed this new  stimulating environment ‘Rat Park’.

The results of this experiment should surprise no-one. The rats in the park were offered the option of two fluids, plain water and water laced with morphine, and a number of tests were designed to test the rats’ willingness to use the drug, including comparing Rat Park rats with those in isolated cages, shifting rats from isolation to Rat Park, and shifting them from Rat Park to isolation. The detailed results are presented in a Wikipedia article dedicated to the subject. The isolated rats went for the morphine pronto, whether or not they’d been moved from Rat Park or had never been there. The Rat Park rats showed a strong preference for the plain water – the females experimented with the morphine more than the males. Rats brought up in isolation and forced to drink only the morphine, chose water when switched to Rat Park and given the choice, and showed only minor withdrawal symptoms.

Alexander’s own conclusions dispel the myth of drug-induced addiction as essentially a one-way street, requiring a total ban on drugs:

The intense appetite of isolated experimental animals for heroin in self-injection experiments tells us nothing about the responsiveness of normal animals and people to these drugs. Normal people can ignore heroin … even when it is plentiful in their environment, and they can use these drugs with little likelihood of addiction … Rats from Rat Park seem to be no less discriminating.

We should be shocked at the way this study was treated, from the get-go. It was submitted to the two most influential science journals on the planet, Science and Nature, but was rejected for reasons unknown. It was finally published in Psychopharmacology, but was largely ignored by the scientific community until recently. Even today it is trashed by apparently vested interests, though its findings are backed up by many observations of human behaviour – for example, high-volume drug use by many American soldiers in Vietnam under conditions of stress and alienation, a usage which dropped off markedly upon return to the US – and by the success of more humane and supportive treatment of drug addicts in programs in Liverpool, England and Vancouver, Canada, and in countries such as Switzerland, Portugal and Uruguay, as reported by Hari.

‘Drug users are criminals first and addicts afterwards’ – Harry Anslinger 

So why was the study so badly treated? Hari points to the funding of much scientific study on drug addiction, which deals with chemical pathways rather than social conditions. Partly it’s because these studies are easier to engage in and are part of ‘hard science’ rather than the ‘soft science’ that explores environment and social connection. Much funding comes from the US government, whose successive iterations have supported the war on drugs approach. Follow-up studies have been done on Alexander’s work, which have more or less backed up his findings, but the best support for it is in the human arena, and it’s a no-brainer. Punishing, demonising and bullying addicts might make some strange people feel good about themselves, but it’s not going to help those addicts to kick their habit, or bring it under greater control. It’s inhumane apart from everything else, but the ‘everything else’ here includes promoting black markets, organised crime and a world of intimidation. Just look at Mexico, which at the behest of the US government and under the urging – or rather bullying – of its FBN (Federal Bureau of Narcotics) chief, the notorious Harry Anslinger, declared war on drugs with catastrophic consequences. Now the whole nation is in the grip of organised crime gangs.

It’s a difficult time to fight against all this. It sometimes seems as if we’re confronting a wave of belligerent, ignorant populism around the world. I myself feel it’s time to push back against this more strongly, and I’m hoping to transform and further promote my blog in that cause. So this may be my last post under the ‘new ussr’ title. It’s time to get a bit more serious.


Kelly Lambert, The lab rat chronicles, 2011

Johann Hari, Chasing the scream, 2015



Written by stewart henderson

March 28, 2018 at 12:58 pm

Trump’s downfall: more palaver

leave a comment »

dream, dream, dream

As I’ve often said, I’m lazily distracting myself by watching Trump’s downfall and commenting on it. I don’t seem to have the staying power at present to write anything too sciencey, and the Trump disaster is easy to attend to, though I must say I mute the TV or youtube every time the Trump comes on (isn’t it funny how the name itself smacks of the con man). I much prefer hearing about him second-hand. Again, though, I must say my prediction of him being out by the end of the year looks more of a dead cert than ever. It’s just a matter of the Mueller team having too much on their plates to digest. It’s likely they won’t have finished their meal by year’s end. But Trump may well have been spat out and into gaol by then. It depends of course on how Mueller organises his indictments – bottom up or top down. It could also be a bit of both.

But Trump is America’s tragedy. What happens, after all, once he and his family are ousted? The Presidency itself, the institution, will be seriously damaged. I’m sure the nation will manage to limp along until 2020, and a likely big turnaround in the mid-terms will largely put the nation’s affairs in safer hands, but new, tighter laws will have to be enacted, re nepotism, emoluments, financial disclosure, vetting of candidates for office, inter alia. These are essential to make the USA safe, and to allow it to be taken seriously again on the global stage.

Okay enough of the high-minded lecturing, let’s get down to wallowing in the grubby details. Everybody’s waiting for the next indictment or subpoena from the enquiry. Kushner? Trump Jr? Erik Prince? Roger Stone? Take your pick from these and a host of others. And what about this Stormy Daniels affair, another follow-the-money rib-tickler? Where do I begin?

A shady Lebanese-American wannabe mover-and-shaker, George Nader, has been questioned by the Mueller team, presumably primarily about a meeting in the Seychelles involving himself, an even shadier mover-and-shaker Erik Prince (an advisor to and supporter of Trump), and UAE diplomats with financial ties to Russia. There was apparently a dodgy Russian banker, Kirill Dmitriev, at the meeting as well. There’s little doubt that getting Prince to testify will reveal more dirt, but the team will have to make sure they know everything before asking the questions. I just wish I could listen in on what they do know.

Meanwhile there’s a special election in Pennsylvania and Trump has been there big-noting himself and insulting opponents, mostly women. He’s even promoted the idea of executing drug-dealers, because he’s a great admirer of Phillipines dictator Duterte. I’m currently reading Chasing the scream, a fast-paced narrative and denunciation of the disastrous war on drugs, but of course Trump doesn’t read, and certainly doesn’t care. He just likes the idea of killing people. I’m waiting for the result of this election, waiting for the next subpoena, the next indictment, waiting waiting…

I’m also hoping that women will play a major role in Trump’s downfall. I’m a little wary of the Me Too movement, having been falsely accused myself. True, I wasn’t accused by a woman, but it has taught me very effectively that accusations can be easily made, and with devastating consequences. But what the movement highlights is that, because of power imbalance, men have been treating women too badly for too long, and women are fighting back. It’s interesting to note that the Politico article just linked to cited recent research which ‘found women were nearly twice as likely as men to be deterred from running for office because of potentially having to engage in a negative campaign’. Such campaigns are what so many men like Trump choose naturally as their MO. And here’s another interesting quote, with an Australian theme:

In 2016, the Guardian published an analysis that found Hillary Clinton received abusive tweets at almost twice the rate of her Democratic primary opponent Bernie Sanders, while former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard, too, received about twice as much abuse as her male challenger, Kevin Rudd.

Actually, Rudd and Gillard belonged to the same party, but it’s probably right to describe them as opponents.

So I’m hoping that after the carnage of this Presidency, with Trump and his family in jail and his successor discredited, that the President after 2020 will be a woman. Obviously she will be a Democrat.

Elizabeth Warren has struck me as very impressive, from my still fairly minimal observations of her – a leftish liberal more palatable to the squeamish Americans than Sanders. After some more research I may write a piece about her. I certainly wouldn’t want any ‘celebrity’ female candidates running for office, and I suspect Hillary Clinton has done her dash.

As I slowly write, things keep happening. Rex Tillerson has been sacked. Silly man, he should’ve resigned long ago. I’ve had a bit of a fantasy in which all the top White House staffers and Trump appointees get together, decide enough is enough, and stage a mass resignation. It would actually be better for them – instead of being stuck in utterly thankless jobs, they’d come out of it as instantly employable for having the guts to take a stand. But of course, this would take organisation and co-ordination, and we’ve seen no evidence of that in this administration.

Finally, Putin has attempted to murder another Russian expatriate, along with his daughter. Many others have been poisoned too. Trump has belatedly come out in support of the British government’s rather tepid statement that Russia is ‘highly likely’ to be behind the nerve agent attack – though the whole statement is worth reading. Putin’s minions are saying that given Putin’s recent announcement that they’ve created some kind of super-weapon, it’s dangerous to accuse Russia of wrong-doing. To me, this is tantamount to an admission of guilt, and fairly solid proof of Monsieur Putain’s mafioso scumbag credentials. How to deal with this? Internationally and with unassailable solidarity. Russia has already been brought to its knees by Putin’s thievery, but we need to apply more pressure and provide as much support as we can to the millions of Russians who want to be freed of this scumbag so they can enter the adult world.

I’m a little disappointed that the Trump is still holding good at 40%, which should ensure he doesn’t get re-elected (yes yes, out of office by year’s end), it seems that only more indictments of the inner circle will drop him down below 35. Not sure if I mentioned this before, but I’m reading Chasing the scream, the racy but horrifyingly tragic bestseller by Johann Hari about the spectacularly disastrous ‘war on drugs’ in the USA and Mexico (disastrously forced on it by the US). The Trump recently threw red meat to his base by promoting the idea of execution for drug dealers (in the campaign for the Pennsylvania by-election, won by the Dems, haha), another know-nothing piece of squawking from someone who knows nothing but the idea of crushing, stamping, beating. It’s Mussolini without the hanging – yet.

Written by stewart henderson

March 15, 2018 at 10:26 pm