Five Science Blogs You Should Know About

(If you don’t already).

Mind Hacks

“Neuroscience and psychology tricks to find out what's going on inside your brain.”

Mind Hacks was originally a book by Tom Stafford and Matt Webb, subtitled “Tips and Tools for Using Your Brain.” Mind Hacks the blog has top-notch coverage of everything you can think of having to do with the brain. On Fridays, Vaughan Bell writes a weekly post, “Spike Activity,” which summarizes and links to the worldwide blogodome’s best posts about mind, brain, and culture from the preceding week.  Truly one of my first stops when it’s time to surf. Refreshingly, the site does not take ads or sponsored links.

Brain Blogger

“Topics from Multidimensional Biopsychosocial Perspectives.”

Dr. Shaheen Lakhan, editor of Brain Blogger and executive director of the Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, writes: “When we started blogging a few years ago, there were excellent science and medicine blogs, but none that truly captured the multidimensional aspects of health from biological, psychological, sociological, technological, and economical perspectives.” Topics covered include mental health stigmatization, living with a brain disorder, deep brain stimulation for depression, and addiction issues. Disclosure: I occasionally write articles for Brain Blogger.

Research Blogging

“ResearchBlogging.org is a system for identifying the best, most thoughtful blog posts about peer-reviewed research.”

According to information posted on the site, “Since many blogs combine serious posts with more personal or frivolous posts, our site offers a way to find only the most carefully-crafted posts about cutting-edge research, often written by experts in their respective fields.” Posts that meet the blog’s guidelines are displayed in easy-to-follow lists, and there are also weekly roundups.  Bloggers are able to mark their submitted posts with a Research Blogging icon for easy visibility on their own site. More or less exactly what you want out of a science blog aggregator.

The Corpus Callosum

Psychiatry, biology, medicine and mental health posts from an anonymous psychiatrist working “at a small community hospital somewhere in the USA.”

At The Corpus Callosum, editor Joseph puts up detailed, scrupulously accurate posts about everything from predicting antidepressant-related suicidality to post-traumatic stress disorder, and does so in a calm, measured tone of authority.  Another favorite of mine.

The Frontal Cortex

 “Jonah Lehrer is a contributing editor at Wired. He's also written for The New Yorker, Seed, Nature, and the New York Times and is a contributor to Radiolab.”

The hyperkinetic Jonah Lehrer is also the author of Proust Was A Neuroscientist and How We Decide. The former Rhodes scholar recently published a thought-provoking look at depression in the New York Times Magazine. On his blog, he’s likely to post about anything that catches his eye, and he’s got a good eye.

Photo Credit: http://www.aschoonerofscience.com

The Bong Water Case Revisited

Minnesota v. Peck.

Astute readers will recall the Great Bong Water Decision of 2009, in which the Minnesota Supreme Court determined, 4-3, that water used in a water pipe can be considered a “drug mixture.” Twenty five grams or more of this water, the court ruled, qualified the possessor for a first-degree criminal conviction and up to 30 years in prison.

The decision made the Minnesota Court the punch line in a worldwide joke, but things didn’t turn out so funny for defendant Sara Peck, who was sentenced to a year in jail, with six months suspended, after she pleaded guilty to Controlled Substance violations.  The quirk in the case was that the drug dissolved in the bong water wasn’t marijuana, but methamphetamine--a strange circumstance to say the least.

Nonetheless, Minneapolis criminal attorney Thomas Gallagher thinks that the ruling basically meant that, under the new interpretation, water could enhance the severity of a drug crime: “If trace amounts of criminalized drugs in bong water could be a crime based upon the weight of the water ‘mixture,’ then would not trace amounts of illegal drugs in our drinking water also be a crime to possess?”

It follows logically that “every citizen of Minnesota [is] a drug criminal” if they use tap water, since trace amounts of dozens of prescription drugs are routinely present in tap water (I live in Minnesota, but, as the fates would have it, draw my water from a well, which should protect me from prosecution).

A bill introduced in the Minnesota House is designed to correct the situation. The bill would have the state determine the volume of illegal drugs in an arrest by “weighing the residue of a controlled substance” rather than the entire weight of the compound or mixture the drugs might be a part of.  (I can already envision a legal argument regarding the possession of unsmokable, discardable marijuana plant stems, by far the majority component of high-volume pot busts.)

The problem is obvious: “The Minnesota Bong Water case has helped undermine what public confidence there was in criminal drug laws and their enforcement,” writes Gallagher, citing a portion of the written dissent in the original court ruling in the Peck case:

“The majority’s decision to permit bong water to be used to support a first-degree felony controlled-substance charge runs counter to the legislative structure of our drug laws, does not make common sense, and borders on the absurd.”

Photo Credit: http://www.pigginempire.co.uk

A Shot for Cigarette Addiction?

NIDA’s Nora Volkow on addiction vaccines.

Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), predicted in a telephone interview on Friday that a vaccine for cigarettes could be available in as little as three years, if two large ongoing Phase 3 trials—the last major FDA hurdle—prove as successful as earlier studies.

NicVax (Nicotine Conjugate Vaccine) from Nabi Biopharmaceuticals, with a boost from a $40 million up-front cash infusion from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, is poised to become the first of a new kind of science-based addiction treatment—an avenue of approach that brings with it great promise, and a significant number of problems.

I asked Dr. Volkow if the NicVax studies had shown evidence that the effects could be overcome with greater levels of smoking. This is a hurdle that has plagued early research on a promising cocaine vaccine, as reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry (See my post "Cocaine Vaccine Hits Snag").  In the cocaine studies, researchers found that users could overcome the blunting effects of cocaine antibodies by ingesting as much as ten times their normal level of cocaine—clearly a dangerous outcome that could enhance the possibility of lethal overdose.  (See discussions at Neurotopia  and DrugMonkey).

“I am very sensitive to that issue,” Volkow said during a conference call from NIDA's Eighth Annual Blending Conference in Albuquerque, NM, where she was a featured speaker. “But the data we have give no evidence that smokers increase their cigarettes to overcome the antibodies. It was that piece of the data that led me to approve funding.”

In fact, said Volkow, “craving decreased after these vaccinations, so we would not necessarily expect smokers to try to overcome the effects. We’ve also seen a dramatic decrease in cocaine administration in animal models.” The matter of defeating a vaccine by overindulging remains a theoretical rather than an established risk, Volkow believes. 

Vaccines may operate somewhat differently that we think, she explained, by helping to extinguish the conditioned responses to craving cues as well. “We did not expect to see [anti-craving effects],” she said. “Craving is a product of memory, associated stimuli, the anticipation of a pleasant response. With cigarettes, if you feel nothing, the brain mechanism of conditioning that drives craving starts to weaken.”

The vaccine itself “is not totally stopping all of the drug from getting into the brain. But it affects the pharmacological properties, so users don’t get the expected outcome.  Nobody knows exactly how this might accelerate the extinction process—we haven’t done the studies. It’s going to be intriguing to have a product that has the capacity to make extinction much more universal.”

Volkow admitted that “we need to get a wider response,” since a significant number of smokers and cocaine users do not form antibodies from the vaccines. In addition, “we need longer-lasting responses so we don’t have to re-vaccinate.” The cocaine vaccine under study is in Phase 2 trials, and it will be several years before more definitive results are in.

The Blending Conference Volkow was attending was titled “Blending Addiction Science and Practice: Evidence-Based Treatment and Prevention in Diverse Populations and Settings.” Despite her emphasis on science-based treatments, Volkow stated firmly that social intervention and psychological treatment can be equally important, and characterized the supposed line between physical addiction and psychological addiction as an “obsolete distinction.” It is important to remember, she said, that “psychosocial interventions make biological changes in the brain” as well.

“People are desperate, and vaccines will be very helpful to those who develop antibodies. People want these magic bullets, but we don’t yet know how these vaccines will effect the therapeutic landscape.”

Graphics Credit: http://www.attcnetwork.org/

Some Background on the Psychedelic Renaissance

Ecstasy, MAPS, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The psychedelic drugs, new and old, are not only among the most powerful ever discovered, but are also tremendously difficult to study and utilize responsibly. By the mid-1990s, rumors about Ecstasy (MDMA) toxicity were everywhere. Unlike Prozac, but very much like LSD, Ecstasy not only blocks serotonin uptake, but also causes the release of additional serotonin, much the way cocaine and amphetamine cause the release of extra dopamine.

A study conducted by neurologist George Ricaurte at John Hopkins University under NIDA sponsorship seemed to show conclusive evidence of neurotoxic damage to the serotonin 5-HT receptors in the brains of monkeys given large doses of MDMA. A follow-up study of 30 MDMA users (existing users, since researchers didn’t have government permission to give MDMA to test subjects) showed 30 per cent less cerebrospinal serotonin, compared to a control group. However, the Johns Hopkins team did not have any baseline measurements for the MDMA users, and other neurologists raised technical objections about various aspects of the study, including dosage levels. As was often the case in such studies, the monkeys had been given a whopping dose, compared to the typical raver’s dose. Ricaurte insisted that the amount of MDMA consumed by a typical user in one night of raving was possibly enough to cause permanent brain damage. The government estimates that 10 million Americans have taken Ecstasy.

That would seem to be the end of the story, and a sobering lesson for today’s youth—but that is not how it turned out. A few years later, Dr. Charles Grob, psychiatry professor at the UCLA School of Medicine, received the first FDA approval ever given for the administration of MDMA to human volunteers. The result of Grob’s testing was that none of the volunteers showed any evidence of neuropsychological damage of any kind. In testimony before the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which was considering harsher penalties for MDMA possession in 2001, Dr. Grob seriously questioned the methodology of the Ricaurte studies: “It is very unfortunate that the lavishly funded NIDA-promoted position on so-called MDMA neurotoxicity has inhibited alternative research models which would better delineate the true range of effects of MDMA, including its potential application as a therapeutic medicine.” Science retracted its coverage of the Ricaurte findings.

It was eventually discovered that Dr. Ricaurte’s monkeys had been injected with amphetamine, not with MDMA—a discovery that also nullified four other published papers. Dr. Ricaurte explained that some labels had been switched, and a Johns Hopkins spokesperson called the whole thing “an honest mistake.” The basic questions about Ecstasy remain unanswered. Is there a line that separates a conceivably therapeutic dose of Ecstasy for mental ills or addictive ills from a possibly brain-damaging run of several dozen high-dosage trips? Perhaps the permanently altered receptor arrays, if they exist, don’t affect cognition or emotions in any significant way over the long run. Still, the risks of overindulgence appear to be at least potentially higher than the risks of overindulging in LSD or Ibogaine. All of the psychedelics tend to be more self-limiting than other categories of psychoactive drugs, anyway. After two or three days, even the most die-hard raver or LSD head is usually ready to take a break.

Rick Doblin and others at  the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) are now working with government investigators to pursue MDMA for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. There are reports that very low doses of LSD sometimes have an antidepressant effect. One thing we know for certain is that people on SSRI medications or MAO inhibitors report that their experiences on LSD or Ecstasy are shorter and far less powerful than is typically the case.  There appears to be some competition for receptor sites when Zoloft meets LSD. In contrast to the diminished psychedelic experience while on SSRIs, the older norepinephrine-active tricyclics like Tofranil and Norpramine reportedly serve to potentiate the LSD or MDMA experience. None of these combinations is a wise idea, due to uncertainties about the interactions.

Even DMT, which experienced trippers compared to being shot out of a cannon, has returned as a legitimate study subject. Dr. Rick Strassman, then with the University of New Mexico’s School of Medicine, received approval for clinical testing of DMT. Strassman was drawn to the subject because of the molecule’s natural occurrence in the brain (which makes every man, woman, and child in America a drug criminal, chemically speaking). He gave DMT to 60 human volunteers over a study period of five years. Strassman was primarily interested in near-death experiences and mystical experiences. None of the supervised DMT sessions evidently resulted in any detectable harm to the participants. Strassman presents his views on the medical use of DMT in his book, DMT: The Spirit Molecule.

Adapted from The Chemical Carousel: What Science Tells Us About Beating Addiction by Dirk Hanson © 2008, 2009.

Graphics Credit: http://hightimes.com/

Three Drug-Related Posts (Good Ones)

And a plea for your vote.

The DrugMonkey blog, written by an anonymous NIH-funded biomedical researcher,  takes on the question of why doctors dislike narcotics abusers but tolerate drinkers and smokers, and investigates whether there is something about opiates that “turns you into a jerk" in a post titled “Does one drug cause the user to be more annoying?”

Also at DrugMonkey this month, “UK Bans Mephedrone” is  a succinct summation of the dizzy panic going on in the UK over a new party drug that has similarities to the African drug khat. Did Britain institute a hasty and ill-considered ban on the substance based on political rather than scientific concerns?

Over at the Neuroskeptic blog, a British neuroscientist presents some intelligent background to the renewed interest in psychedelic research in his post, “Serotonin, Hallucinations & Psychosis.”

And lastly--although this couldn't possibly be any more off topic--my favorite tourist village--Ely, Minnesota--is currently leading the contest for "American's Coolest Small Town" at Budget Travel magazine's online site HERE.

If you are at all familiar with Ely (Gateway to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Land of Sky Blue Waters, Canoe Capital of America, Summer Home to Ten Thousand Paddling Boy Scouts) vote early and vote often! Contest closes May 9.

Photo Credit: http://www.aglabs.com/

Liking It Vs. Wanting It

The Joylessness of Drug Addiction.

Hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake, is not really the answer to the riddle of drug addiction. The pursuit of pleasure does not explain why so many addicts insist that they abuse drugs in a never-ending attempt to feel normal. With compulsive use and overuse, much of the pleasure eventually leaches out of the primary dysphoria-relieving drug experience. This does not, however, put an end to the drug-seeking behavior. Far from it. This is the point at which non-addicts tend to believe that there is no longer an excuse—the pleasure has dribbled away, the thrill is gone—but even when addicts aren’t getting the full feel-good benefits of the habit, they continue to use.

And now we know why. Any sufficiently powerful receptor-active drug is, in its way, fooling Mother Nature. This deceit means, in a sense, that all such drugs are illicit. They are not natural, however organic they may be. Yet, the human drive to use them is all-pervasive. We have no real built-in immunity to drugs that directly target specific receptors in the limbic and cortical pleasure pathways. 

The act of “liking” something is controlled by the forebrain and brain stem. If you receive a pleasant reward, your reaction is to “like” it. If, however, you are anticipating a reward, and are, in fact, engaging in behaviors motivated by that anticipation, it can be said that you “want” it. The wholly different act of wanting something strongly is a mesolimbic dopamine-serotonin phenomenon. We like to receive gifts, for example, but we want food, sex, and drugs. As Nesse and Berridge  put it, “The ‘liking’ system is activated by receiving the reward, while the ‘wanting’ system anticipates reward and motivates instrumental behaviors. When these two systems are exposed to drugs, the “wanting” system motivates persistent pursuit of drugs that no longer give pleasure, thus offering an explanation for a core paradox in addiction.” 

The absence of pleasure does not mean the end of compulsive drug use. Researchers are beginning to understand how certain drugs can be so alluring as to defeat the strongest of people and the best of intentions. It certainly does not eliminate the pain of drug hunger, of craving, to know that it is physically correlated with “a pathological overactivity of mesolimbic dopamine function,” combined, perhaps, with “increased secretion of glucocorticoids.” For such a wide variety of drugs, exhibiting a wide variety of effects, the withdrawal symptoms, while varying by degree, are nonetheless quite similar. The key, as we have seen, is that the areas of the brain that control “wanting” become sensitized by reward pathway drugs.

Under the biochemical paradigm, a runaway appetite for non-stop stimulation of the reward pathway is a prescription for disaster. The harm is physical, behavioral, and psychological—as are the symptoms. Peer pressure, disciplinary difficulties, contempt for authority—none of these conditions is necessary for drug addiction to blossom. What the drug itself does to people who are biologically vulnerable is enough. No further inducements are required. 

Graphics Credit: http://rmcute.multiply.com/

Detoxifying with Marijuana Anonymous

                            

What MA has to say.

Marijuana Anonymous was formed in 1989 as a program for those having difficulty remaining abstinent from marijuana. It is based on the 12-Step approach formulated by Alcoholics Anonymous. The group was founded in California as an amalgamation of existing groups, such as Marijuana Smokers Anonymous in southern California and Marijuana Addicts Anonymous in San Francisco. (In 1978, Pot Smokers Anonymous was founded in New York by David and Pearl Izenzon.)

But what, exactly, does Marijuana Anonymous say about marijuana? What does the organization actually suggest, in addition to the 12 Steps, when it comes to abstaining from cannabis?

The following information was excerpted from the official home page of Marijuana Anonymous and from pamphlets made available by the group.

Can there be physical effects from quitting marijuana?

In spite of numerous years of being told that there are no physiological effects from marijuana addiction, many of our recovering members have had definite withdrawal symptoms. Whether the causes are physical or psychological, the results are physical. Others have just had emotional and mental changes as they stop using their drug of choice. There is no way of telling before quitting who will be physically uncomfortable and who will not. Most members have only minor physical discomfort if any at all. This pamphlet is for those who are having trouble and wonder what's happening to them.

What are some of the more common symptoms?

By far the most common symptom of withdrawal is insomnia. This can last from a few nights of practically no sleep at all, up to a few months of occasional sleeplessness. The next most common symptom is depression (that is, if you're not euphoric), and next are nightmares and vivid dreams. Marijuana use tends to dampen the dreaming mechanism, so that when you do get clean the dreams come back with a crash. They can be vivid color, highly emotional dreams or nightmares, even waking up then coming back to the same dream. The very vivid, every-night dreams usually don't start for about a week or so.

The fourth most common symptom is anger. This can range from a slow burning rage to constant irritability to sudden bursts of anger when least expected: anger at the world, anger at loved ones, anger at oneself, anger at being an addict and having to get clean. Emotional jags are very common, with emotions bouncing back and forth between depression, anger, and euphoria. Occasionally experienced is a feeling of fear or anxiety, a loss of the sense of humor, decreased sex drive, or increased sex drive. Most all of these symptoms fade to normal emotions by three months. Loss of concentration for the first week or month is also very common and this sometimes affects the ability to learn for a very short while.

What about physical symptoms?

The most common physical symptom is headaches. For those who have them, they can last for a few weeks up to a couple of months, with the first few days being very intense. The next most common physical symptom is night sweats, sometimes to the point of having to change night clothes. They can last from a few nights to a month or so.

One third of the addicts who responded to a questionnaire on detoxing said they had eating problems for the first few days and some for up to six weeks. Their main symptoms were loss of appetite, sometimes enough to lose weight temporarily, digestion problems or cramps after eating, and nausea, occasionally enough to vomit (only for a day or two). Most of the eating problems were totally gone before the end of a month.

The next most common physical symptoms experienced were tremors or shaking and dizziness. Less frequently experienced were kidney pains, impotency, hormone changes or imbalances, low immunity or chronic fatigue, and some minor eye problems that resolved at around two months. 

For more information, contact:

 Marijuana Anonymous World Services

P.O. Box 2912

Van Nuys, CA 91404

USA

Toll Free 1-800-766-6779

office@marijuana-anonymous.org

graphic: http://www.7h1s.com/ ©2008 - Marijuana Anonymous World Services - All Rights Reserved.