Ecstacy not so deadly after all

[JamesM]

From BBC news online: 'Killer' Ecstacy claim was false

Quote:

Research suggesting just one Ecstasy tablet could harm humans was based on a laboratory mistake, it has been revealed.
[...]
The Johns Hopkins University team were forced to withdraw their paper from eminent research journal Science.

Experts have expressed amazement as to how the flawed research ever managed to get published in such a well-respected publication.

It does seem that Science has been involved in some rather credibility-damaging retractions and controversies lately (the sonofusion brouhaha, Hendrik Schon's mass-retraction).

[MRC_Hans]

I think such things are only credibility damaging if you do not understand the scientific process. Actually, it is very reassuring to see that the process is working and that flawed research is disclosed.

How many research results are published per annum? Thousands. And disclosed as flawed, or even fraud? A handful. I think that is pretty good.

Hans

[UKBoy1977]

Exactly, people should be impressed by the self-correcting nature of the scientific method being demonstrated. It takes guts to admit you're wrong and they are showing that the truth is more important to them than what people might think of them.

Mind you, most people will simply say 'See? Science isn't right about everything!"

[JamesM]

Quote:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I think such things are only credibility damaging if you do not understand the scientific process.

I'm not sure if this comment was aimed at me, but if so, I think I understand the scientific process pretty well. I have no argument with the idea that flawed work should be corrected or retracted. But in the case of this study and the sonofusion paper, there is the question of whether the work should have been published in Science as it stood, which is an entirely different matter. This is more about standards of refereeing and an editorial policy that may err a little too far on the side of publication of more 'high-risk' material, for what is supposed to be a prestigious journal.

In the case of Hendrik Schon, I am unaware of any indication that question of publishing it in Science was controversial, so the mass-retraction was merely unfortunate and embarrassing. It does not, however, do much for Science's reputation.

Of course, if I ever publish in Science, I reserve the right to change my mind and say how wonderful and bang-on-the-money it is.

[Brian the Snail]

Quote:

Originally posted by JamesM

In the case of Hendrik Schon, I am unaware of any indication that question of publishing it in Science was controversial, so the mass-retraction was merely unfortunate and embarrassing. It does not, however, do much for Science's reputation.

I forget the details of the Schoen case, but didn't other journals get burnt by his dodgy papers? (Nature, Phys. Rev., etc.) If so, I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to single out Science specifically for this one. Besides, the guy was systematically misrepresenting, even falsifying his data, and I think these things are very difficult to catch without having the raw data (which of course, referees and journals don't have).

So yeah, it's embarrassing and unfortunate, but I think the blame really lies with Schoen and his co-authors for that one.

[JamesM]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
So yeah, it's embarrassing and unfortunate, but I think the blame really lies with Schoen and his co-authors for that one.

I agree and there were indeed other journals caught out. Nor do I think there was much that could have been done to stop such cheating in the case of Schoen.

I was merely noting that in several rather high-profile retractions and controversies over standards of publications, Science's name has been prominent.

[Brian the Snail]

Quote:

Originally posted by JamesM

I was merely noting that in several rather high-profile retractions and controversies over standards of publications, Science's name has been prominent.

Okay, sorry if I misread your intent. I agree with you about the other cases you mentioned, there does seem to have been a failure in the editorial or review process somewhere. Perhaps a case of commercial considerations getting in the way of scientific standards, do you think?

[MRC_Hans]

No, my remark was not directed at you, sorry. As for what Scientific journals should publish, ideally they should publish whatever was submitted and let peer review do its work.

Unfortunately, in the real world, some will claim that since their work was published in such a journal, it must be true, so some weeding is needed.

On the observation "So science can be wrong", the only sensible reply is "Of course, and it often is wrong, or at least incomplete. Science is forever learning, never taking anything for granted."

Hans

[JamesM]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian the Snail

Perhaps a case of commercial considerations getting in the way of scientific standards, do you think?

Well, some people certainly say so. I've not been in the game long enough to have an opinion, myself.

Should a journal's editors over-rule the referees and publish interesting, if high-risk, papers on occasion? Maybe they should. It can be a bit embarrassing if it blows up in your face, though. If it happens enough, it's got to start tarnishing a journal's reputation.

[Jon_in_london]

I think a lot of the trouble comes in when you have a big cheese name from a big cheese institute (like J.Hopkins) pushing a paper.

Whereas someone completely unknown from the university of Pangawanana in equatorial guinea is going to struggle get anything pusblished.

[American]

Here's a great summary of the debate, circa 1995.

http://www.ecstasy.org/info/interviews.html

Personally, I classify George Ricaurte somewhere between "respected authority" and "alarmist jerk", being most known for his squirrel monkey study showing how one dose of ecstasy can kill brain cells. I would be more accepting of his views, except he seemed to be the only guy crusading against the drug (which is a sign of a quack, however right he may turn out to be).

I guess it's better to be cautious and when you're talking about your brain.

Don't do "e". Get drunk instead.

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by American

Don't do "e". Get drunk instead.

So you can kill brain cells and your liver.

[Eos of the Eons]

Anyone hear more about the 'horrible' trans-fatty acids. Last time I heard-only one guy from harvard co-wrote every article about how much worse they are than cholestrol making margarine less healthy for you than butter. On this one guy's 'findings' the FDA was prepared to do something about it.

Well, now we have E as 'less harmful' than previously thought. Whoop de do. Long term use still leads to long term problems. Doesn't make it any more 'safe' in my eyes. It still kills people.

Alcohol vs E.....butter vs margarine. Huh. Bah, freakin butter has trans fatty acids too. Alcohol will still cause a lot of deaths and long term problems. Comparing one thing to another and weighing the 'consequences' is kind of silly. Anything in excess is bad for you.

[LucyR]

Quote:

Originally posted by JamesM

Should a journal's editors over-rule the referees and publish interesting, if high-risk, papers on occasion?

Science and Nature do this anyway. I have read some amazingly bad papers in both magazines.

You'll find much better science in journals like Phys. Rev. Lett.

[Jon_in_london]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Well, now we have E as 'less harmful' than previously thought. Whoop de do. Long term use still leads to long term problems. Doesn't make it any more 'safe' in my eyes. It still kills people.

Alcohol vs E.....butter vs margarine. Huh. Bah, freakin butter has trans fatty acids too. Alcohol will still cause a lot of deaths and long term problems. Comparing one thing to another and weighing the 'consequences' is kind of silly. Anything in excess is bad for you.

Well, you really do have to compare things to get an idea of how dangerous they are. MDMA is dangerous? dangerous as what? carrotts? red meat? cocoaine? fruit juice?

Do you have evidence that MDMA has serious long term health consequences?

I also think this paper highlights the difficulty facing scientists in that a small error in the source material can destroy an otherwise well planned study.

Another thing that this paper emphasizes is the risks facing the consumers who are far more likely to end up with something other than MDMA than research scientists. This is, IMO, one of the greatest problems with popping pills. You just dont know what you are getting, and I suspect this is actually the cause of most 'ecstacy' deaths. I doubt that its MDMA doing the damage but whatever else might be in the pill. I remeber while I lived in Cape Town that several kids died because the pills they took some rather impure DXM http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm.shtml

In addition, a hell of a lot of pills may contain delights such as PMA http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/pma/pma.shtml

[Yahweh]

Now how did this scientific error go undetected for so long. It seems like for a claim like this to be published in medical journal, the results would have to be repeated a few times for confirmation.

Wow, I've always been the one to curse those stupid anti-drug ads. First, they've done nothing to impede drug abuse, the money donated to these anti-drug organization could be better spent... on anything. Save the rainforest or something, just dont throw your money away.

Now that I think about it, I question the accuracy of those anti-drug commercials where "my daughter died because she took two pills of ectasy". I never would have thought anti-drug commericials would be founded on emotional propaganda.

As for "How many Ectasy pills are safe for you", the answer is still 0.

[JamesM]

Quote:

Originally posted by LucyR
Science and Nature do this anyway. I have read some amazingly bad papers in both magazines.

You'll find much better science in journals like Phys. Rev. Lett.

I rarely ever check Science and Nature - but then I never look in Phys. Rev. Lett., either, as I'm not a physicist. But I assume Science and Nature are not alone in publishing papers that referees have recommended not by published.

[Jon_in_london]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh
As for "How many Ectasy pills are safe for you", the answer is still 0.

But its only waffer thin!