Ecstasy's Effects vs Thinking Objectively

The science editorial I chose to research was a September 18th, 2003 writing entitled “Ecstasy’s After-effects.” It was an anti-prohitibitionist biased work about a scientific issue that resulted in a study concerning the potentially negative effects of MDMA on the bodies of monkeys. The debate discussed in this and the following article is the either support or opposition of legalized medicinal use of MDMA in case studies to find whether or not the synthesized substance has any redeeming medicinal value.

The editorial opened with the statement, “It was a pretty peculiar result in the first place,” which immediately enforces a sense of imminent misjudgment and doubt upon the reader about the topic. It continues to discuss how Neuroscientist George Ricaurte and his colleagues at the Johns Hopkins Hospital of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland tested these monkeys by giving them supposedly three recreational hits of ecstasy, in which study two of the test monkeys died and most of the other monkeys suffered severe damage in neurons involved in movement and mood. This outcome, the editor later writes, was a field day for the prohibitionists and for “the Bush administration’s jihad against recreational drugs.” It was later found out, however, that the experimental substance the monkeys had been given was not actually metheylenedioxymethamphetamine(MDMA), but rather just simply doses of methamphetamine(meth). This outcome, they explain in a frustrated tone, was not nearly as well-publicized as the initial findings and nor was the consequential AAAS-issued retraction. This strongly perturbs the writer and this, I get the feeling, is the inspiration for this piece.

This second piece is titled “Think harder about ecstasy” which discusses the same incident with George Ricaurte and the mistaken methamphetamine drugs, however this article opens much differently with the statement, “Advocates of therapeutic uses of the drug ecstasy have won the right to research its performance, but opponents continue to snipe. Both sides need to look more deeply into their research agendas,” and ends with first paragraph with the statement, “So who is right?” which gives the reader much less bias to start with than does the “After-effects” editorial. The “think harder” article does discuss the problems of the prohibition side in the same light, but they also use the ignorance of the pro-MDMA researchers towards lack of positive feedback as evidence for their indifferent stance in the argument. That bolstering of both sides of the argument is what’s missing in the “After-effects” and what makes me as a reader believe the “think harder” editor is more professional. The “think harder” article feels generally geared towards solving conflict whereas the “After-effects” feels like it has an agenda. Ironic when you consider the article itself bashes government drug enforcement officials for being too attached to agendas.

Think harder about ecstasy (here)

Ecstasy’s After-effects (here)