Julia Czudak

Studies aimed at finding whether or not marijuana is safe to use are often controversial because of the conflicting interests within the research team and the conclusions based on generalizations or false dichotomy. This leads to many inconsistent results among scientists who research cannabis, and a further divide between the public who engages in the debate over decriminalizing marijuana as a recreational means. Still, there is a clear middle ground despite the disagreements between both sides of the deliberation.

Many of the scientists who believed consuming cannabis leads to health risk, as well as those who opposed this view and either debunked those studies or proved it wrong with their own experiments, all can agree that minors should not consume cannabis habitually or recreationally. This is because the adolescent brain is still developing and is much more malleable than the average adult’s (Becker, Benjamin, et al.).

Frequently consuming cannabis as a minor results in many risks as studies have shown the neurological, irreversible effects it can have. Altered function in the left superior parietal cortex during memory processing suggests that those who smoked marijuana from a young age- before 20- are at risk of developing issues with memory and cognitive skills in the long run (Jager, Gerry, et al.). Attention and decision making is also jeopardized by frequent smoking, as participants who were cannabis users between the ages of 14 and 17 performed at a significantly worse rate in the experiment versus those who did not smoke (Dougherty , D M., et al.). There are not enough studies done to monitor the minors who consume cannabis frequently into their future, but there is enough evidence of neurological alteration. These alterations have significant effects on the dynamics and overall function of the brain; these types of alterations will only continue to become worse as the adolescent continues to use cannabis. Ultimately, chronic use of marijuana is likely to affect learning and memory skills due to the changes in brain structure and decreased neuronal efficiency.

Although studies linking marijuana use and psychological effects are controversial because of the many outside factors that are often ignored when analyzing results, the fact that many studies suggest smoking marijuana frequently  at a young age can cause an array of psychological issues should not be ignored. It is often concluded that depression as well as suicidal thoughts are a very possible risk in the adult life of a minor who uses cannabis. In a longitudinal study, scientists found that adolescent, chronic users of marijuana developed depression after reaching their twenties. A staggering 95% of the subjects were either dissatisfied with their life, thought of suicide often, attempted suicide, or experienced all 3 side effects (Pedersen,W.). So although it would be irresponsible to say that chronic marijuana use is the cause of depression (since there are outside factors that should be taken into account) , it can definitely be associated with depression and suicidal thoughts.

This information is very concerning considering marijuana is the most widely used drugs in the United States. Adolescents are also less likely to believe that cannabis is dangerous and that can be partially due to former, ineffective drug-use prevention programs (Newton, Nicola C., et al.). The arguments used against marijuana use in most of the school-based drug prevention programs are outdated. Most often counselors will claim that cannabis is a gateway drug. Not only is this claim a generalization, but it is ineffective because after hearing this, minors often overestimate their willpower and believe that they know their own limitations and abilities.

Not every school takes the same measures during health classes or drug-prevention seminar, but there must be a fault in current systems considering the amount of minors consuming marijuana is on the rise. Some schools spend more time on alcohol or tobacco prevention than on the risks of cannabis consumption, while others use ineffective abstinence methods. Most abstinence programs prove to be ineffective (Newton, Nicola C., et al.); this is due to the condescending nature of the programs as well as the rebellious behavior it ensues. Expecting minors (who are told they are forbidden to smoke without much scientific evidence in support of the restriction) to simply obey the rules imposed on them is not, and had not been a realistic expectation.

The more effective way to approach the situation is to present the validated risks of smoking cannabis with research as the core reasoning. Showing the students statistics from the experiment of the monitored subjects and how they developed depression in their twenties will help the children understand that their current decisions hold long term effects. This has been an effective method for tobacco and cigarette use prevention (Newton, Nicola C., et al.) and, if this manner of educating is replicated, then the same success should be expected for marijuana use. Speaking to students about the way marijuana can affect cognitive ability and memory skills in the long run will prove to be as viable as teaching students about the about negative effect cigarettes have on lungs.

As the rate of minors who smoke marijuana is on the rise, the responsibility of drug-prevention programs escalate. The long term effects cannabis has on the brains of adolescents is too extreme to ignore, so measures of drug prevention are at a demand. While leading discussions about the risks and outcomes of consuming marijuana is a good place to start in terms of giving students an understanding of their decision to smoke, providing statistical and scientific evidence of side effects will leave a greater impact on the children without any condescending implications.

Works Cited:

1. Becker, Benjamin, et al. “The Impact of Early-Onset Cannabis Use on Functional Brain Correlates of Working Memory.” Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, vol. 34, no. 6, 2010, pp. 837–845.
2. Jager, Gerry, et al. “Long-Term Effects of Frequent Cannabis Use on Working Memory and Attention: an FMRI Study.” Psychopharmacology, vol. 185, no. 3, July 2006, pp. 358–368.
3. Dougherty , D M., et al. Impulsivity, Attention, Memory, and Decision-Making among … Psychopharmacology, vol. 226, no.2, March 2013.
4. Pedersen, W. “Does Cannabis Use Lead to Depression and Suicidal Behaviours? A Population-Based Longitudinal Study.” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, vol. 118, no. 5, 2008, pp. 395–403.
5. Newton, Nicola C., et al. “School-Based Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.” Drug Abuse and Addiction in Medical Illness, 2012, pp. 545–560.

Julia Czudak

Demonizing the Devil’s Lettuce: Why Current Research on Cannabis is Insufficient

The notion of legalizing marijuana has become more favorable in the United States than ever before. This has become apparent as more states are legalising the herb that has been ill advised and called the “devil’s lettuce” in negative propaganda for decades. Decriminalizing a substance that was banned for decades under the sentiment that it is a dangerous drug, will implore the scientific community to investigate possible outcomes of doing so. Studying the long-term and short-term effects of consuming cannabis will become a priority for many researchers, considering getting results will be easier without legal repercussions. These results will be very important to consumers considering they will be experiencing the side effects.

Current research on pot and the effect it has on consumers is very limited due to legal restrictions and has, for the most part, failed to answer the question of whether or not marijuana is safe for recreational purposes. Since the legalisation of pot became a split issue for the American public, the research teams in charge of the experiments were often accused of being biased and providing inaccurate conclusions. The majority of current studies fail to provide an actual answer for whether or not marijuana was safe to consume because of the poor design of experiments, the misinterpretation of data collected, and the bias of research leaders.

Most studies (thus far) investigating the effects of cannabis on those who use it are not designed with enough sufficiency due to the meager sample size of subjects and/or not taking outside factors into account. This becomes an issue because, ultimately, the results may be inconclusive or misleading. The number of subjects in an experiment is very important because a conclusion must be consistent. A large sample size is the only way to confirm the precision of the results and therefore validate the conclusion. The experimental group of a cannabis study, for example, also acts as a representative of everyone else who consumes the plant. Conclusions based on a select few will not accurately represent the population of pot-consumers or the side effects that may be caused by the activity.

One study from 2011 concluded that people who smoke marijuana have a decreased dopamine brain reactivity which leads to negative emotionality and addiction severity (Volkow, N. D. et al., 2014). In other words, those who habitually smoke marijuana are more likely to be depressed and pessimistic, and as a result, are inclined to become addicted to the substance. One issue with this experiment was the meager total of 110 participants. Of these 110 subjects, 62 were nonusers while only 48 participants were marijuana users (Volkow, N. D. et al.). This sample size is much too small to accurately represent the entire populations of smokers and nonsmokers. The experiment was conducted in New Mexico and since the state has not yet decriminalized the recreational use of marijuana, the limited quantity of subjects is not surprising. Not many people would put themselves at risk of getting arrested for an experiment.

Those representing marijuana consumers were all using the herb for medicinal purposes and this further discredits the conclusion of the experiment because outside factors were not being taken into account. According to the New Mexico law of 2007, medical marijuana was permitted under the condition that the resident was confirmed by a physician to suffer from conditions such as chronic pain, PTSD, cancer, etc. Hospice patients were also granted the right to smoke marijuana. These conditions were not taken into account within the experiment, but they are outside factors that can potentially corrupt the experiment. The conclusion that researchers of the study presented did not take into account that becoming addicted to a substance could be a result of underlying issues. This is especially relevant in this case where the entire experimental group was suffering from emotionally or physically painful conditions at the time of the experiment. The entire conviction of the experiment is based on the fallacy of a single cause and therefore detracts from the researchers’ effort to seek reliable answers about the effects of pot consumption.

Misinterpretation and generalization of data is very common in most research about controversial activities or substances because most of these faults are a result of the implicit bias held by researchers. This experiment in particular was conducted by members of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Volkow, N. D. et al.). Since the majority of the analysts in this experiment are associated with advocates of substance abuse prevention- who have a history of bias against marijuana without plausible evidence of its harm or addictive nature- the experiment is prone to be based on subjective measures rather than objective ones.

Other than biased research leaders, tools used in experiments may be just as tendencias. One study attempting to conclude the long-term effects of marijuana use on the brain used a tool called the Marijuana Problem Survey (MPS) as a means of measuring the behaviors of their experimental group (Stephens, R. S., et al., 2002). The name of the tool itself is problematic since it suggests a negative connotation with marijuana. It also automatically blames the cannabis for any problems subjects might be facing. This means coincidences or any other outside factors are not even considered because every problem the individual may face over the duration of the experiment is- according to this research tool- solely due to their smoking habit.

This subjective lens continues to be a trend in the experiments; a study held in 3 areas of high prevalence of cannabis consumption as well as production (Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria) concluded that smoking marijuana was a risk factor for lung cancer (Berthiller, J. et al., 2008). Although researchers later admit that 96% of the test subjects were also tobacco smokers, they continue to call cannabis a culprit and risk factor for lung cancer. Considering a large majority of both the control and experimental groups were also tobacco smokers, there is no acceptable basis to blame the consumption of marijuana itself for the increased lung cancer risk. The title of the study as well as its entire proposition is very misleading and inaccurate.

Some researchers, on the other hand, work hard to avoid such mistakes and try to make their experiments as unbiased as possible. One study working to find the effect cannabis has on memory was a double-blind, randomized, double-placebo-controlled, crossover designed experiment (Hindocha, C., et al.) and use of well-validated tasks. Double-blind experiments and randomized trials avoid bias because the subjects as well as the researchers themselves is unaware of who is in the control and who is in the experimental group until the experiment is over. Thus, the data is untampered with and results will have a high guarantee of not being biased or rigged.

Even with those precautions, a study found that the researchers are prone to guess which subjects are users or nonusers and simply recreate their biased agenda. A 2018 study found that researchers were able to predict who was a user or non user with a 75% accuracy (Sodos, L. M., et al., 2018). According to this study,  the experiments conducted after scientists are able to define which group the subjects are a part of, usually result in scores that at least partially reflects the view of the researcher (Sodos, L. M., et al., 2018). The subjects’ own cognitive abilities are then not taken into account as much.

Researching the cannabis plant and its effect on those who consume it is a difficult task. There are legal repercussions that can limit the sample size of the test subjects and therefore lead to inaccurate results. Scientists must also take into account the many factors that can also be a contributor (other than marijuana) to a side effect. Bias is almost unavoidable in cases like these where a relevant, split issue is at hand; even double-blinding is suggested to be not as accurate as previously thought. Still, the effects cannabis may have on an individual who consumes it is very important to generations who will witness the legalisation of the substance.

 

Works Cited

1.Volkow, N. D. et al. Decreased dopamine brain reactivity in marijuana abusers is associated with negative emotionality and addiction severity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, (2014).

2.Stephens, R. S., Babor, T. F., Kadden, R. & Miller, M. The Marijuana Treatment Project: rationale, design and participant characteristics. Addiction 97, 109–124 (2002).

3.Berthiller, J. et al. Cannabis Smoking and Risk of Lung Cancer in Men: A Pooled Analysis of Three Studies in Maghreb. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 3, 1398–1403

(2008).

4. Hindocha, C., Freeman, T. P., Xia, J. X., Shaban, N. D. C. & Curran, H. V. Acute memory and psychotomimetic effects of cannabis and tobacco both ‘joint’ and individually: a placebo-controlled trial. Psychological Medicine 47, 2708–2719 (2017).

5.Sodos, L. M., Hirst, R. B., Watson, J. & Vaughn, D. Don’t Judge a Book by its Cover: Examiner Expectancy Effects Predict Neuropsychological Performance for Individuals Judged as Chronic Cannabis Users. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 33, 821–831 (2018).

 

Julia Czudak

10/12/18

English 21300

 

Making the Impossible a Reality: Michael R. Rose’s Contribution to Evolutionary Science

Although the idea of immortality seems like something straight out of a science-fiction novel, scientists such as Michael Roberson Rose dedicate their time to proving the impossible to be within our grasp. The human lifespan has already been drastically prolonged thanks to the advance in medicine, but Rose wants to go even further. He believes that we have the ability to reduce our chances of perishing due to illness. Aging itself can be prevented; the deterioration of cells and organs, which is essentially the ultimate cause of death, could become an issue of the past.

Michael R. Rose is a very proud Canadian “punk” who started his academic career in 1971 at Victoria University. He’s currently “an aging Canadian punk”, but he’s moved to California where he is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Irvine. Apart from making a living by teaching his students, Rose says he gets paid because he can “produce much longer lived organisms” and can analyze “how that happens genetically and physiologically”. This remarkable ability has earned Michael Rose a title of a leading scientist for experimental evolutionary research.

According to Rose, the foundation of his current career began in 1977, when he realized that reproducing at a later age would “automatically clean-up everyone”, meaning the genes that cause deadly illnesses are more likely to be controlled thanks to natural selection. This is because the ultimate, biological goal of every living being is to procreate and pass on genes. At later ages, after creating offspring, the body is “more than happy to let you die”. If mating were to be held off, the body would have no choice but to continue ridding itself of health-impairing genetic variants and slow the process of aging to keep the organism desirable as a mate.

Generation after generation of selecting for later reproduction, as well as carefully choosing the right mate will prolong the lifespan of future generations. Rose acknowledges that most people don’t choose who they have children with by examining their family’s medical history, but it would make sense from a Darwinian stand point. A person’s lifespan is very often dependant on genetics so, as Rose’s fruit fly experiments have shown, mating with someone who has the potential of carrying the right genes can allow for offspring with a long lifespan.

The fruit fly experiment is perhaps the most known experiments conducted by Michael R. Rose. It resulted in fruit flies with a quadrupled lifespan of their predecessors. Rose claims that eventually they could live forever as long as no outside factors contribute to their death (such as famine or getting squashed). Of course this took years of selective breeding and since the fruit flies mature much faster than humans, the process did not take as much time as completing such results with humans. According to Rose, humans will most likely not have the potential to be immortal in the next twenty years but with natural selection, this may be possible in the next hundred years.

Rose’s discoveries have gained worldwide attention because of how controversial, yet innovative they are. Evolutionary science in general seems to be a controversial topic and Rose points out that this tends to be especially true in the United States. The U.S. is one of the most fundamentalist, religious countries in the world. Many people do not believe in evolution because they prefer to think that everything was made by God. Others just don’t appreciate efforts to prolong the human lifespan because it rivals against the divine command theory they believe; they feel that the use of science to alter God’s will is unacceptable.

Michael Rose is very defensive about his work because it was his “shelter from life” for decades. After the deaths of his wife, brother, and brother-in-law, burying himself in evolutionary theories was a coping mechanism. Rose’s brother-in-law was murdered leaving his wife in dismay and so their marriage was falling apart. Not much later, Rose’s brother committed suicide. These tragedies left Rose’s marriage torn and soon after their legal separation, his wife committed suicide in her apartment. Finding the key to immortality became personal to Rose and obsessively experimenting with evolutionary theories became a way of coping with depression.

Rose responds to critics simply by saying that he isn’t dictating what people should do with their lives. Personally he finds “graveyard desires revolting”, but if people choose to die at seventy-two then they can do so. He does, however, recognize that many people would prefer to expand their life for as long as possible and so he will continue researching new ways to help achieve this goal. Rose also comments on the lack of evolutionary education within the school systems of America and suggests that people would adopt a completely different point of view if they would understand more of his scientific research.

The hard work has obviously paid off in terms of gaining the science community’s attention. He has won awards such as: the British Commonwealth Scholar (1976-79), the NATO Science Fellow (1979-1981), the NSERC of Canada University Research Fellow (1981-88), the  President’s Prize, American Society of Naturalists (1992), Excellence in Teaching Award, University of California, Irvine Biological Sciences (1996), Busse Prize, and the World Congress of Gerontology (1997). He’s published over two-hundred-seventy-four papers and a book titled “The Evolutionary Biology of Aging” in 1991. He continues to lead many seminars around the world apart from his lectures at the University of California.

Rose’s work will have a significant impact on the world on top of his current accomplishments. Thanks to Rose, there is a rising interest in lengitivity throughout the scientific community that seemed impossible before. Even those who aren’t considered part of the scientific community are eager to gain the key to immortality and youth. The amount that the average American citizen spends on healthcare and medication suggests that the majority of people would like to spend as much time on Earth as possible along with their family and friends.

Through his everlasting research and experimentation since 1981, Rose has found that living organisms have the ability to be immortal (so long as no external circumstances pose a threat) through diet-control, natural selection, and the delay of procreating. Longevity and preservation of youth is on high-demand so Rose’s research has already become the inspiration for many scientists who seek to find the cure for death. Perhaps one day the “life cycle” will only simply become a section of the history books rather than a science textbook.

Works Cited

1.“An Interview with Michael R. Rose, Ph.D. – [PDF Document].” Vdocuments.site, Mary Ann Libert, Inc. , 8 July 2004, vdocuments.site/documents/an-interview-with-michael-r-rose-phd.html.

2.Rose, Michael R., et al. “Does Aging Stop?” Oxford Scholarship, Oxford University Press, 7 Nov. 2014

3.Rose, Micael R. “Genome-Wide Analysis of a Long-Term Evolution Experiment with Drosophila.” Macmillan Publishers, 2010, pp. 1–3., www.researchgate.net/profile/Anthony_Long/publication/46281845_Genome-wide_analysis_of_a_long-term_evolution_experiment_with_Drosophila/links/00463515cfca10b5a0000000/Genome-wide-analysis-of-a-long-term-evolution-experiment-with-Drosophila.pdf.

Dear Professor Grove,

As a sophomore at CCNY, I am still just trying to find myself and establish my set goals in life. When I sent my commitment deposit to the school in May of 2017, the goal was to graduate with a pre-medical degree and continue to pursue my medical studies in a prestigious graduate school. This goal is still driving my ambition today, but I am more determined now than ever since college proved to exceed my expectations. The ability to choose the courses you take, as well as being surrounded by other strong-willed classmates really differentiates college from the highschool experience I’ve had.

Since I’ve had my first-ever science lesson in the second grade, it was the only subject I wanted to study about for the rest of my life. Animal science in particular peaked my interest and the dream to become a zoologist as well as a wildlife-veterinarian arouse. This was my aspiration until my first encounter with human anatomy in 9th grade. Learning how our body works fascinated me and memorizing the complex information came very easily to me. Since then I decided that my purpose was to become a medical professional.  

There really isn’t any particular, interesting sob story I can tell to explain why I want to study medicine. Science was just always my strong point, and since I can remember, I’ve simply always had urge to help others and save lives. You put 2 and 2 together and medicine became my passion.

It was harder to decide what type of doctor I would have liked to become, but my inability to decide which field of medicine was the most interesting made things obvious. The only option was to study every field and become a general surgeon. The more research I did on the responsibilities of a surgeon of the ER, or trauma doctor, the more captivated I was. To be entrusted with such an important duty as operating on a person at risk of death is an honor and a duty that few people can actually handle. Although I am not much of a risk taker for most matters, some things are worth testing my own limitations.

This semester will be testing my abilities for sure. Taking 3 different 4 credit classes along with the Writing for the Sciences course, there will be a hefty amount of studying and writing to do. I will be doing my best to receive an A in all my classes, not just for the sake of my GPA, but to prove to myself that I can defy the odds so long as I put in the work. I want to be the best version of myself and beat my own personal standards.

This class in particular can help me achieve this by improving my research and writing skills. Being forced to write reports and demanding, scientific papers will give me the practice I need to improve. I am looking forward to receiving editing comments to take into consideration. I hope to take this acquired knowledge with me to graduate school. Maybe one day I’ll be able to write scientific papers fit to be published. I’m hoping I can make some helpful discoveries for the science community some day and will be able to explain my findings sufficiently thanks to the writing skills I’ve gained,in part, from this course.

Sincerely,

Julia Czudak