Psychology Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
in: Pages with broken file links, National Institutes of Health, 1974 establishments

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Sign in to edit
Nida

National Institutes of Health

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is a United States federal-government research institute whose mission is to "lead the Nation in bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction."[1]

History[]

NIDA's roots can be traced back to 1935, when a research facility (christened the Addiction Research Center in 1948) was established in Lexington, Kentucky as part of a USPHS hospital. The Drug Abuse Warning Network and National Household Survey on Drug Abuse were created in 1972. In 1974, all three of these institutions were folded into NIDA when this new agency was established as part of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. The Monitoring the Future Survey, which surveys high school seniors, was initiated in 1975; in 1991, it was expanded to include 8th and 10th graders.[2]

In or around October 1992, NIDA became part of the National Institutes of Health, United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Institute is organized into divisions and offices, each of which is involved with programs of drug abuse research. Nora Volkow, MD, is the director of NIDA.

According to NIH:

“ One of NIDA's most important achievements has been the use of science to clarify central concepts in the field of drug abuse...When NIDA began, correct approaches to drug policy and drug treatment were often thought to hinge on determining whether a particular drug was "physically addicting" or only "psychologically addicting." We now know that addiction has biological, behavioral and social components. We now know that addiction has biological, behavioral and social components. It is best defined as a chronic, relapsing brain disorder characterized by compulsive, often uncontrollable drug craving, seeking, and use, even in the face of negative health and social consequences. NIDA-supported research has also shown that this compulsion results from specific drug effects in the brain. This definition opens the way for broad strategies and common approaches to all drug addiction. ”

The physical/psychological addiction dichotomy is reflected in the Controlled Substances Act's criteria for drug scheduling. Placement in Schedule III, for instance, requires a finding that "abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence." The view espoused by Leshner, which places more emphasis on the "compulsive, uncontrollable" aspect of addictive drug use than on physical withdrawal symptoms, explains NIDA's differing treatment of morphine and cannabis. Morphine is physically addictive, but it typically does not cause compulsive, uncontrollable morphine seeking. By contrast, more than 100,000 people seek treatment each year due to inability to control their marijuana use.[3] Jon Gettman and other supporters of cannabis rescheduling in the United States have questioned the legality of basing scheduling decisions on such considerations rather than on physical addiction and physical harm; Gettman stated, "If the federal government wants to keep marijuana in schedule 1, or if they believe that placing marijuana in schedule 2 is a viable policy, then we're going to cross-examine under oath and penalty of perjury every HHS official and scientist who claims that marijuana use is as dangerous as the use of cocaine or heroin."[4] NIDA's viewpoint is supported by the fact that the CSA lists not only physical addictiveness but also "history and current pattern of abuse" and "scope, duration, and significance of abuse" among the factors to be considered in drug scheduling. Indeed, cannabis' retention in Schedule I has been partly due to findings in these areas by FDA, SAMHSA, and NIDA. The January 17, 2001 document Basis for the Recommendation for Maintaining Marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act specifically cites NIDA's National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Monitoring the Future, Drug Abuse Warning Network, and Community Epidemiology Work Group data.[5][6]

NIDA has supported many treatments for drug addiction. NIDA-supported studies led to the use of nicotine patches and gums for nicotine addiction treatment.[7] NIDA scientists also developed LAAM, which is used for heroin addiction treatment.[8] Other treatments that were the subject of NIDA research include naltrexone and buprenorphine. NIDA states, "By conservative estimates, every $1 spent on drug addiction saves society $4 to $7 in criminal justice and health care costs."[9]

NIDA has also conducted research into diseases associated with drug use, such as AIDS and Hepatitis. NIDA views drug treatment as a means of modifying risky behavior such as sex and sharing needles. NIDA has also funded studies dealing with harm reduction. A NIDA-supported study on pregnant drug users noted, "professionals in research and treatment must learn to settle for less because insisting on total abstinence may exacerbate the problem." Interestingly, this study was conducted by Marsha Rosenbaum of the Lindesmith Center, an organization that has been critical of federal drug policies.[10]

In 2006, NIDA received an annual budget of $1.01 billion.[11] The U.S. government says NIDA funds more than 85 percent of the world's research about the health aspects of drug abuse and addiction. [12]

Publications[]

File:Teencover1.gif

A NIDA educational pamphlet.

NIDA Notes is a bimonthly newsletter that has been published since 1985. Its scope covers drug abuse research in the areas of treatment and prevention, epidemiology, neuroscience, behavioral science, health services, and AIDS.[13] NIDA-supported studies are also published in other journals.[14] NIDA publishes educational materials as well which aim to provide pertinent facts to teenagers who will be making drug use decisions and to parents. This literature has sometimes been used by legalization advocates to advance their points, an example being NIDA's admittal that "many young people who use marijuana do not go on to use other drugs."[15][16]

Controversial research[]

Drug abuse, in addition to being an area of scientific research, is also a major subject of public policy debate. Accordingly, elected officials have sometimes attempted to shape the debate by introducing legislation in reference to NIDA research. In 2004, Congressman Mark Souder introduced the Safe and Effective Drug Act, calling for a "meta-analysis of existing medical marijuana data." It was criticized for being limited to smoked cannabis (rather than vaporizers and other methods of ingestion) and not requiring any new research.[17] In some cases, NIDA has held its ground when its more moderate stances were questioned by legislators favoring a hard-line approach. On April 27, 2004, Souder sent NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni a letter criticizing needle exchange programs for causing increases in infection rates.[18] The Harm Reduction Coalition responded with its concerns, and NIDA Director Nora Volkow wrote a letter stating:

“ While it is not feasible to do a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of needle or syringe exchange programs (NEPs/SEPs) in reducing HIV incidence, the majority of studies have shown that NEPs/SEPs are strongly associated with reductions in the spread of HIV when used as a component of comprehensive approach to HIV prevention. NEPs/SEPs increase the availability of sterile syringes and other injection equipment, and for exchange participants, this decreases the fraction of needles in circulation that are contaminated. This lower fraction of contaminated needles reduces the risk of injection with a contaminated needle and lowers the risk of HIV transmission. In addition to decreasing HIV infected needles in circulation through the physical exchange of syringes, most NEPs/SEPs are part of a comprehensive HIV prevention effort that may include education on risk reduction, and referral to drug addiction treatment, job or other social services, and these interventions may be responsible for a significant part of the overall effectiveness of NEPs/SEPs. NEPs/SEPs also provide an opportunity to reach out to populations that are often difficult to engage in treatment.

NIDA will continue to work with research communities and various stakeholders to ensure that the research findings surrounding NEPs/SEPs are presented in a manner consistent with the current state of science. I would like to thank you once again for your interest and your role in reducing the health burden of these diseases on our Nation's citizens.

”

DAWN, or the Drug Abuse Warning Network, is a program to collect statistics on the frequency of emergency room mentions of use of different types of drugs. This information is widely cited by drug policy officials, who have sometimes confused drug-related episodes—emergency room visits induced by drugs—with drug mentions. The Wisconsin Department of Justice claimed, "In Wisconsin, marijuana overdose visits in emergency rooms equal to heroin or morphine [sic], twice as common as Valium." Common Sense for Drug Policy called this as a distortion, noting, "The federal DAWN report itself notes that reports of marijuana do not mean people are going to the hospital for a marijuana overdose, it only means that people going to the hospital for a drug overdose mention marijuana as a drug they use."[19]

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health is an annual study of American drug use patterns. According to NIDA, "The data collection method is in–person interviews conducted with a sample of individuals at their place of residence. ACASI provides a highly private and confidential means of responding to questions to increase the level of honest reporting of illicit drug use and other sensitive behavior." Sixty-eight thousand people were interviewed in 2003, with a weighted response rate for interviewing of 73 percent.[20] Like DAWN, the Survey often draws criticism because of how the data is used by drug policy officials. Rob Kampia of Marijuana Policy Project stated in a September 5, 2002 press release,[21]

“ The government reaches that exact same conclusion regardless of whether drug use is going up, down, or staying the same. If use is going up they say, `We're in a drug abuse emergency; we need to crack down harder.' If use is going down, they say, `Our strategy is working; we need to crack down harder.' A cynic might think they had made up their minds before even looking at the data. ”

NIDA literature and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) research frequently contradict each other. For instance, in the 1980s and 1990s, NIMH researchers found that dopamine plays only a marginal role in marijuana's psychoactive effects.[22] Years later, however, NIDA educational materials continued to warn of the danger of dopamine-related marijuana addiction.[23] NIDA appears to be backing off of these dopamine claims, adding disclaimers to its teaching packets that the interaction of THC with the reward system is not fully understood.[24]

Medical marijuana monopoly[]

NIDA has a government granted monopoly on the production of medical marijuana for research purposes. In the past, the institute has refused to supply marijuana to researchers who had obtained all other necessary federal permits. Medical marijuana researchers and activists claim that NIDA, which is not supposed to be a regulatory organization, does not have the authority to effectively regulate who does and doesn't get to do research with medical marijuana. Jag Davies of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) writes in MAPS Bulletin:[25]

“ Currently, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has a monopoly on the supply of research-grade marijuana, but no other Schedule I drug, that can be used in FDA-approved research. NIDA uses its monopoly power to obstruct research that conflicts with its vested interests. MAPS had two of its FDA-approved medical marijuana protocols rejected by NIDA, preventing the studies from taking place. MAPS has also been trying without success for almost four years to purchase 10 grams of marijuana from NIDA for research into the constituents of the vapor from marijuana vaporizers, a non-smoking drug delivery method that has already been used in one FDA-approved human study. ”

NIDA administers a contract with the University of Mississippi to grow the nation's only legal cannabis crop for medical and research purposes,[26] including the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program. A Fast Company magazine article pointed out, "Based on the photographic evidence, NIDA's concoction of seeds, stems, and leaves more closely resembles dried cat brier than cannabis".[27] An article in Mother Jones magazine describes their crop as "brown, stems-and-seeds-laden, low-potency pot—what's known on the streets as "schwag""[28] United States federal law currently registers cannabis as a Schedule I drug. Medical marijuana researchers typically prefer to use high-potency marijuana, but NIDA's National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse has been reluctant to provide cannabis with high THC levels, citing safety concerns:[29]

“ Most clinical studies have been conducted using cannabis cigarettes with a potency of 2-4% THC. However, it is anticipated that there will be requests for cannabis cigarettes with a higher potency or with other mixes of cannabinoids. For example, NIDA has received a request for cigarettes with an 8% potency. The subcommittee notes that very little is known about the clinical pharmacology of this higher potency. Thus, while NIDA research has provided a large body of literature related to the clinical pharmacology of cannabis, research is still needed to establish the safety of new dosage forms and new formulations. ”

Speaking before the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project criticized NIDA for refusing to provide researcher Donald Abrams with marijuana for his studies, stating that "after nine months of delay, Dr. Leshner rejected Dr. Abrams' request for marijuana, on what we believe are political grounds that the FDA-approved protocol is inadequate."[30]

Boston Globe 2006:

Then again, it's not in NIDA's job description-or even, perhaps, in NIDA's interests-to grow a world-class marijuana crop. The institute's director, Nora Volkow, has stressed that it's "not NIDA's mission to study the medicinal use of marijuana or to advocate for the establishment of facilities to support this research." Since NIDA's stated mission "is to lead the Nation in bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction," federally supported marijuana research will logically tilt toward the potential harms, not benefits, of cannabis.

Ricaurte's monkeys[]

For more details on this topic, see Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy.

NIDA continues to provide funding to George Ricaurte, who in 2002 conducted a study that was widely touted as proving that MDMA caused dopaminergic neurotoxicity in monkeys.[31] His paper "Severe Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity in Primates After a Common Recreational Dose Regimen of MDMA ('Ecstasy')" in Science[32] was later retracted after it became clear that the monkeys had in fact been injected not with MDMA, but with extremely high doses of methamphetamine.[33] A FOIA request was subsequently filed by MAPS to find out more about the research and NIDA's involvement in it.[34][35]

Alan Leshner, publisher of Science and former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), has come under fire for endorsing the botched study at its time of publication... Leshner did help NIDA bring home the bacon: NIDA's budget for Ecstasy research has more than quadrupled over the past five years, from $3.4 million to $15.8 million; the agency funds 85 percent of the world's drug-abuse research. In 2001, Leshner testified before a Senate subcommittee on "Ecstasy Abuse and Control"; critics say Leshner manipulated brain scans from a 2000 study by Dr. Linda Chang showing no difference between Ecstasy users and control subjects. But NIDA insists it's independent from political pressures. "We don't set policy; we don't create laws," says Beverly Jackson, the agency's spokesperson.

Effectiveness of anti-marijuana ad campaigns[]

In February 2005, Westat, a research company hired by NIDA and funded by The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, reported on its five-year study of the government ad campaigns aimed at dissuading teens from using marijuana, campaigns that cost more than $1.0 billion between 1998 and 2004. The study found that the ads did not work: "greater exposure to the campaign was associated with weaker anti-drug norms and increases in the perceptions that others use marijuana." NIDA leaders and the White House drug office did not release the Westat report for a year and a half. NIDA dated Westat's report as "delivered" in June 2006. In fact, it was delivered in February 2005, according to the Government Accountability Office, the federal watchdog agency charged with reviewing the study.[36]

NIDA and Wikipedia[]

File:Cjcard.gif

Treatment Art Card.

NIDA officials have edited the Wikipedia article about their organization to remove text and links critical of NIDA and add NIDA URLs and text from NIDA literature. The article history shows a single edit in late August 2006 and a number of edits during September 2006 by an anonymous editor with an IP address from within NIH. These edits have been reverted. In January 2007, NIDA spokeswoman Dorie Hightower verified that the editing was done by NIDA officials, and said it was done "to reflect the science."[37] [38]

References[]

  1. ↑ About NIDA. National Institute on Drug Abuse.
  2. ↑ http://www.nih.gov/about/almanac/archive/1999/organization/nida/history.html
  3. ↑ http://www.nida.nih.gov/Published_Articles/Essence.html
  4. ↑ http://www.millionmarijuanamarch.com/mmm1_047.htm
  5. ↑ http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01362.html
  6. ↑ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-9306-filed
  7. ↑ http://www.nida.nih.gov/nida_notes/NNVol16N1/Nicotine.html
  8. ↑ http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun97/nida-24.htm
  9. ↑ http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/08_24_99/story02.htm
  10. ↑ http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/DARHW/309-318_Rosenbaum.pdf
  11. ↑ Home Page. National Institutes of Health Office of Budget.
  12. ↑ http://www.drugabuse.gov/MedAdv/01/NR7-19.html
  13. ↑ http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNInfo2.html
  14. ↑ http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol21N4/RIB.html#Controlling
  15. ↑ http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/OB_adolescent_use_0696.html
  16. ↑ http://www.drugabuse.gov/MarijBroch/Marijparentstxt.html#Lead
  17. ↑ http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4334.html
  18. ↑ http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/05_06_04souder.cfm
  19. ↑ Distortion 6: Emergency Room Visits. Common Sense for Drug Policy.
  20. ↑ The NSDUH Report. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).
  21. ↑ MPP Responds to Release of 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Marijuana Policy Project (MPP).
  22. ↑ http://www.ukcia.org/research/gettman.htm
  23. ↑ http://www.teens.drugabuse.gov/facts/facts_mj1.asp
  24. ↑ http://www.nida.nih.gov/pubs/teaching/Teaching5.html
  25. ↑ http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v16n3-html/marijuana_production_facility.html
  26. ↑ http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/organization/nacda/marijuanastatement.html
  27. ↑ http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/79/cannabisumass.html
  28. ↑ includeonly>Greenberg, Gary. "Respectable Reefer", Mother Jones, 2005-11-01. Retrieved on 2007-04-03.
  29. ↑ http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/organization/nacda/marijuanastatement.html
  30. ↑ http://oldsite.mpp.org/archive/rktest.html
  31. ↑ http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_research2.shtml
  32. ↑ Ricaurte, George. Severe Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity in Primates After a Common Recreational Dose Regimen of MDMA ('Ecstasy'). Science 297: 2260-2263.
  33. ↑ Earth Erowid. A Review of a Recent Claim Of Parkinson's from "Recreational" MDMA Use. erowid.org.
  34. ↑ http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/ricaurtefunding.pdf
  35. ↑ Rick Doblin, Ph.D., MAPS President. Comments on MDMA Neurotoxicity Research in Primates: Dr. Ricaurte's July 15, 2003 Progress Report to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. MAPS.
  36. ↑ Ryan Grim, "A White House Drug Deal Gone Bad: Sitting on the Negative Results of a Study of Anti-Marijuna Ads", Slate magazine, September 7, 2006
  37. ↑ Ryan Grim. Federal Agency Cleans Up Its Own Wikipedia Entry. The Politico.
  38. ↑ Granny Doc. Feds Mess with Wikipedia Entry, Again. The Daily Kos.

External links[]

National Institutes of Health
Institutes National Cancer Institute | National Eye Institute | National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute | National Human Genome Research Institute | National Institute on Aging | National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism | National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases | National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases | National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering | National Institute of Child Health and Human Development | National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders | National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research | National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases | National Institute on Drug Abuse | National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences | National Institute of General Medical Sciences | National Institute of Mental Health | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke | National Institute of Nursing Research | National Library of Medicine |
Centers Center for Information Technology | Center for Scientific Review | John E. Fogarty International Center | National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine | National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities | National Center for Research Resources | Quality Assurance Review Center | Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center | Radiological Physics Center
Related United States Public Health Service | National Institutes of Health Director's Pioneer Award
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
Advertisement

Fan Feed

More Psychology Wiki