I said, deploring a news article on the dangers of pot for teenage brains from a report which failed to mention that the research was on rats:
> Why they did it is obvious. Studies demonstrating the dangers of > cannabis for teenagers are sexy; such studies for rats, not so > much. If you want publicity, you go with what is sexy, and hide > what can impair it. It's also wrong. > Chris Green replied: > What is it that surprises you about this Stephen? Nothing. As I said, why they did is obvious. I was deploring it. > Surely it became clear to you long ago that journalists are not > scientists Some are both. Not all are shameless hacks intent on sensationalism. Some write excellent and intellectually honest accounts. As you note, there are good science journalists. What I was bemoaning was not that a journalist tried to foist this crap on us, but that it came straight from the press release of the McGill University Public Relations and Communication Office. Here's what I said: "It's not the fault of the science daily journalist, though, because this egregious misinformation is present in the original press release from McGill University. Shame, McGill! http://muhc.ca/newsroom/news/cannabis-and-adolescence- dangerous-cocktail or http://tinyurl.com/yhyedn5 Interestingly, I just checked the news report on this as it appeared in our major local paper, the Montreal Gazette, and I see that the reporter showed some initiative in restoring the missing information about it being a rat study (at http://tinyurl.com/yjzh4uh). The reporter also elicited this gem from the senior investigator, "Although the research was carried out on laboratory rats, Gobbi said, one can assume the same effects on the human brain." Did she say that with a straight face? I liked some of the comments, particularly this one from Logic Barbeque: " "Just because marijuana is a plant doesn't mean it's harmless.'" What, really? And here I thought poisonous mushrooms couldn't hurt you." "Gazette: your headline should read "Toking teen rats risk brain damage". Please correct it. Thanks!" And this one, from ER Doctor: "This "research" was done in rats with WIN55,212-2, a very powerful synthetic full cannabinoid agonist. It cannot be cavalierly extrapolated to say anything concrete about adolescent human use of cannabis, a weak partial cannabinoid agonist agent." > There's nothing surprisingly > egregious about this particular article, is there? Yes. I've never seen a university press release, which should have been vetted by the authors and presumably ran with their approval, hide the fact that the research was in animals. That's disturbing, and well worth fulminating over. Or maybe I'm just excitable. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
