View source for Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA

{{Short description|Retracted article published in Science}}
"'''Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA'''<ref group="nb">'''3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine''' ([[Chemistry:MDMA|MDMA]]) is the chemical name for the psychotropic drug commonly known as "ecstasy".</ref>''' ("ecstasy")'''",<ref name="Ricaurte2002">{{cite journal | vauthors = Ricaurte GA, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Cord BJ, McCann UD | title = Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ("ecstasy") | journal = Science | volume = 297 | issue = 5590 | pages = 2260–3 | date = September 2002 | pmid = 12351788 | doi = 10.1126/science.1074501 | s2cid = 41968301 | bibcode = 2002Sci...297.2260R }}</ref> is an article by George A. Ricaurte that was [[Academic publishing|published]] in September 2002 in the peer-reviewed journal ''Science'', one of the world's top academic journals. It was later [[Retractions in academic publishing|retracted]]; instead of using [[Chemistry:MDMA|MDMA]], [[Chemistry:Methamphetamine|methamphetamine]] had been used in the test.<ref name="Ricaurte-Retraction"/>

==Original publication==
An editorial article on the paper indicated that researchers had observed [[Chemistry:Dopaminergic|dopaminergic]] [[Chemistry:Neurotoxicity|neurotoxicity]] (death of [[Biology:Neuron|neurons]] involved in [[Biology:Dopamine|dopamine]] pathways) in monkeys following MDMA injections, a finding which suggested that recreational users of MDMA may be at risk of developing neuropsychiatric disorders associated with dopamine dysfunction.<ref>{{cite journal |title=More Dangers from Designer Drugs |journal=Science's STKE |volume=2002 |issue=152 |year=2002 |pages=360tw–360 |issn=1525-8882 |doi=10.1126/stke.2002.152.tw360|s2cid=219191294 }}</ref>

Following the release of the paper, ''Science'' published a “News of the week” article by Constance Holden.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Drug Find Could Give Ravers the Jitters|url=https://www.science.org/content/article/drug-find-could-give-ravers-jitters|access-date=2021-11-13|website=www.science.org|language=en}}</ref> The article noted that the results of the study had caused the researchers concern that even a single night of MDMA usage could cause brain damage, and leave a person vulnerable to neurological disorders such as [[Medicine:Parkinson's disease|Parkinson's disease]]. Holden also noted that the findings of the study were surprising, due to MDMA being known for prompting the  release of large amounts of [[Chemistry:Serotonin|serotonin]], but not dopamine.  In the article, cognitive neuroscientist Jon Cole was described as being “skeptical” about the risk of Parkinson’s from MDMA use, stating that there had only been one case report of Parkinson’s related to the use of ecstasy. In response, the researchers stated that this could be due to symptoms not presenting until "70% to 80%" of dopamine had been depleted.

Alan Leshner, a former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, also commented on the study, stating "This says even a single evening's use is playing Russian roulette with your own brain."<ref>Rick Weiss "[https://web.archive.org/web/20021001125323/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14627-2002Sep28.html On Ecstasy, Consensus Is Elusive:Study Suggesting Risk of Brain Damage Questioned by Critics of Methodology]" ''Washington Post'', September 30, 2002; Page A07. Archived copy</ref>

==Retraction==
In June 2003, a letter to ''Science'' was published in which the results of the study were questioned. Ricaurte stood by the findings.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mithoefer|first1=Michael|last2=Jerome|first2=Lisa|last3=Doblin|first3=Richard|last4=Ricaurte|first4=George A.|date=2003-06-06|title=MDMA ("Ecstasy") and Neurotoxicity|url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.300.5625.1504|journal=Science|volume=300|issue=5625|pages=1504–1505|doi=10.1126/science.300.5625.1504|pmid=12791964 |s2cid=38721229 }}</ref>

In September 2003, the paper was retracted. In a statement published in ‘’Science’’, the research team indicated that due to a labelling error, [[Chemistry:Methamphetamine|methamphetamine]] had been administered to 9 of the 10 test animals instead of MDMA. The team had consistently been unable to replicate the original results, which lead to them conducting an investigation and ultimately discovering the error.<ref name="Ricaurte-Retraction">{{cite journal |vauthors=Ricaurte GA, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Cord BJ, McCann UD | title = Retraction | journal = Science | volume = 301 | issue = 5639 | pages = 1479b–1479 | date = September 2003 | pmid = 12970544 | doi = 10.1126/science.301.5639.1479b | s2cid = 220097819 }}</ref>

Following the retraction, Ricaurte stated that he would continue to investigate the possibility of a relationship between MDMA and dopamine dysfunction, and that the laboratory would be adjusting its chemical handling procedure.<ref name="Holden2003">{{cite journal | vauthors = Holden C | title = Retraction. Paper on toxic party drug is pulled over vial mix-up | journal = Science | volume = 301 | issue = 5639 | pages = 1454b–1454 | date = September 2003 | pmid = 12970527 | doi = 10.1126/science.301.5639.1454b | s2cid = 36895308 }}</ref>

==Reactions==
In a review of the year's events published in the December issue of ''Science'', Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy wrote, "It was also a vintage year for scientific fluffs. We shared in one: Some vials containing the recreational drug Ecstasy got switched with vials containing methamphetamine, and we wound up publishing a paper we wish we hadn't".<ref name="Kennedy2003">{{cite journal | vauthors = Kennedy D | title = Breakthrough of the year | journal = Science | volume = 302 | issue = 5653 | pages = 2033 | date = December 2003 | pmid = 14684786 | doi = 10.1126/science.302.5653.2033 | s2cid = 31164282 | doi-access =  }}</ref>

Journalists such as Larry Smith and Carla Spartos have stated that the inaccurate study may have influenced drug policy being made at the time, such as the RAVE act of April 2003.<ref>{{Cite web|date=17 September 2003|editor1-link=Chris Richmond (entrepreneur)|editor2-link=David Talbot|title=E-fer madness|url=https://www.salon.com/2003/09/16/ecstasy_retraction|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111008085853/https://www.salon.com/2003/09/16/ecstasy_retraction|archive-date=8 October 2011|access-date=10 July 2021|work=Salon.com|publisher=Salon.com, LLC.|location={{wipe|San Francisco}}, {{wipe|California}}, United States of America|oclc=43916723|vauthors=Smith L|veditors=Richmond C, Talbot D, Keane E}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|author=Carla Spartos|date=Mar 2, 2004|title=The Ecstasy Factor: Bad Science Slandered a Generation's Favorite Drug. Now a New Study Aims to Undo the Damage.|newspaper=villagevoice|url=http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-03-02/news/the-ecstasy-factor/|access-date=2012-12-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121011170509/http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-03-02/news/the-ecstasy-factor/|archive-date=2012-10-11}}</ref><ref name="nature2003.223">{{cite journal|vauthors=|date=September 2003|title=Ecstasy's after-effects|journal=Nature|volume=425|issue=6955|pages=223|bibcode=2003Natur.425Q.223.|doi=10.1038/425223a|pmid=13679872|doi-access=free}}</ref>

In an interview in ''The Scientist'', British scientists Colin Blakemore and Leslie Iversen described how they expressed concerns about the article with editors at Science. "It's an outrageous scandal," Iversen told The Scientist. "It's another example of a certain breed of scientist who appear to do research on illegal drugs mainly to show what the governments want them to show. They extract large amounts of grant money from the government to do this sort of biased work."<ref>{{cite news |title=Retracted Ecstasy paper "an outrageous scandal" |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/news-analysis/retracted-ecstasy-paper-an-outrageous-scandal-51068 |access-date=23 April 2022 |work=The Scientist |date=15 September 2003 |language=en}}</ref>

A study<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Barnett |first=Brian S. |last2=Doblin |first2=Richard |date=2021 |title=Dissemination of Erroneous Research Findings and Subsequent Retraction in High-Circulation Newspapers: A Case Study of Alleged MDMA-Induced Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity in Primates |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33241981/ |journal=Journal of Psychoactive Drugs |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=104–110 |doi=10.1080/02791072.2020.1847365 |issn=2159-9777 |pmid=33241981}}</ref> of the 50 largest American newspapers with available online archives found that 26 (52%) covered the original article's publication, while 20 (40%) covered its retraction. Of the newspapers that covered the article's publication, only 14 (54%) covered its retraction, suggesting large numbers of newspaper readers who had been exposed to the misinformation were never made aware that the study had been in error.

== See also ==
* Urban legends about illegal drugs

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=nb}}

== References ==
{{reflist|30em}}

== External links ==
* {{cite journal | vauthors = Trent S | journal = The JHU Gazette (Johns Hopkins University Gazette) | date = 30 September 2002 | access-date = 10 July 2021 | url = https://pages.jh.edu/~gazette/2002/30sep02/30ecstas.html | archive-date = 21 April 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170421101830/https://pages.jh.edu/~gazette/2002/30sep02/30ecstas.html | title = Recreational Use of Ecstasy Causes New Brain Damage: Trend to sequential doses of popular drug can have long-term lasting effects | volume = 32 | issue = 5 | publisher = [[Organization:Johns Hopkins University|Johns Hopkins University]] | publication-place = Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America | veditors = Perschetz L }}
* [http://www.maps.org/mdma/rd011604.html Rick Doblin: Exaggerating MDMA's Risks to Justify A Prohibitionist Policy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509135857/http://www.maps.org/mdma/rd011604.html |date=2008-05-09 }}
* [http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/studyresponse.html MAPS.org archive] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051127233844/http://maps.org/research/mdma/studyresponse.html |date=2005-11-27 }} with extensive links to media coverage and copies of the original "Science" articles.
* {{cite news|title=Journal accused of 'grabbing headlines' | vauthors = Thomas A |date=12 September 2003 |access-date=10 July 2021 |work=ABC Science (ABC News) |publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) |publication-place=[[Place:Sydney|Sydney]], New South Wales, Australia |url=https://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_944856.htm |archive-date=29 December 2003 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031229014619/https://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_944856.htm }}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20060222102132/http://thedea.org/lettertoscience.html TheDEA.org: Letter to ''Science''] Highly critical letter pointing out flaws in the original research article (pre-retraction.)
* [http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity3.shtml MDMA Brain Scans Showing Neurotoxicity Discredited] ''[[Organization:Erowid|erowid.org]]'', April 2002.
* {{cite news | vauthors = McNeil Jr DJ |newspaper={{wipe|The New York Times}} |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/science/research-on-ecstasy-is-clouded-by-errors.html |archive-date=18 November 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101118124329/https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/science/research-on-ecstasy-is-clouded-by-errors.html |page=F1 |date=2 December 2003 |access-date=10 July 2021 |department=National news |title=Research on Ecstasy is clouded by errors |language=English |oclc=1645522 |issn=0362-4331 |url-status=live |volume=CLII |issue=241 }}.

[[Category:Medical controversies]]
[[Category:Error]]

{{Sourceattribution|Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA}}