Es Are Good

‘SCIENCE is not, and never has been, an exact science. One egghead’s theory is another egghead’s omelette – in fact, science can prove pretty well whatever it sets out to prove. So when scientists set out in 1995 to prove that a new drug – ecstasy – was fatal, they did just that. Or did they?

”Ecstasy has never done me any harm, ” says 15-year-old party girl Elaine Evershot

This morning, three leading psychologists provoke an outcry by telling the Guardian that in fact the drug of choice of clubbers everywhere may in fact be completely harmless and some of its ”ill-effects” imaginary.

The conjunction of the words drugs and harmless in the same sentence is more than most of us can bear, but the trio – two Brits and an American – claim that many of the previous studies into the effects of the drug are flawed and accuse researchers of bias.

However, to prove our point about science not being an exact science, three other experts in the drug come to a completely different conclusion. Australian psychologist Dr Rodney Croft claims there is ”strong evidence that ecstasy does cause impairment” and says the most reasonable message for scientists to be broadcasting is that it is a ”danger”.

And, after weighing up the conflicting scientific evidence, Paul Betts (whose daughter Leah died after taking the drug in 1995) concluded that the research was ”despicable”.

So, Anorak contacted three other scientists involved in ecstasy research for a definitive opinion. ”I’m very full of love for all of them right now,” Dr Mikhail Mashed told us from his base in San Antonio, Ibiza.

‘

Posted: 2nd, September 2002 | In: Broadsheets Comment | TrackBack | Permalink