An Addiction Vaccine, Tantalizingly Close
Dr. Janda, a chemist at the Scripps Research Institute has been working 25 years, trying to create vaccinations that will release people from substance abuse. These vaccines would work in the same manner that vaccines for diseases do. They would introduce a small amount of substance into the body, which would cause the immune system to create antibodies that attack the substance the next time it appears. The problem is that the molecules of nicotine and cocaine are much smaller than disease molecules, so the immune system often ignores them, rather than attacking them. Furthermore Dr. Janda has found that the molecules making up alcohol and marijuana are even smaller than those of cocaine and nicotine, and the proteins delivering immunity are not able to attach to them. Dr. Janda has even tried to formulate a vaccine against obesity by attempting to block the affects of the peptide hormone, ghrelin, which signals hunger in the brain. He has tested many of these vaccines on animals, and the obesity vaccine has shown a lower food intake in animals, but it is still unclear how humans will respond. The same can be said for the heroin vaccine, which caused the rodents to steer clear of heroin the next time it was offered to them. However, in the case of humans, the results were too varied to reach a conclusion as to its effectiveness.
This method of curing addictions, if successful, will be revolutionary in the field of medicine. Up until this point, it was believed that the only way to break addictions was to go through very long and painful courses of rehab and other such things. Not everyone has enough willpower to go through with rehab and other treatments like it. These vaccines, if successful, could help people around the world battling with addictions, and would be an extraordinary asset to the medical community.
This article was very interesting and focused on a fascinating topic. However it was very vague in certain areas. For example, it did not give any statistics on the success rates of these vaccines in humans. Furthermore, it said that the FDA had not approved any of these vaccines as of yet, but it did not state whether any of the vaccines were looking more promising, and were closer to being successful than others, which would have been very useful while reading this article.
Quenqua, Douglas. "An Addiction Vaccine, Tantalizingly Close." The New York Times 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 3 Oct. 2011.
Amanda Austi
ReplyDeleteCurrent Events Comments: October 4, 2011
Comment of Julia Keating’s Review: “An Addiction Vaccine, Tantalizingly Close”
Julia did a very good job presenting this article. There are specific aspects of the article that I thought she presented well. First, I thought that she presented the material in an organized way. Medicine can be a very confusing topic because many people don’t know that much about the subject. However, Julia explained the ideas in the article with good organization, making the complicated concept easier to understand. One example of her organization skills was the way she discussed the reactions on animals vs. humans for each vaccine. This structure kept the review intact. Second, Julia presented the information in a simplistic manner. This allowed the readers to also understand the material in a way that is relatable and easier. Last, I thought Julia made a very interesting link to the biological community. She explained how the research presented in her article would have major impacts on society with clarity. Although most of us approached the headline of this article with ambiguity, Julia was able to present the information clearly, and in a relatable manner.
Although there were strong points in the article, there are a couple of things that could have made it better. First, I think that a little bit more detail could have been added regarding the types of vaccines that are going to emerge. This is a very confusing topic and could have been elaborated on with greater detail. Second, I think something that would make her review was stronger is if she added a quote from the doctor herself. This way, the reader would be able to understand why this scientist is so active in this subject, and how her work is affecting us. However, I think that Julia did a very good job presenting this article overall.
One thing that I learned when reading this response was that vaccines are able to cure certain addictions. For example, scientists could come up with a vaccine against harmful drugs, and obesity. These addictions are struggles that many people deal with on a daily basis. The breakthrough of these vaccines would change life completely. No longer would people have any motivation to “diet”; a simple vaccine would make you less hungry, and thus make you eat less. No longer would people be afraid of drug addiction; a simple vaccine would be able to cure you. Although I think this is a great study, it may be harmful on our society. These “quick fixes” to problems such as drugs and obesity, could diminish motivation to live healthy lives. Society could go down hill because they know that a vaccine could just fix all their problems. Although this is a pessimistic view on the findings, it is a possible effect of these vaccines in society.
Julia did a great job summarizing the article. One thing that she accomplished well was portraying how the vaccines showed positive results on test animals, but inconclusive results in humans and distinguishing between the two. I think Julia was also successful in seeing the flaws in the article by stating that the article did not state if the improvements had been made since the research had started. A final strength of the summery is that Julia was able to present all of the information in a detailed way, but keep the whole summer simple and easy to comprehend. For Julia’s to improve the summery I would suggest that she might explain better the rehab process and other alternatives to cure addictions. I would also recommend that Julia add some direct quotes from the article or the doctor to further support the summery. Overall I found this article very interesting just because so many people struggle with addiction, and the idea that it could be prevented though a vaccine, rather then being cured after the fact could prove to save lives.
ReplyDeleteJulia chose a great article. She did a great job introducing the main topic, creating vaccinations that fight substance abuse, and the background on the person, Dr. Janda, conducting the research. Julia also presented the reasons why it is so difficult to create a vaccine in a very clear manner, which made it clear to the reader why it has not been accomplished. She also made it understandable that although this vaccine would be a huge asset to the medical community, the effectiveness of the vaccines has varied in both animals and humans, showing that there is still research to be made and flaws to be addressed. Julia also made great points in her review about how the article itself was flawed because of its vagueness.
ReplyDeleteAlthough very strong, I would suggest Julia be a little more detailed in the description of the treatments used to break addictions today. I would also suggest that would state some of the ways that the vaccine, if successful, would impact the medical community.
I learned that the reason why we have no vaccines for addictions is because the molecules that are in the addictive substance are too small for the immune system to react too, so they do not attack them. But he problem with making a vaccine, is the size of the molecules are also preventing the proteins that would attach to them delivering immunity unable to.
Inspired by the New York Times article “An Addiction Vaccine, Tantalizingly Close”, Julia Keating found several interesting facts relating to the medical research done by Dr. Kim D. Janda at Scripps University. Janda is attempting to investigate how addictive substances and behaviors can be curbed, based on a vaccine that will affect a person’s immune system. Julia thoughtfully commented on Janda’s work by discussing how the vaccine works, by introducing small quantities of the addictive substance into the blood stream so that antibodies can attack the drug. Another point that Julia highlighted in her comments regarded Janda’s study on obesity, in which the peptide hormone, ghrelin, will not signal hunger so frequently. Thirdly, Julia reflected on how the article does not mention the success rates that Janda’s vaccines have had, which does not thoroughly support the article’s credibility because in order for the reader to believe a vaccine is near, one must see that it is working.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Julia did a wonderful job at dissecting the key points in this article, there are a few things that she forgot to mention. For example, she did not mention that the vaccine incorporates new proteins that will attach to the substance’s molecules because they are too small to work on their own. This is an important point to add because without the proteins, the new drugs could act like any other vaccine, however the molecule size must be taken into account. Another point that was not included in Julia’s comments related to the mouse studies in the heroin vaccine, in which the vaccine proved to help mice to resist the drug over time. This is important to add as well because this respective study bolsters the belief that the vaccine could be successful. An interesting point that grips the reader in this article relates to addiction, to which Janda says that even with the vaccine, addicts will still have to work hard to stay off of other drugs. This point is important because it emphasizes that even if the vaccine is created, addicts cannot rely on a drug to take away their addictive personalities and need for escape through substance abuse.
Julia, having read the article, "An Addiction Vaccine, Tantalizingly Close,” made many keen discoveries about the research done by Dr. Kim D. Janda at Scripps University. Julia portrayed the quest to investigate how addictive behavior is curable, how there will be a vaccine in the future to work with the immune system. Julia described the process that the vaccine will undergo; how small quantities of addictive substances will be introduced into the blood stream such that the antibodies will have an opportunity to attack the drug and build up a tolerance. Julia went further to comment on the drugs’ lack of effect on hunger; the research done does not show that there will be troubles with obesity as a result from using this up and coming vaccine. Lastly, Julia went on to challenge the article; the vaccine was not discussed in actually solving addictive behavior, which could be a question of the article’s credibility. Though Julia did an excellent job discussing the article, she did fail to mention the ways the drug works exactly with the immune system, by linking new proteins with the substance’s molecules because they are too small to work on their own. Another way Julia could have made her review more convincing is to display how this could affect today’s society, where addiction is so commonplace. An interesting part of this article is that this does not seem to necessarily stop addiction; addicts will still need to work on their addictive personalities, no vaccine can solve that problem yet.
ReplyDelete