This article discusses the possibility of a vaccine that would cure addictions to certain drugs. Dr. Kim J. Janda has spent over twenty-five years trying to create a vaccine for such a cause. The vaccines Janda is trying to create would allow the body to make antibodies that would shut down the narcotic before it could have any affect on the body. The trick is that unlike diseases, which on the molecular level are relatively large, cocaine and other drug molecules are so small that the immune system tends to ignore them. For this reason, Dr. Janda attaches part of the drug to a larger protein that acts as a platform so that the immune system can recognize it. Dr. Janda has had limited success so far. First off, vaccines for alcoholism and marijuana have failed because it is simply too difficult to have the immune system recognize the molecules. On the other hand, he has created some vaccines against cocaine and heroine, but has not yet been able to receive approval from the FDA. Tests on animals have been showing promise, but many of his vaccines have shown inconclusive results during clinical trials. Dr. Janda claims that one of the major benefits of his vaccines is the fact that they do not mess with brain chemistry. The down side is that there is nothing stopping an addict who has the vaccine for cocaine from taking another substance, such as methamphetamines.
If successful, these vaccines can create significant breakthroughs for mankind, but also a few complications. These vaccines could create a world where the amount of people crippled by addiction is cut to a fraction of what it is today. People who want to turn their life around, but cannot, will be able to get a second chance. Many health care plans only pay for thirty days of rehab, but this has been shown to not be enough time to fully recover. For this reason many people that only do one session at a rehab clinic often relapse. But if these vaccines were available, health care plans could just cover the cost of the vaccines and the addicts would be better off than if they went to rehab. Although there are a few issues that could arise with this vaccine. For one, there could be a spike in people using drugs simply due to the fact that they know that there is an easy way out. Also, there could be debates over whether children should receive the vaccines to ensure they never do the drugs in the first place.
I very much enjoyed this article, but there were some areas that could be improved. For instance, the article could have been better organized. They give a little history about Dr. Janda after they talk about his attempts to find a vaccine. I believe it would have made sense to give the short bit on Janda’s background before going heavily into his research. Also, the author used no statistics to back up his claims. Whether it be the animal tests or the clinical trials, the reader is forced to accept the statements being written without being able to see statistical evidence for these claims. Besides this, I thought that this was a very well written article. The author was able to convey his ideas in a very lucid and interesting manner. He took a topic that was very intriguing to begin with, and leaves the reader feeling satisfied that he/she knows a great deal more on the topic than previously before.
Quenqua, Douglas "An Addiction Vaccine, Tantalizingly Close" NY Times Online. 4 October 2011. 3 October 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04vaccine.html>
John Harrison’s review of the article “An Addiction Vaccine, Tantalizingly Close” was thorough and very detailed. One thing that I particularly enjoyed was his description of the biochemistry behind this near breakthrough. This allowed me to understand how this vaccine was scientifically feasible. Furthermore, I appreciated the manner in which Mr. Harrison presented his review. He began with the specific details and then expanded to include the possible implications of the vaccine. Finally, I enjoyed Mr. Harrison’s considerations of the drawbacks of such a development. This shows that he took into consideration all aspects of the breakthrough.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, I felt that the review could be improved by including certain additional information. One thing that I noticed Mr. Harrison left out was how addicts had already begun to react to the research by asking to be included in clinical trials. Additionally, I feel that the inclusion of one or two quotations could have sufficiently strengthened the review.
Nonetheless, I fully enjoyed Mr. Harrison’s review and was pleased to learn about a topic that was completely new to me. I previously had no idea that a vaccination against addictions was even realistic, let alone being currently tested.
I very much enjoyed John’s review of the article on vaccines for certain addictive drugs. He managed to summarize the article in a thorough and way, fully addressing all the points the article had originally brought up. I also really liked how he mentioned future consequences of this possible vaccine, noting both sides of the argument: current addicts would have a new path to a better, drug free life, while others would feel more comfortable abusing these addictive substances, knowing there was an easy way out in the end. As well, he criticized the article for lacking validation, which forces readers to understand not everything they read may be viable. The fact that no statistics were presented, only statements about the ongoing experiment, really make you continually remember that not everything mentioned may be true.
ReplyDeleteThere are ways, however, in which I would suggest John improve this article. First including some quotes from the scientists behind the experiment or from the article itself make the review seem more validated. Also, though this may not have been mentioned too descriptively in the original article, more information on the clinical trials would have been nice. Though the major point here is that this vaccine has been largely unsuccessful in human trials, just more knowledge on what made it so ineffective would be nice.
There were many things I found very interesting in this article. The most interesting I would have to say I learned from the review is the fact that there may even be a possibility for a vaccine for drug addiction. The current war on drugs and myriad of programs against drug use has portrayed these substances in such bad lights, claiming irreversible consequences, that even the chance of a cure seems so farfetched.
I think John Review this article in a way that presented it both as a potential positive and negative to society. I think that he told the uses of such a vaccine very well. He shared how it worked and what it can and cannot work against. I particularly liked the fact that he included the clinical trial results, in a way, and the FDA position on the vaccine. An other point that was well reviewed was the fact that they barely touched on the history of Dr. Janda. This also led to the lack of statistical evidence leading the reader to believe all the claims of the article without any true evidence. One final thing in the article was the fact that this could help health care because the rehab programs that are only 30 days long could be replaced by the use of this vaccine. I think that this review could be improved by going into a little more speculation about the topic from the reviewers point of view. For example, John could have said his thoughts on the topic instead of simply review what the article said. Another thing that could have been improved on was the style of writing. I am not critiquing John’s writing skills, which are great, however I do believe that the tone of this article was more to negative side effects of having a vaccine. Still this is his opinion which should be evident in a review. I was thrilled to hear that we had developed some form of vaccine against drug abuse because drugs are a horrible thing that humans should never have found out about.
ReplyDelete