High Immunity: Drugs Fight Addiction and Fun
New vaccines may take the fun out of drugs. Should we inoculate kids to prevent partying?
November/December 2000
by Staff, Utne Reader
Until recently, attempts to treat addiction with drugs have proven ineffective at best, crude at worst. Methadone is mellower than heroin, but users often trade one addiction for another. The drug Anabuse keeps alcoholics in line by triggering nausea when they drink. And users have yet to report dramatic results from drugs that promise to temper cravings for cigarettes.
RELATED CONTENT
Puberty-inducing teen cosmetics are but one example of chemicals that are changing our bodies daily...
While same-sex-friendly wedding bells may be ringing in California’s affluent cities and suburbs, i...
Despite funding troubles, organizations are rallying to save women from a dangerous, humiliating co...
What happens when cherished traditions meet brand-new European Union regulations?...
But the pharmaceutical industry is closing in on a new approach that, in effect, takes the fun out of using so-called recreational drugs. At least five drug companies and several university scientists are testing 'vaccines' for cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), meth-amphetamine, and nicotine, according to Philip Cohen, writing in New Scientist (June 10, 2000.) Like standard vaccines, these drugs program the body to produce immune-system proteins called antibodies. But instead of fighting off disease, these antibodies chemically disarm specific drugs in the bloodstream. Some keep the naughty drugs from reaching the brain, while others break them up into nonintoxicating chemical bits.
On an individual level, these new drugs offer hope to people who are struggling to quit smoking or snorting. But as potential new weapons in the war against drugs, Cohen argues, the vaccines come with a load of ethical questions. 'Should people be vaccinated simply because they belong to a group thought to be particularly at risk of becoming addicted?' he writes. 'Should parents be allowed to make that decision for their children? Might companies screen job applicants for traces of anti-drug antibodies, in the belief that this would finger former users?'
When the scientist Barbara Fox first asked the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for money to research a cocaine vaccine, the agency turned her down flat. Reviewers at NIDA, a division of the federal government's National Institutes of Health, expressed nervousness about the ethical implication of the drugs. But three years later, in 1997, the agency had warmed to the idea. Fox, who is now with a Boston area pharmaceutical company called Addiction Therapies Inc., won a $700,000 NIDA award to test her approach.
Fox and other researchers have already had some success with animal studies. Rats and monkeys with intravenous access to cocaine partied away until they got the vaccine and then seemed to lose their enthusiasm for cocaine. In human tests, one of the vaccines has passed its first hurdle, Cohen notes. A group of recovering cocaine addicts who took the vaccine reported no serious side effects, and antibodies could be detected in some of them a year later.