T
The420Guy
Guest
The people forcing Oregon teenagers to participate in drug research
published their early data this week, and the results were hardly
shocking: A school that randomly demands urine samples from students
appears to have a lower rate of drug use than a school that doesn't.
Head researcher Dr. Linn Goldberg is already using the results as
proof that drug testing likely "works." We question that logic, as
well as the judgment of school leaders who require students to be
laboratory rats in order to participate in school activities.
The research should be permanently suspended.
Oregon Health & Science University received a three-year, $3.6 million
federal grant in 2000 to study whether random urine testing of student
athletes reduces drug use in high schools. Researchers from OHSU
signed up 13 Oregon school districts to participate, some as
experimental schools and some as control schools. Punishment for
resistance was steep: Getting thrown off the team.
Students and parents in some communities protested, saying the forced
testing was humiliating and invasive. But the OHSU researchers marched
onward, using a U.S. Supreme Court ruling about student drug testing
as the only consent they needed.
Then the federal Office of Human Research Protection intervened. This
fall, the watchdog agency said the study violated federal laws on
human research by being involuntary and potentially coercive. The
agency also noted that financial incentives could cloud school
leaders' judgment.
The research was suspended. It should stay that way.
Furthermore, Oregon school districts that drug-test their students --
or are considering drug testing -- should consider the other early
finding from the study. Over time, surveys showed that students at
schools with drug testing developed a more positive view about drugs,
and they were more likely to expect higher rates of drug use among
their classmates.
In other words, drug testing may be a short-term deterrent -- but it
also may help create a long-term perception that drug use is "normal."
OHSU is trying to alter the drug-testing protocols to comply with
federal standards about research on human subjects. We doubt that is
possible without invalidating the data. More importantly, however, we
think school districts should find more honorable ways to reduce drug
use among teenagers.
Forced drug testing may be expedient, and it's easy for paid
researchers or worried school leaders to think the ends justify the
means. Many private employers require pre-employment drug screening,
including The Oregonian, so it's easy for adults to shrug off the
implications of forcing children in school to pee on demand for strangers.
But let's not forget what this is. The government is forcing kids to
participate in invasive research in order to participate in an
educational activity -- which is what sports are. Even if it works, it
isn't educational.
And it sure ain't science.
Pubdate: Fri, 03 Jan 2003
Source: Oregonian, The (Portland, OR)
Copyright: 2003 The Oregonian
Contact: letters@news.oregonian.com
Website: OregonLive.com
published their early data this week, and the results were hardly
shocking: A school that randomly demands urine samples from students
appears to have a lower rate of drug use than a school that doesn't.
Head researcher Dr. Linn Goldberg is already using the results as
proof that drug testing likely "works." We question that logic, as
well as the judgment of school leaders who require students to be
laboratory rats in order to participate in school activities.
The research should be permanently suspended.
Oregon Health & Science University received a three-year, $3.6 million
federal grant in 2000 to study whether random urine testing of student
athletes reduces drug use in high schools. Researchers from OHSU
signed up 13 Oregon school districts to participate, some as
experimental schools and some as control schools. Punishment for
resistance was steep: Getting thrown off the team.
Students and parents in some communities protested, saying the forced
testing was humiliating and invasive. But the OHSU researchers marched
onward, using a U.S. Supreme Court ruling about student drug testing
as the only consent they needed.
Then the federal Office of Human Research Protection intervened. This
fall, the watchdog agency said the study violated federal laws on
human research by being involuntary and potentially coercive. The
agency also noted that financial incentives could cloud school
leaders' judgment.
The research was suspended. It should stay that way.
Furthermore, Oregon school districts that drug-test their students --
or are considering drug testing -- should consider the other early
finding from the study. Over time, surveys showed that students at
schools with drug testing developed a more positive view about drugs,
and they were more likely to expect higher rates of drug use among
their classmates.
In other words, drug testing may be a short-term deterrent -- but it
also may help create a long-term perception that drug use is "normal."
OHSU is trying to alter the drug-testing protocols to comply with
federal standards about research on human subjects. We doubt that is
possible without invalidating the data. More importantly, however, we
think school districts should find more honorable ways to reduce drug
use among teenagers.
Forced drug testing may be expedient, and it's easy for paid
researchers or worried school leaders to think the ends justify the
means. Many private employers require pre-employment drug screening,
including The Oregonian, so it's easy for adults to shrug off the
implications of forcing children in school to pee on demand for strangers.
But let's not forget what this is. The government is forcing kids to
participate in invasive research in order to participate in an
educational activity -- which is what sports are. Even if it works, it
isn't educational.
And it sure ain't science.
Pubdate: Fri, 03 Jan 2003
Source: Oregonian, The (Portland, OR)
Copyright: 2003 The Oregonian
Contact: letters@news.oregonian.com
Website: OregonLive.com
