Not raving but drowning - could MDMA help therapy?

Love, hate and Ecstasy.

 

“Studies show that when you first fall in love, serotonin levels plummet and the brain's reward centres are flooded with dopamine. This gives a high similar to an addictive drug, creating powerful links in our minds between pleasure and the object of our affection, and meaning we crave the hit of our beloved again and again.”

It’s been a while since I last fell in love. However, reading that passage from a New Scientist feature did remind me of how some people can feel after taking MDMA. Perhaps the best word to describe it is infatuation. Like a lovesick teenager, they grab every chance they get to talk about it. Like Romeo mooning over Rosaline, they wonder almost obsessively when they might get back together with it again. No one else can see as clearly as they can just how wonderful it is.

Given that the comedown from MDMA is so fast, and any obvious physiological symptoms are gone within a few days, the feeling can last a surprisingly long time – a few weeks. Then they begin to get that sheepish sense that they had perhaps been behaving a little foolishly, that their friends had tolerated their obsession but were glad they’d finally stopped blathering on about it whenever the subject – or any obliquely related subject – came up.

At least most people don’t immortalise the infatuation by releasing an album. It wouldn’t be surprising if Madonna had had an encounter with MDMA sometime recently. Called your new album MDNA? Made a crass, thinly-veiled, teenagerish, wide-eyed (ha!) reference to the drug on stage at an electronic music festival? It’s suggestive, isn’t it? Remember Tom Cruise’s embarrassing infatuation dance for Katie Holmes on Oprah’s couch? There are similarities, it would seem.

Next week we’ll be able to hear about the experiences of people who have recently taken a Home Office-grade dose of E. The experimental subjects in Channel 4’s Drugs Live: The Ecstasy Trial will almost certainly tell us they had a wonderful, blissful experience. But that’s not quite a detached analysis: in all probability they will still be a little bit in love with the drug.

And there’s the rub. Almost everything we hear about Ecstasy is anecdotal and subjective. Your experience of Ecstasy, if you’ve taken it, will no doubt be different to the way other people describe theirs, because there are subtle differences between your brain chemistry and everyone else’s, and you took the drug in a different environmental and emotional context.

Channel 4’s show is important because it will highlight the fact that we need to get away from anecdotes about Ecstasy, whether positive or negative. There are plenty of lovers; there are also those whose experience has caused them to harbour hatred towards MDMA. Neither side’s experience provides a good basis for deciding how to move forward.

The objective fact is, we have reason to believe that therapy involving MDMA use can help people get over life-destroying trauma. The study highlighted on Drugs Live involves imaging the brain in an fMRI scanner: early evidence from these scans suggests that the brain on E finds memories of negative experiences much easier to explore. But we don’t have nearly enough data to say for sure, and as things stand, further evidence is very difficult to gather.

Researching with MDMA requires handing over thousands of pounds to the Home Office for a license, a year-long wait for said license, finding the funds for a high security storage facility and a willingness to be subjected to random police inspections. Unsurprisingly, very few researchers are willing to jump through those hoops. And who can blame them when no doctor stands a chance of getting a license to use MDMA in therapy anyway?

People who would benefit from this therapy are not raving, but drowning. It wouldn’t hurt anyone to throw them a lifeline.

Almost everything we hear about Ecstasy is anecdotal and subjective. Photograph: Getty Images

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At the Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science by Surprise.

Adriana Calvo at pexels
Show Hide image

Three’s adblocking trial is terrible news for journalism

Against a backdrop of editorial redundancies, it's hard to feel celebratory about the rise of adblocking. 

In a decision which will delight phone users but strike fear into media companies' hearts, the mobile provider Three is running an adblocking trial across its network from mid-June.

The company says it's considering adblocking as a way to improve its customers' privacy and reduce data costs, which makes sense, up to a point. Ads, especially video ads, can eat up mobile users' data and battery life, and can render already-clunky mobile websites practically unusable.

However, the move comes in a week where both new and old news organisations, the Telegraph and Vice, have laid off staff in a bid to make cost savings. These organisations rely (to differing extents) on ad revenue. If readers aren't seeing ads, then whoever published and paid for that writing isn't making money, and probably won't be able to pay for that writing for much longer. 

The trial mirrors Apple's launch in September 2015 of an operating system which supported adblocker apps (which unsurprisingly shot up the Apple Store charts). At the time, I wrote about what this could mean for journalism:

Apple's move is just another which puts journalism at the mercy of giant tech companies. The consumption of media is already dictated by the whims of Google's algorithm, with publications forced to redesign sites and tweak content to ensure they rank highly and are indexed by the search engine.

Apple, notorious in the industry for its fanged response to attacks in the press, will now select its own news for readers via its news app. And media producers may now be forced to turn to social media sites like Facebook, where adblockers have less power, to market or even publish their content. 

Without ads, media companies will need to find other revenue streams, which could include subscription or paywall models - great if they work - or more sponsored posts by companies. 

Ads certainly need to become more user-friendly, and Three makes a good point when it argues that advertisers should pay for the data costs of their ads. But if you were saddened by the editorial redundancies across the media this week, take pause before you celebrate the rise of adblocking. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.