TECHNOBABBLE

Keri Hogan was about to become a police officer when she submitted a sample of her hair to the city of Boston for testing. The city, in turn, gave it to a company called Psychemedics, which washed the hair, dissolved it, and used gas chromatography and mass spectrometry—chemical analysis techniques—to check it twice over for evidence of cocaine. Hogan’s hair tested positive.

Boston police officers whose hair tests positive for drugs usually have two options: admit their substance abuse problems and agree to a stint in rehabilitation, or relinquish their position. But Hogan, who finished her police training prior to 2005, says that she has never used cocaine; when she sent her hair to a private company for more testing, it came back negative. Now, she and nine other black police officers are suing the city of Boston, saying that the practice of testing hair for drugs is discriminatory. Because of the chemistry behind the test, they say, it unfairly targets dark hair. The bench trial for the case began on March 12, and may have long-lasting consequences for the future of drug testing.

The hair test was developed in the late ‘60s, when an Austrian chemist named Werner Baumgartner decided to piggyback on the work of his wife. Annette Baumgartner was working at the Aerospace Corporation, trying to figure out what toxins might be ingested by onlookers during a shuttle launch, and Werner realized that he could look for drug exposure with the strategies she developed. Substances floating around the blood eventually get incorporated into the hair as it grows—either through tiny blood vessels or the oil and sweat glands that surround the hair follicle—and drugs found inside the hair itself, he realized, would be harder to cheat on than urine or saliva tests. They’d linger longer in the sample, too.

Baumgartner demonstrated the full force of the procedure when he used it to identify opiate painkillers in the poet John Keats’ hair, which the lab received from a rare book collection at the University of Texas at Austin. After a Time Magazine story about the Keats test, several businessmen approached Baumgartner with the intent to start a company, and Psychemedics was born.

In 1985, a navy chemist named David Kidwell was tasked with studying the test’s effectiveness—and soon, he began to have reservations. In 1993, he published the results of an experiment in which he soaked the hair in a mix of cocaine derivative and water, then washed it repeatedly before performing the drug test. Despite his attempts to remove the external contamination, the tests came back positive.

Baumgartner argued that Kidwell had used the wrong wash procedure; the test was still reliable. But Kidwell and his research partner lashed back: “At the current level of understanding, the presence of drugs in an individual’s hair indicates exposure to that compound,” they wrote. “Attempting to expand this observation into the suggestion of use or long-term abuse of a drug would seem unwarranted at this time.”

Thus began a scientific back-and-forth that has continued to this day. Scientists like Kidwell argue that both external and ingested cocaine binds to melanin in the hair. People with black hair have more melanin in general, but especially more of the subtype eumelanin, which studies have shown binds particularly well with cocaine and amphetamines. (Gray hair doesn’t have much of any type of melanin, so if you want to get away with using cocaine, aging may be your best bet.) And researchers disagree over whether hair can ever be washed clean of any and all drugs it could have come into contact with from the outside.

Despite those questions, both the Boston and New York police departments, 10 to 15 percent of Fortune 500 companies, court systems, federal reserve banks, and numerous high schools still use the hair test. The FBI phased it out in 2009, then re-implemented it in 2014. About 200,000 drug tests are run on hair in the US every year.

Meanwhile, research from Kidwell and other scientists has shown that both the amount of melanin in the hair and some chemical treatment involved in styling makes a difference in how much contamination the hair can absorb. Kidwell has appeared as an expert witness in many lawsuits about the validity of the tests over the last 20 years.

“I am not sure there will ever be absolute settlement,” says Bruce Goldberger, the chief of forensic medicine and a professor of toxicology at University of Florida Health. He was the first person to find a way to identify the difference between heroin and morphine in a drug hair test.

The law has generally sided with Pyschemedics. But in 2012, the state of Massachusetts ruled that the hair test alone is not enough to terminate employment. Six police officers were reinstated in their jobs, and Hogan finally graduated from the police academy. She and the other plaintiffs are now in a federal court, asserting that the test is specifically discriminatory.

The stakes are high. Everyone wants police officers and other public servants to be as alert as possible, especially in dangerous situations. The FDA has approved Psychemedic’s hair tests for eight drugs, not just cocaine. Raymond C. Kubacki, now CEO of Psychemedics, says that scientific accuracy is the company’s top priority. “Psychemedics is a pioneer in the washing technique,” he says. “It’s important that we don’t have anyone falsely accused because of outside contamination.”

But the hair test puts an undue burden on African Americans, and especially African American women. Common hair styles mean that simply cutting a chunk of hair for the test can be harder for these women. And adding extra hurdles for this group to join and stay in law enforcement could cost the city: Male police officers cost the government between two to five times more in legal fees than female police officers—and only about 13 percent of policy officers identify as women.

Though Hogan has already been reinstated, the risk of future false positives still looms over her peers, both in and out of law enforcement. The result of her discrimination case, which is still ongoing, should inform the use of a potentially flawed test—and hopefully spur the development of others.

More when compared to a decade ago, researchers at the Pennington Biomedical analysis Center in Baton Rouge started recruiting young, healthy Louisianans to voluntarily get hungry for just two years. As well as cutting their daily calories by 25 %, the dozens whom enrolled additionally decided to a once a week battery of tests; blood draws, bone scans, swallowing a pill that measures internal body’s temperature.

All that sticking and scanning and starving was at the title regarding the Comprehensive Assessment of Long-Term ramifications of Reducing Intake of Energy, or Calerie—the largest individual clinical trial ever to check out the effects of calorie restriction on the aging process. The National Institutes of Health-funded research additionally included sites at Washington University in St. Louis and Tufts in Boston. But just the Pennington individuals must additionally invest 24 sedentary hours in the sealed room that recorded the articles of the every breath.

They are the measures that scientists (plus some study individuals) are prepared to visit know how a spartan diet impacts growing older. Calorie limitation is among the minimum absurd techniques in the burgeoning industry of longevity science. Studies returning to the mid-1930s have shown over and over repeatedly that cutting calories by 25-50 percent let us yeast, worms, mice, rats, and monkeys live longer, healthier lives, clear of age-related condition. But there’s less consensus regarding the mechanisms whereby it really works.

That is probably why tries to mimic fasting with medications have actually thus far all failed Food And Drug Administration approval. Calerie had been built to ask that concern in people and also the first randomized control test to take action. The researchers decided on a 25 % restriction (between 500 and 800 calories) because it seemed humanly feasible whilst still being more likely to show a result, considering past animal studies. With 10,000 Us citizens switching 65 every day, the stakes once and for all technology supporting healthy individual aging haven’t been greater. Regrettably, the newest outcomes don’t exactly clear things up.

In a paper published Thursday in Cell Metabolism, scientists from Pennington reported for the first time on their whole room calorimeter experiments—the sealed metabolic chambers they stuck participants in for a day. Pennington is one of the couple of places in the world with these hotel-room-sized microenvironments, the most rigorous way to determine how many calories someone burns and where they come from—fat, protein, or carbohydrates.

After a nights fasting, individuals joined the calorimeter promptly at 8:00am, and until 8:00am the next day they weren’t permitted to keep or exercise. Researchers delivered dishes via a tiny, air-locked cabinet. As fresh air circulated to the space, the air flowing away experienced some analyzers determine the ratio of skin tightening and to oxygen. Nitrogen measurements from urine samples assist determine a complete image of each participant’s resting metabolic process.

The picture that emerged had been that cutting calories, even modestly, lowered people’s k-calorie burning by ten percent. Some of that could be related to fat reduction (on average people lost 20 pounds over 2 yrs). But in line with the study’s authors, most of the modification had more regarding changed biological procedures, that they observed through other biomarkers like insulin and thyroid hormones. “Restricting calories can slow your basal metabolic rate—the power you will need to maintain all normal daily functions,” states endocrinologist and lead author Leanne Redman. When the human body uses less oxygen to create all its needed energy, it creates less byproducts of metabolic process, things such as free-radicals that may harm DNA alongside mobile equipment. “After two years, the lower metabolic rate and degree of calorie limitation ended up being connected to a reduction in oxidative injury to cells and tissues.”

Now, the research ended up beingn’t long sufficient to exhibit that calorie limitation definitively increased lifespans; That test would just take decades. But Redman contends that this data rejuvenates help for two old but embattled theories of human being aging: the slow kcalorie burning ‘rate of living’ concept and also the oxidative damage theory. The initial claims that the slow an organism’s kcalorie burning, the longer it will live. The 2nd states that organisms age because cells accumulate free radical damage over time.

Other Calerie researchers don’t buy it. “You could have a low resting metabolic rate because you are dying of starvation,” states Luigi Fontana, an internist who led the Washington University test. “Does that make it a biomarker of longevity? No. You may be calorie restricted through eating half of a hamburger and a few fries daily but will you live much longer? No, you’ll die of malnutrition.”

Fontana’s own work with Calerie test information suggests modifications to particular insulin pathways matter significantly more than general metabolic rate decrease. He also points to studies in which rats were built to swim in chilled water all day on a daily basis, dropping their metabolism. They didn’t live any more than space heat rats. In other studies, scientists overexpressed enzymes that safeguarded mice from free-radicals. They didn’t live any further either. Redman’s information is interesting, he claims, but it’s perhaps not the whole image. “Twenty years ago the dogma was the more calorie limitation the better,” he says. “What we are finding now is so it’s perhaps not the quantity that counts. Genetics, the composition regarding the diet, whenever you eat, what’s within microbiome, this all influences the impact of calorie restriction.”

But even when studying what goes on towards human anatomy once you cut calories hasn’t yet explained just how cells age, that does not suggest it willn’t have actually potentially huge health benefits. “Calorie limitation could be the only intervention proven to postpone the onset and development of cancer tumors,” states Rafael de Cabo, chief regarding the National Institute of Aging’s Translational Gerontology Branch. His team recently completed a 25-year research of calorie limitation in rhesus monkeys. As they didn’t see as drastic lifespan improvements as another monkey study, de Cabo’s group did observe lower prices of cancer and metabolic conditions. “If we’re able to get individuals who work with situations by having a large amount of environmental toxins to cut back their calories it might be exceptionally protective,” he claims. “But once we very well know, no one is going to be in a position to withstand consuming so little for their lifetime.”

Maybe no-one understands that significantly more than Jeffrey Peipert. The 58-year-old ob-gyn participated in the Washington University test nine years ago, hoping to bring straight down his fat, which he’d struggled together with life time. When he went in, their blood pressure was 132 over 84; after a month or two for a restricted calorie regime it dropped to 115 over 65. Per year in he lost 30 pounds. But six months later on he quit. It absolutely was just an excessive amount of work. “It took away my power, my strength, it will be took away my sexual drive,” states Peipert. “And tracking calories daily was a total discomfort within the throat.”

Today he’s gained all of the fat straight back and has to take a tablet for hypertension. But at least he feels as though he’s residing well, even though he perhaps won’t live so long.

Live longer and Prosper