Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | NXg | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |

Drug abuse: Dr. Albert Hofmann’s discovery of LSD led to its use as a ‘pleasure drug.’

Dr Hoffmann discovered the mind-affecting drug lysergic acid diethylamide or LSD in the year 1938, at the Sandoz pharmaceutical firm in Basel. Based on his work, clinicians and pharmacologists suggested that it be used effectively in appropriate doses under medical supervision for psychotherapy.

But soon enough, some people began using it as a ‘pleasure drug.’ A number of people who used it to enjoy “other worldly experiences” lost their minds and some, even their lives.

Dr Hoffmann was criticized and held personally responsible by some for having introduced LSD to the world. He, however, defended himself by saying: “The history of LSD to date amply demonstrates the catastrophic consequences that can ensue when its profound effect is misjudged, and the substance is mistaken for a pleasure drug.”

Hoffmann is but one example of a discoverer/inventor who is blamed by some as the perpetrator of evil. Note the case of the insecticide DDT. Here is a chemical, invented in a chemical laboratory over eighty years ago, which helped control malaria the world over by the 1960s.

Yet, within a decade after, the ill effects of its indiscriminate use came to be known. Traces of DDT were found all over — in plants, animals and even in mother’s milk, leading to the banning of its use. What was termed mankind’s boon turned into bane. Should the Nobel Prize that Paul Muller got for DDT be withdrawn?

Plastics and synthetic polymers are another outstanding invention of science. Today’s world cannot live without them.

Indeed, it is polymers that inspired the chemical giant Dupont coin the slogan ‘Better living through chemistry.’ Polymers stand out as the major contribution of chemistry for human use, convenience and welfare.

Yet, they have also mucked up the environment, clogging up sewage lines, endangering the lives of several animals forever.

While naturally occurring polymers such as plant and animal material degrade and disappear in time, thanks to natural forces and features (largely with microbial help), many synthetics are not biodegradable.

Hence the appeal: “Say no to plastics.” For all the damage that the large-scale use of plastics has caused, should we hold the pioneers of polymer science, and Dupont responsible? Do we shoot the messenger?

An inventor or developer opens the bottle and a genie is released. The genie can be an angel or Satan himself. Often, the developer does not even have to make the material; all that he needs to do is come out with the idea.

Einstein did not make the bomb. He showed by the logic of physics that a tiny amount of matter can be converted into a great deal of energy. It was the same Einstein, horror-struck by the destructive power of the bomb, who wrote to the U.S. President not to make it.

Arguably, it has been the scientists, certainly at the time of Einstein and later, who first thought through the consequences of the idea and what all it can unleash. The messengers were the ones who looked deep into the message. The 1970s was a time of the momentous developments in biology. We had learnt to identify genes in the cells of our bodies, cut them out of the DNA tape they are placed in, and paste on to the DNA tape of another cell or organism.

The era of recombinant DNA technology was ushered in. What took nature thousands, even millions of years, to do by random chance, became possible to do in a few days in the laboratory. The ethical consequences and even the potential danger of unleashing a hitherto unknown microbe into the environment had to be contemplated.

And indeed it was done, ahead of time. A number of biologists, led by the Nobelist Paul Berg, gathered on their own at a resort in California to think out the possible consequences — biological, environmental, sociological and ethical — of the new biotechnology. At the end of the meeting, they came out with a policy of self-moratorium.

The list of ‘don’ts’ was long, and would be revisited from time to time, and based on assessment, would be eased. Biologists around the world were urged to follow these guidelines, which, remarkably as a group of responsible professionals, they did voluntarily.

The genie was first sized up as to what all it could do — angelic or satanic — and then released out of the bottle in thoughtful, slow steps.

Even today, while it is technically possible using new biology to clone or make an identical copy of oneself, guidelines forbid it. One who does this, even in a country where there is no law against it, will surely be shunned by the scientific community, making his scientific career a goner.

Interestingly, while scientists have got together as guilds and practice such self-restraint, businessmen, politicians and even social leaders have not done so. There are tentative moves among religious leaders to get together for inter-faith dialogues in order to find common grounds for coexistence.

More such dialogues will bring on to the table issues of contention and try to find solution or at least modes of peaceful coexistence. Here is a case where science shows the way. I cannot resist recalling the reaction of a Catholic priest, when he was told that it is technically possible to clone a human being, even a dead one. The reporter asked him what if a scientist were to take the DNA of Jesus from the shrouds of Turin and bring alive a clone of Jesus. The priest replied: “Yes, that would be the body of Jesus, but not his soul.” What a concise and correct analysis of the science of cloning!

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail