Alas, some more Agoraphobia

I walk into the dining hall, just like every day, to sit down and eat my peaceful solitary lunch. I turn the corner and BAM. Like a freight train! Half the baseball team standing there like frightened deer. I freeze up. I can't breathe. My hands start to shake. I stutter some incoherent syllables before I turn more red than a kid from NC State and duck away from them as fast as I can. This, my friends, is mere shyness. The only ballplayer I've ever even spoken too did not let me know that he was a ballplayer until we were already well acquainted. How he escaped my notice I'll never know. But there are people in the world with such an acute sensitivity to being in society that they can barely even leave their homes without experiencing debilitating fear and oftentimes severe panic attacks. These poor people suffer, not from my baseball-shyness but from a condition known as agoraphobia.

“Agoraphobia” sounds horribly frightening, doesn’t it? Well, once this condition gets to a point where it’s actually called agoraphobia it becomes a daily terror to the people who experience it. Essentially, someone with agoraphobia would probably be called “shy,” yet the disorder is pretty much shyness on steroids. There are two types of agoraphobia recognized by psychology professionals. The first is associated with panic attacks and is the most highly diagnosed type of agoraphobia simply because the symptoms are more easily recognized as an issue. Agoraphobia without accompanying panic disorders is a hotly debated topic in the field of psychological health. The article in Behavior Modification entitled “Anxiety Sensitivity: A Missing Piece of the Agoraphobia-without-panic puzzle” explores many of the reasons why the condition is so rarely diagnosed and why many professionals believe that it doesn’t even exist.

The main argument of the article focuses on the way that “panic attack” is defined. Essentially, most people diagnosed with any kind of agoraphobia have such debilitating panic attacks that they tend to pass out in any kind of social situation. Hayward and Wilson, the authors of my article, cite numerous sources that claim that most people diagnosed with agoraphobia-without-panic are actually misdiagnosed and have other disorders (usually phobias of certain and specific things such as people, or germs). Agoraphobia is generally thought of as panic disorders that originate from within a person rather than from outside stimuli. The argument put forward here is that the definitions of many of the terms regarding agoraphobia are either too vague or too broad in their meaning. The authors seek to address that discrepancy.

The general distinction that the author makes between Agoraphobia with panic attacks and Agoraphobia without panic attacks is that those without panic attacks rarely even leave their houses in order to not feel the anxiety that comes to them in public situation. Essentially, Agoraphobia without panic attacks is only lacking the attacks because the people are so frightened that they don’t even leave their houses. There is also the concept of “anxiety sensitivity” thrown into the mix which basically says that some people are (surprise!) more sensitive to anxiety and therefore more prone to attacks.

Essentially, both conditions are debilitating in a social situation and further complicate the victim’s life by causing further embarrassment on top of the anxiety and shyness that they already feel. The most successful way to treat agoraphobia is called “systematic desensitization” which involves gradual exposure to the situations that cause intense fear, thus desensitizing the patient of their severe anxiety.

Granted, some psychologist could probably do a lifelong case study on my daily activities which are a mixture of superstition and baseball obsession, but I can tell you one thing that would not end up on my chart: agoraphobia. What I want you to come away from this with is that, come on guys, all people have feelings. If you make fun of a shy person *cough* then they will become increasingly more shy until it reaches the point of some strange hysteria, culminating in the person become an agoraphobic cat lady who never leaves her house. Friends, don't let friends tease nerds.

Everybody's Doing It!

Starting college and moving away from home means taking the next big step in a one’s life. For many students venturing out one one’s own means a life full of freedom, choices and responsibility. A time to make mistakes, learn from them and to to also act upon good judgment. However, it also means that students can no longer depend on their parents to blame for their acctions. Students are accountable for their own actions. Although parents send their school in hope of what is best for them, many students secretly confine their social lives from their parents. Parents have yet to find out what goes on after the long goodbyes. While some parents think that their child is the perfect angel, playing ultimate beer pong proves otherwise. Some of the actions may not seem like a big deal at first, but students night lives may well effect their overall performance in school. Thursday nights for many means an early start towards the weekend. If you have ever ridden the late night point-to-point bus (P2P) at UNC, one can easily tell how much of an influence drinking has on a majority of students on college campuses. Whether a student passes out beside you, or sticks their head out of the window to relieve themselves, the social nightlife takes up a lot of a college student’s life. Now every weekend, the easiest way to euphoria is to travel down to the fraternity and sorority houses that are more than likely available to anyone with a UNC I.D.

For many students this may only seem like having a good time, but to the research team of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, excessive alcohol consumption in college students not only causes problems on the campus, but also on its surroundings. In trying to change the drinking habits and safety of students who consume alcohol, Angela K. Fournier and three of her colleagues implemented an incentive reward to see if the drinking behavior patterns of students changes. Prior research determined that 80% to 90% of college student’s drink and that could possibly lead to several negative consequences. Problems include poor academic work, unplanned sexual activity, assault, property damage, violence and more than likely vehicle crashes. Greek life students consume more than a non-Greek friend, and more likely suffer the consequences. After playing three rounds of beer pong, or hall crawl, students’ better judgment becomes impaired. Likewise, more students at a fraternity party are than likely to be more intoxicated than students in a private party, which deemed the best place for the team choosing to test their hypothesis.

Since fraternities are the most popular drinking environment, researchers found this the perfect place to use the intervention/reward method. Rather than targeting students who depend on alcohol, the target population was a host of people who abuse their alcohol intake. As a method to lower the percentage of heavy drinkers at a safe level, the surveyors gave 365 BAC assessments to the students. As each participant agreed to become part of the experiment, the researchers gave students Nomograms to monitor their intake and control their BAC.

Blended in as regular college students, the surveyors attended all four of the parties where they stood at the door of both intervention parties from 10 p.m. to 2 p.m. where the participants were given the Nomograms and tips on how to keep their buzz at the safe level. Tips included drinking water and snacking on food while they drank. Fliers were large to capture the participants attention. The reward money amount was in big bold letters and hte target goal .05 bold and underlined. At the baseline party, the surveyors came in unrecognized, took a few information and left. Six months later, the researchers gave interviews to the people who participated in the experiment.

Evidence from a previous experiment with an incentive/reward program has already been successful with E.S. Geller in his attempt to promote seat belt usage on university campuses through incentive strategies. As a belief that different types of reinforcement can change the way people act, the surveyors attended an intervention party where they passed out fliers informing students of a chance to be entered into a drawing where they could win $100 if their BAC was less than .05. The reward money set for an alcohol level at .05 meant that the effects occurring in teens at this level are relaxed and desirable since W.J. Bailey concluded in Drug Abuse in American Society that a person reaches euphoria at .04 to .06, which is most desirable during drinking.

Overall, participants had showed a more of a decrease at the intervention parties than at the baseline parties all showing less than 50% as opposed to the baseline parties who were well over. While students come to college with the intentions to fit in and make the most of their college experience, sometimes for others it means taking those late night trips to frat court where the majority of drinking occurs. Aiming to change the drinking behavior of college students through methods of reinforcement demonstrates that the approach can help to maintain chaos. More than likely, using incentive/reward methods for other settings in the university policy could further help parts of the community achieve what seemed like unattainable goals.

Unarguably, students will be students no matter what campust they attend. Some of the things they chose to do are not as healthy nor as safe as others. Although parents may not be able to monitor their kids everyday, programs and studies such as the incentive program given at the frat parties may help put students back on the tract to a successful college career. This Behavior Modification case study may influence many other groups of people to change the way they use and abuse other substances. Maybe some students will be making the best use of their parents money after all. Instead of missing an 8:OO class from an all-night hangover at the frat house, more students will chose to drink more responsively and with moderation.

Sources:
Fournier, Angela K., Ian J. Ehrhart, Kent E. Glindermann, and E. Scott Geller.
Intervening to Decrease Alcohol Abuse at University Parties: Differential
Reinforcement of Intoxication Level. Behavior Modification. 28. 167. 2004. 18 Feb.
2007. <http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/2/167>
Pictures
www.student-services.utoledo.e.jpg
www.funnyphots.net.au
www.duke.edu.jpg

www.hopenetworks.org

Defense, Offense and.....Cognitive Intervention?: The New Game Plan

Are you a high school athlete hoping to play at the collegiate level? Do you think you have the skills necessary but struggle in a specific area? Would improving this area of your game put you over the hump and in the eye of a scout? If so, you may be able to overcome your free throw, batting or other struggles with cognitive intervention; a process of image association that is helping numerous athletes overcome mental blockades to physical potential.

So you’ve already counted this out because the words “cognitive” and “intervention” scare you. Not so fast, this is just a scientific term meaning “word/image association.” Athletes struggling with a specific area of their sports were able to associate words with pictures relating to exact moments in their respective troubled areas. Because some intended actions we perform throughout an athletic event may have unintended and negative consequences, consciously engaging in actions that we associate with positive outcomes has been tested to find positive correlations.

So how does this program actually work? There are a number of stages necessary for the evolution of the program. In order to clearly illustrate this process, a documented case study will accompany the explanation. The first is the identification phase. Here the athlete methodically describes the area that he or she wishes to improve. This includes the event’s starting point to its end point. In the case study, the athlete was concerned about his foul shot performance. Specifically identifying the action’s start (perhaps the blown whistle indicating a foul) and end (perhaps when the ball leaves the athlete’s hands) point is important because the researcher deals with a precise set of emotions. To big a time period encompasses more emotions, complicating the process. Simplicity and clarity are key in image association. One wants to be as clear headed as possible.

The second part of phase one involves the subject’s identification of emotions experienced and verbalized throughout the event. Here the researcher can identify possible pressures and other factors the athlete faces during the event. The athlete is then asked to pay attention to his actions during this event in subsequent days and record, in detail, what he experiences. This record helps the researcher identify recurring emotions that may be detrimental to the athlete’s performance (unknown to the athlete). In the particular case study, the athlete identified that he was having concentration problems at the free throw line. The athlete said that he repeated the word “concentrate” at the line. The researcher decided that this added extra pressure to the shooter rather than relieved pressure. In an attempt to calm himself, the subject was actually pressuring himself to relieve pressure. A window of time from the moment the referee passed the ball to the shooter until he shot the ball was deemed an appropriate time frame that left little time for the shooter to experience added pressure. For example, if given a bigger time frame, concentration could be interrupted by the opposing team’s calling a timeout. Eliminating this possibility ensures that the player is focused only on making the foul shot.

The second phase is the cognitive restructuring phase. In this phase, a conscious effort is made to associate specific words with still images of the event. An important aspect of this phase is that the athlete must believe that the therapy will work. Any doubts about the program’s effectiveness prevent the athlete from fully embracing the program, thus the program’s usefulness cannot be measured. As the study puts it, a belief in the system “entails a performance expectancy,” and this is usually reflected in time dedicated to the program.

The next phase is the pairing phase. Here the athlete pairs a word or phrase with specific images. After weeks of study, the athlete will instinctively pair these words with the scenes. They are asked to study the pairings before bed, at halftime of games and before games. In our case, the nervous basketball player associated foul shot images with the words “relax” and “practice” after successfully making 18 of 20 foul shots in practice. He said that he felt no pressure in practice to make the shots, thus the specific words were chosen. As a result, during games, the athlete is supposed to say the key words that will trigger a relaxed feeling, similar to the one experienced in the gym when the pressure is off. During this phase, athletes are asked to speak with the researcher for a number of hours per week to express satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the program which could inhibit the effectiveness of the process. This interaction between subject and researcher is important so that the researcher can identify any covert tendencies that may cause setbacks.

In the specific case study, the player showed a significant increase in foul shot efficiency, rising from roughly 54% in the first 7 games (prior to study) of the season and roughly 75% during the last 16 games (after study). A transition period of fourteen days was implemented so that the athlete could become familiar with the program.

Although some studies have illustrated the program’s potential effectiveness, a study like this is not conclusive. While the author uses numerous sources and case studies that seem to validate the process, there will always be doubt because the potential influence of outside factors, such as extra practice and attention from coaches, remains a critical factor. None-the-less, the program does force athletes to spend more time developing mental focus, and mental clarity in sports (such as at the free throw line where the athlete is basically competing against himself) is absolutely crucial. Other studies in the article show improvements in penalty minutes and total fouls (basketball) after the athletes participated in the program. So if you are struggling to stay out of foul trouble, hit a curve ball or even make a greater percentage of foul shots, this method may be beneficial. One is inclined to believe the program is beneficial considering it is similar to other training methods. My roommate used to bite his nails but after he bought No Bite paste that tastes horribly, he no longer bites them. Not to mention a professor at UNC compiled the research for the article, making it inherently correct.

Competitive Sport Environments: Performance Enhancement Through Cognitive Intervention

John M. Silva, III
Behavior Modification, 10 1982; vol. 6: pp. 443 - 463.

Agora-what? I said, AGORAPHOBIA!

Agoraphobia, that’s scary, right? Most people think this psychological fear of being in crowds or sometimes being in open spaces is always accompanied by extreme panic attacks that often lead the afflicted seeking medical treatment. However, a new study published in Behavior Modification dares to defy this long-held belief. According to the article, many people experience agoraphobia without panic attacks and often the triggers are unknown. For the most part, the disorder is still a mystery.

The real debate brought up is that some psychologists believe there can be panic-free agoraphobia while others do not believe this. It’s a tough call because most people who experience agoraphobia without panic attacks do not seek medical treatment. The results are somewhat inconclusive and therefore it becomes debatable and diluted with speculation.

Ever felt like you were about to have some sort of panic attack and therefore you stayed in your house all day? Probably not; however, if you did stay in and have never actually experienced a panic attack nor did you have one that day, you could have agoraphobia. Some other symptoms of agoraphobia include becoming so incapacitated by one’s own fear of going out of their “comfort zones” and becoming a hermit. In the Behavior Modification article, one phrase caught my attention, “fear of fear.” Literally, people who have agoraphobia could have never experienced a panic attack and just the fear of the chance of having a panic attack caused by fear disables the person and they are incapacitated. The article looked at various studies done on people who either had agoraphobia with panic attacks or had never had a panic attack and yet suffered from agoraphobia and the results were astounding.

It seems like people often times have periods where they are so scared of having an attack that has never occurred before in their life that they cannot even do anything besides stay at home. However, since they never actually have an attack they never feel the need to seek medical treatment so the numbers of people who do have agoraphobia are not accurate because they do not incorporate all those who suffer in silence because of their lack of knowledge about the illness. A specific statement within the article articulated that anxiety sensitivity can lead to agoraphobia without the presence of panic attacks. It is an interesting claim because most would assume that a well-documented illness such as agoraphobia would have all its symptoms written out by now, but this research has given a whole new perspective to the disorder.



The avoidance of situations seems to intensify the feelings of fear that are already enhanced because the afflicted do not usually seek treatment. The people who have agoraphobia without panic attacks have unusually strong fears of embarrassment or of some sort of catastrophic event occurring while they are out and about. We all have fears about our houses burning down if we left things plugged in or maybe vomiting when we get nervous, but the fear these agoraphobics are stricken with is so serious that they grow to avoid all instances where they may be presented with having a panic attack. It’s an odd phenomenon and explaining it has proven to be a tough challenge.
The best explanation for the fear has nothing to do with the “severity or frequency of panic attacks” and instead with events that caused arousal in the subjects.

It appears that subjects were prone to fearing events as opposed to what actually happens when they are really in situation. The people come to fear the symptoms of panic attacks without having ever experienced a panic attack and the fear is crippling to the extent that they are unable to go about daily tasks. A formulated Anxiety Sensitivity Index was used to gauge different peoples’ anxiety levels and how they interpreted fear. Apparently, agoraphobics with panic attacks scored very high on this index prior to treatment but lower afterward, whereas the plain avoidant subjects scored about the same and since they did not have panic attacks, they had not had treatment so they performed the same the second time. Anxiety sensitivity is present in other anxiety disorders, yet it is key to developing agoraphobia even without the panic attacks.




You’re probably wondering how on earth this can be relevant to you or people around you. To make a connection with myself, I have a friend that has never had a panic attack and yet is extremely fearful of having one at an inappropriate time and you would never guess this from just hanging out with her. She often avoids leaving her room and instead offers her dorm room for people to hang out in. I didn’t think anything was really wrong with her until I read this article and understood that someone can have a fear of having a panic attack and yet never have had one. It’s a weird concept that still stumps psychologists and scientists alike. Studies like this help my friend and probably people you know overcome their fear and get help even if there is no evidence that they need help.

Anxiety Can Lead to Panic Attacks and Substance Abuse

Currently, it seems many people have a psychological problem. For college students, we may develop emotional distress from the academic pressures of college, being away from home, or dealing with a boyfriend/girlfriend. Any one of these issues could lead to more complex physiological issues. In an article in Behavior Modification, Zvolensky and Schmidt focus on anxiety sensitivity. The article, Introduction to Anxiety Sensitivity, outlines five other articles which deal with the disorder. Anxiety sensitivity is “the fear of anxiety-related bodily sensations, which arise from beliefs that the sensations have harmful personal consequences.” People who have high anxiety sensitivity worry terribly about issues which most people would brush off, such as the common cold. They believe that something as harmless as the common cold could lead to something much more serious or even fatal. The authors then connect anxiety sensitivity to the onset of panic attacks, other psychological disorders, and substance abuse. Five articles are used to support their case.

The first article they summarize is a study involving college-age young adults. The study found that anxiety sensitivity “contributed 16 % of the total of panic onset…” This study clearly establishes a correlation between the two issues. The second article goes on to suggest that anxiety syndrome is responsible for increased levels of agoraphobic avoidance even for those who have not experienced panic attacks. Those who develop Agoraphobia suffer from a condition in which any situation can become embarrassing and inescapable. A person suffering from this disorder can suffer from panic attacks, even from seemingly normal activities. For college students, walking to class is something we each do every day. Someone who has anxiety-induced Agoraphobia might suffer from a panic attack should they have to perform such a simple task. For them, walking to class could be outside of their comfort zone. The authors note that many studies have linked anxiety sensitivity to avoidance in general, not just agoraphobic avoidance. Therefore, they call for more research to be conducted on the subject to validate these claims and propose possible treatments. The third article the authors focus on young adults and how they react to anxiety symptoms. The authors note that there is currently not much research on this subject which focuses on young adults. The study did not conclusively link anxiety sensitivity to other child anxiety disorders; therefore, more research must be done on the subject.

The last two articles the authors focus on are more relevant to college students because these articles link anxiety sensitivity to substance abuse disorders. The fourth article specifically focuses on how AS is related to alcohol use. In a certain two-year study, researchers found that “AS was uniquely associated with the later development of alcohol use disorder diagnoses.” The trial, however, was non-clinical and does not provide conclusive evidence. The authors, therefore, conclude that more research is needed. According to a U.S. government website, 31 percent of college students meet the criteria for alcohol abuse and 6 percent meet the criteria for alcohol dependence (A Snapshot of Annual High-Risk College Drinking Consequences). These numbers, however, are extremely debatable. I do not believe that thirty percent of the people I know abuse alcohol. What exactly constitutes alcohol abuse? Many sources would say that many of our drinking habits, such as playing drinking games, constitute alcohol abuse. On the other hand, most of us would certainly deny that playing a drinking game constitutes alcohol abuse. Given the amount of college students who have problems with alcohol abuse, it would be interesting to see what percentage of these students suffer from anxiety sensitivity. If it is found that a portion of the so called alcohol abuse by college students is related to anxiety sensitivity, this could lead to increased awareness and more programs which deal with college students and their drinking habits.

The fifth article the two authors address deals with a specific case study involving heroin users who suffer from anxiety sensitivity. The study found that a “targeted intervention” can reduce anxiety sensitivity, heroine cravings, and improve the overall emotional state of the patient. This intervention includes “(a) psychoeducation about anxiety..., and (c) skills training focused on heightening emotional acceptance, tolerance, and nonevaluative awareness (to facilitate willingness).” Although this treatment shows potential, the authors contend that more research is needed to access its validity.

The authors of “Introduction to Anxiety Sensitivity” outline five different case studies involving Anxiety Sensitivity disorder. They arrive at the conclusion that even though each of these case studies provides an important insight into the condition, more research must be done. Finally, the authors seem to be in favor of additional clinical, scientifically oriented research to determine treatments for the disorder.

Drugs are Expensive

These days it seems as if drugs are the answer to all of our problems. From minor to major health issues, drugs play a very important role in our lives. According to a recent editorial from the magazine Nature, Pfizer, which leads the pharmaceutical industry in both revenue and R & D spending, is going to cut spending on drug research. According to the author of the article, “A changing drug supply”, Pfizer has not been able to generate enough revenue, recently, to cover its research and development expenditures. The pharmaceutical corporation will therefore cut its costs in an attempt to earn greater profits.

The author also states that Pfizer’s problem is one which the entire pharmaceutical industry faces. The article states that research and development expenditures “rose by 147 percent from 1993 to 2004.” Despite the dramatic increase in research expenditures, drug approval applications have only risen by 38 percent. In order to increase revenues, the former CEO of Pfizer chose to pursue a policy of buying smaller pharmaceutical companies to obtain the rights to their drugs. In 2000, Pfizer purchased the company which created Lipitor, a drug that helps lower cholesterol. This drug alone generated nearly 13 billion in sales last year. In 2003, Pfizer made another acquisition, giving them the rights to the arthritis drug Celebrex, which generated almost 2 billion dollars last year. Since this strategy did not offer the company a long term solution to their research and development issues, the board fired the CEO last year. The new CEO is currently pursuing a policy of focusing on fewer projects at one time citing that the company “can no longer afford to play every slot machine in the room.”

According to GSK, a major pharmaceutical company, a single new medication costs over $800 million to develop. Furthermore, only one out of a million medications actually becomes available to the public. Even if a medication does become available, only thirty percent of those medications bring in enough revenue to cover their costs. From this we can conclude that either the FDA is too strict or the pharmaceutical companies are not spending their money wisely. The author of this article would most likely agree with that latter. He or she believes that Pfizer, along with other companies, are researching too many drugs at the same time in the hopes that one will be successful. Although this is an extremely costly approach, there does not seem to be a better way. If one drug out of a million can save countless lives, is it not worth it? Cutting back the scope of the research would definitely save the company money in the short run; however, the company may miss out on the next miracle drug.

Many believe that Pfizer’s new policy will result in the outsourcing of early drug discovery to India, China, or Eastern Europe. Furthermore, the new policy will also rely on partnerships between large and small companies in order to generate new drugs because Pfizer cannot compete with the “productivity of smaller, more flexible firms.” Thus, Pfizer would essentially be reduced to a marketing firm because they would be handling mostly late stage development and marketing. The author of the article concludes that there will not be any more “blockbuster” drugs. Therefore, pharmaceutical corporations must focus their attention on developing drugs which are geared to smaller, targeted populations. By doing this, the author believes that the drug companies will incur lower expenses and face less competition.

The author of this article makes two major assumptions. First, he or she assumes that there will be much fewer “blockbuster” drugs in this era. Second, he or she assumes that Pfizer’s costs are too high because of its research and development spending. In this era, technological breakthroughs occur at a rapid pace. Today we enjoy access to many technologies that we could not have dreamed of ten years ago. Given that fact that there are countless advances in science and technology, it would be presumptuous for the author to assume that there will not be any more of these so called “blockbuster” drugs. There are so many incurable diseases we face these days and most have only limited treatments or none at all. Currently, there is no cure for AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, and many other diseases. While these diseases might not affect a large portion of the population, drugs which can treat these diseases would be a large source of revenue for the pharmaceutical corporations. Many pharmaceutical companies are researching drugs that fight the HIV infection. Pfizer is one of those companies. HIV is a virus that infects various cells in the human immune system, specifically T-cells. Once the t-cells fall below the critical level, the immune system loses its ability to fight off other infections (HIV). As of the end of 2004, there were nearly 40 million people living with AIDS or infected with HIV according to the UC-San Francisco school of medicine. Pfizer is currently working on a drug that prevents the virus from entering the t-cells. The drug, which is currently in development, does so by preventing the virus from binding to a specific receptor on the t-cell. Therefore, this medication is more likely to be successful than previous medications because it does not specifically target the virus. In the past, medications that have targeted the HIV virus have not been successful because the virus succeeded in becoming resistant to them (Nagle). If Pfizer succeeds in developing an effective medication to fight of this virus, they would generate huge revenues. This would be a major pharmaceutical breakthrough and would therefore have to be considered a “blockbuster” drug.

In the second assumption, the author assumes that Pfizer’s financial problems are entirely related to their research and development expenditures. While it is very likely that Pfizer was attempting to stretch itself too thin, this is probably not the only reason. If Pfizer wants to remain competitive, it needs to realize that a large portion of its expenditures are going into the pockets of it executives. Between 2003 and 2004, the former CEO of Pfizer received a 72 percent pay increase from $9.7 million to $16.6 million (Noon). Pfizer should be cutting executive salaries instead of R&D expenditures. Unfortunately, Pfizer would rather waste countless sums of money on R&D that does not pay off and make up the loss by purchasing smaller companies with successful drugs. Pfizer’s new strategy will certainly decrease R&D expenditures since the company will focus on a smaller research projects; however, it means that Pfizer will probably not be responsible for the next “blockbuster” drug. Pfizer should continue to focus on a wide range of potential drugs in the hopes of finding another revenue generating drug. Finally, the board should stop voting to give themselves raises because it comes at the expense of scientific research.

Would you rather snap its neck in half?

So we’ve all seen those quirky animal rights activists on TV, throwing paint on fur jackets and burning down testing sites, fighting to the rights of rodents and the like outside laboratories that make our lives easier by finding new medicines and cures by experimenting on these meaningless animals. These people protest against testing on animals, yet almost any product or medicine that you or I use was tested, at some point, on a lower life form. Take simple behavioral patterns for instance: no one would ever know anything about conditioning in the human psychology without Pavlov’s dogs

In an editorial in Nature magazine , the PETA-esque people are back at work trying to find more humane ways to kill rodents that are used in experiments. They offer what seems more humane ways to kill the animals, like breaking the poor things’ necks or gassing them with more expensive anesthesia instead of the current carbon dioxide that is used in mass animal terminations. The main argument is that the animals feel the instant panic that humans feel when they inhale mass amounts of carbon dioxide, yet I beg to differ. The hard fact is that we cannot talk to these animals and ask them if they are okay while they are dying and therefore cannot fully ever believe that they experience the same sensations as humans, therefore, until technology allows a clear sense of the “emotions” of these animals, the cheapest and fastest way of getting rid of the rodents should still be the carbon dioxide.

Granted, technology is well on its way to forming a picture of the mind and feelings of animals but it has not yet accomplished this task. Even PETA states that animals differ from humans in such a way that it’s inadequate to test on them, yet if they are so different from humans, how do we know that they have the same emotional capacity of humans and therefore should be treated the same? If a rat has 99% of the same genes of humans , they are obviously more helpful to do medicinal experiments on than a fruit fly and many of the same effects that drugs may have on a human will affect onto the rat so a researcher can see what the effects would be on a human through the rat. The main problem is that if rats do have that much genetic similarity with humans, then can’t they feel the pain as humans do? There has not been enough research to guarantee that they cannot feel the pain, but the overwhelming idea is that the pain is so momentary that the advantage of having tested the animal far outweighs the disadvantage of the animal having suffered such a trivial amount of time.

The research industry is ardently trying to find simpler, cheaper, and more humane ways of doing animal testing and hoping to find ways to eliminate the use of animals all together, but until that day comes, the animals must be used. Animal rights activists, as sited in the Nature article, are just calling upon a more humane way of dealing with the used animals once their purpose has been fulfilled; yet this more humane way will cost the researchers much more money than, in my opinion, is worth. Granted, these animals did not ask to be bred for research purposes, but they also wouldn’t have ever been alive if they hadn’t been bred for research. The most cost effective and humane way, until research proves otherwise, is to gas ‘em with some carbon dioxide.

Not only are alternatives more costly, they also cause researchers undue squeamishness. Grabbing a rat and breaking its neck is effective to kill the rat, but the researcher has to do that thousands of times to get rid of the tested rodents and that can damage the human psyche. Although it would bring the ‘cruelty’ to the forefront and give researchers hands-on experience with the ‘suffering’ of the animals, it would be time consuming and grotesque. Some activists say that scientists should be able to kill the animals with their bare hands, since that is more ‘humane’. If animal rights activists are so passionate about animals being treated the same as humans, wouldn’t they be just as passionate about making the death penalty more ‘humane’?
If scientists did protest to this manual annihilation, they’d be forced to try alternatives to animal testing that would not suffice. An artificial, fleshy bit of material would never substitute for live tissue that can fully encompass the effects of medicines and other products. Though the material would help to see if a certain make-up matched someone’s skin tone, in the laboratory it would not be sufficient for proper testing, especially where medicines are concerned.

When I put on my Crest Whitestrips or wash my hair with Herbal Essence, I’m not looking at labels to see if they’ve been tested on animals or not, and my best guess it that you aren’t either. But that’s not the issue. The real issue is how to take care of the animals that have been tested on. Most carbon dioxide mass rodent euthanasia’s take 10 seconds , and though some have lasted for 4 minutes, the vast majority are over quickly and are extremely effective. Why do away with a common practice that has not been substantially proven to cause mental anguish to a bunch of rats when it works almost perfectly and is effective? I see no real reason, until the activists can provide concrete evidence saying that the rodents suffer to the same degree a human would, and once that happens, I’ll buy the rodents a round of anesthetics to humanely kill them.