LESSONS OF A FAILED DRUG STUDY

Drug testing and research on students remain ethically troubling, but
fortunately, schools have better options

Oregon high schools won't be getting new offers of free drug testing
from Oregon Health & Science University anytime soon. OHSU's
now-infamous "Saturn" study, looking at drug use among students, just
got buried another six feet under by medical ethics scholars.

As OHSU moves on, school leaders and families can learn from this
failed experiment. It's a lesson in how well-meaning school
communities can develop ethical and legal blinders in their zeal to
help children, save a buck and fight social problems the easy way.

In the current issue of the American Journal of Bioethics, scholars
from around the United States blasted the study of Oregon students as
unethical and coercive, as The Oregonian's Andy Dworkin reported
Wednesday. Their conclusions are the latest critique of a research
project that was initially supported by many school leaders and
parents as "good for kids" -- but then it was hit with a class-action
lawsuit and shut down by the federal government.

The OHSU researchers are understandably stung. They wanted to help in
the war on drugs. They had intended to fill some football
stadium-sized gaps in scientific knowledge about the effectiveness of
drug testing. They went from being on the cutting edge of research to
being a case study of how not to run an experiment.

Four years ago, Dr. Linn Goldberg of OHSU won a $3.6 million federal
grant to determine whether random drug testing deters drug and alcohol
use among student athletes. The study had at least 13 Oregon high
schools participating as "control" and "experimental" groups. The
grant paid for the schools' drug tests of students, and researchers
surveyed students about their drug use and beliefs.

Two years later, the federal government pulled the plug on the study.
Federal investigators found the study had problems with possible
coercion, inadequate training, improper incentives and other issues.
Now, leading medical ethicists have echoed those troubling
conclusions.

The collapse of this study demonstrates the Catch-22 of random drug
testing of students. First, no one knows if testing works. Second,
trying to find out if drug testing works by running experiments on
students is ethically perilous. It's too easy for researchers to treat
students as unruly lab rats.

For example, when one student got kicked off the volleyball team for
refusing to participate, Goldberg lashed out at her for messing up his
study. She "undermines the entire program," Goldberg told the press.
"She is saying, 'I want to be different than you.' "

Enforcing a zero-tolerance policy for drugs and alcohol is critical.
Testing athletes who show clear signs of drug use may be justifiable
as a last resort. A football player's steroid use, for example, puts
other students at risk.

But widespread, suspicionless drug testing is no substitute for proven
methods of keeping teenagers away from drugs and alcohol: creating a
supportive environment with high standards, clear rules and real
consequences; and surrounding students with teachers and coaches who
know, trust and challenge them.