TRACING DRUGS IN HAIR

Although Such Tests Are Gaining Acceptance, Many Argue They're
Inconsistent And Inaccurate

Men pay to make it grow. Women spend lavishly to dye, cut and
coordinate it with their wardrobe. But these days, hair isn't just a
key accessory to looking good.

It also can give government agencies a way to determine who might be
abusing drugs in the workplace.

Currently, the federal government is reviewing whether to expand its
existing employee drug-testing guidelines to include analyzing hair
for evidence of illicit drug use.

As screening methods for hair, saliva and sweat have improved in
recent years, there has been a long-running and often contentious
debate over whether these should be added to the current gold
standard, the urine test.

Forensic experts agree there are benefits to both urine and hair
analysis. Although urine testing can find traces of a drug for about
five days after being ingested, trace amounts of a chemical substance
entrapped in the cortex of a hair strand can be found up to three months later.

But in July, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration abruptly
backed away from a proposal that would allow federal agencies the
leeway to include saliva, sweat and hair testing along with urine
tests, officials said.

Leah Young, a spokeswoman for the administration, said in July that
the proposal, first introduced in 2004, was in its final version but
was withdrawn because several government agencies had expressed
concerns. She declined to comment on the status of the proposal last week.

The agency decided to extend the review process after gaining access
to new research related to hair analysis that raises questions about
environmental contamination and drug absorption, officials said.

Reliability In Doubt

Hair testing, in which strands of hair are plucked and sent to an
independent laboratory for analysis, has been around for nearly two decades.

Researchers have disagreed about the accuracy of the test. Some
medical experts and civil rights advocates argue the test is
unreliable and racially biased because those with blonde, straight or
light hair seem to be able to escape detection for illicit drug use
at a higher rate than those with coarse, nappy, braided or dark-colored hair.

Others say hair testing is reliable and allows for a longer window
for detection. They also say the technology has improved
significantly since it was first introduced and can detect drugs in
any color hair or texture.

"Differences in hair color ... are just some of the questions raised
that we are reviewing," Young said.

Unlike urine screening - which has standardized testing guidelines
that each laboratory must follow - there are no current rules for
hair analysis.

"It is a reliable science, the detection of drugs in the hair, but it
is important to note that the hair has to be tested by reliable
methodology," said Dr. Bruce Goldberger, professor and director of
toxicology at the University of Florida College of Medicine.

"Historically, this area of testing for drugs in the hair has not
been regulated to any extent, so the methods and the techniques
haven't been standardized," Goldberger said.

"The technique used in one lab may vary with what is done in another
laboratory, and you might get slightly different results. If the
tests are done properly, you should get the same results," he said.

False Positives

Goldberger said there are also concerns that a positive test result
may not be an indication of drug abuse.

"Police officers ... feel that they are working in an environment
where they can have potential contaminations," said Goldberger,
co-editor of the "Handbook of Workplace Drug Testing" (AACC Press)
and "On-Site Drug Testing" (Humana Press).

Still, hair testing has been used in the private sector, by some
federal agencies and by some municipal agencies, including the New
York City and Boston Police Departments.

Private citizens are also starting to rely on the test in custody and
divorce battles. Earlier this year, hair testing made national
headlines when Ohio University head football coach Frank Solich
introduced his results to fight a drunk driving plea.

After pleading no contest following his Nov. 26, 2005, arrest, Solich
unsuccessfully fought to overturn his conviction by claiming he was
drugged, based on a hair test performed by Toxicology Associates,
Inc., which showed the presence of GHB, also known as the date rape
drug. The coach's hair sample was collected 40 days after the arrest,
according to published reports.

Lawsuits Arise

But as hair testing has gained a wider audience, the number of
lawsuits challenging positive tests from hair analysis, usually for
cocaine, has increased dramatically with pending cases in New York,
New Jersey, California, Florida and Illinois.

New York City Police Officer Roxann L. Hayes is one of those who is
challenging her termination in October for a positive test for
cocaine ingestion.

"They clipped three pieces of my hair, including two small locks in
between my braids," said Hayes, 41, a decorated 17-year veteran who
served on the prestigious security detail of former New York City
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Four days later, Hayes said, three detectives showed up at her Orange
County home and told her she had tested positive.

"I thought it was some sort of practical joke," Hayes said. "They
wanted me to sign a waiver and asked me if I wanted to resign. I told
them there was no way because I had done nothing wrong: 'You must
have the wrong person.'"

Her attorney, Eric Sanders of Lake Success, said the positive hair
sample was incorrectly handled and contaminated and did not belong to
his client.

"It is only a science when the results can be duplicated," said
Sanders. "No two toxicologists can produce the same results from this
sample. Also, we found out that there was another person in the
[exam] room, and the envelope it was stored in was left open in the
storage locker, all violations of existing regulations."

Regulations posted on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration's Web site in July say "in the proper context, drug
testing can be used to deter drug abuse in general.

"To be a useful tool," the regulations state, "all testing must
satisfy good forensic laboratory practices, and the testing
procedures must be capable of detecting drugs or metabolites at
established cutoff concentrations."

Georgia Pestana, chief of the Labor & Employment Law Division in the
New York City Law Department, said in an e-mailed statement, "Agency
drug testing policies and practices have been designed to comply with
Constitutional and statutory requirements."

Bill Thistle, senior vice president of Psychemedics Corp., a
pioneering company in hair drug testing technology, said that the
biochemical technology does distinguish between whether the drugs
come from ingestion or contamination.

"The hair is washed before the sample is taken," Thistle said. "Both
the sample and the washed hair are then tested. The analysis of the
results should be able to show whether, if any, the contamination
came from drug ingestion or external contamination."

Still, others have different positions.

"We don't do any hair testing here at the medical center," said
Daniel Fink, director of the Center for Advanced Laboratory Medicine
at Columbia University Medical Center. "It is a pretty esoteric test.
The issue is standardization. There have been a lot of studies that
have shown a lot of variability from laboratory to laboratory when
testing the same specimen."

Truth In Molecules

But experts interviewed agree that the molecular fingerprint does not lie.

"You can argue why it's present, but it is present," Thistle said.
"There have been many scientific articles to demonstrate the accuracy
of forensic hair analysis ... but everyone is in agreement that the
test does detect drugs in the hair."

Lost in the debate, Thistle said, is the responsibility of the
federal government and private employers to provide a safe, drug-free
workplace environment.

"What drug addicts want to admit they have a problem?" Thistle said.
"Sadly, most [drug users] will give up their family because their job
is the source to buy their drugs."

But Sanders, while acknowledging that drug abusers should be weeded
out, said, "What if they are wrong and the test is racially biased?

"There are no safeguards in place to deal with the possibility of
sending out a second sample," Sanders said. "What happens if the
employee doesn't have hair? What about the thickness of
African-American hair, which the test doesn't adjust for? These are
serious questions that need to be answered before you jeopardize
someone's livelihood."