ECSTASY STUDY RETRACTED FROM JOURNAL

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University who last year published a
frightening and controversial report suggesting that a single
evening's use of the illicit drug ecstasy could cause permanent brain
damage and Parkinson's disease are retracting their research in its
entirety, saying the drug they used in their experiments was not
ecstasy after all.

The retraction, to be published in next Friday's issue of the journal
Science, has reignited a smoldering and sometimes angry debate over
the risks and benefits of the drug, also known as MDMA.

The drug is popular at all-night raves and other venues for its
ability to reduce inhibitions and induce expansive feelings of
open-heartedness. But some studies have indicated that the drug can at
least temporarily damage neurons that use the mood-altering brain
chemical serotonin. Some users also have spiked fevers, which rarely
have proven fatal.

Last year's research, involving monkeys and baboons, purported to show
that three modest doses of ecstasy -- the amount a person might take
in a one-night rave -- could cause serious damage to another part of
the brain: neurons that use the brain chemical dopamine.

Two of 10 animals died quickly after their second or third dose of the
drug, and two others were too sick to take the third dose. Six weeks
later, dopamine levels in the surviving animals were still down 65
percent. That led Hopkins team leader George Ricaurte and his
colleagues to conclude that users were playing Russian roulette with
their brains.

Advocates of ecstasy's therapeutic potential, including a number of
scientists and doctors who believe it may be useful in treating
post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychiatric conditions,
attacted the study.

Due to a mislabeling of vials, the scientists wrote, all but one of
the animals were injected not with ecstasy but with methamphetamine,
or "speed" -- a drug known to damage the dopamine system.

The researchers said they discovered the mistake when follow-up tests
gave conflicting results, and they offered evidence that the tubes
were mislabeled by the supplier.