Facebook – crack cocaine for children’s brains?

When Baroness Susan Greenfield, professor of synaptic pharmacology at Lincoln college, Oxford, and director of the Royal Institution, told Britain’s upper house in parliament that social networking sites could be neurologically damaging to children, it caused something of a storm. As Greenfield noted in an interview with the Guardian:

“If the young brain is exposed from the outset to a world of fast action and reaction, of instant new screen images flashing up with the press of a key, such rapid interchange might accustom the brain to operate over such timescales. Perhaps when in the real world such responses are not immediately forthcoming, we will see such behaviours and call them attention-deficit disorder.

It might be helpful to investigate whether the near total submersion of our culture in screen technologies over the last decade might in some way be linked to the threefold increase over this period in prescriptions for methylphenidate, the drug prescribed for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.”

Greenfield worried about the possibility that the way digital media might be rewiring still-developing brains to the point where children would be compromised in real social interaction  (lack of empathy, inability to read face and body language and other social cues) and information processing (diminished executive function, inability to complete long tasks, or conduct analysis).

Naturally, there were protests.  In the Washington Post, Sarah Lacey wrote

“I’m not a psychologist, nor am I a parent, so let me start by saying she might be right that these sites are harmful in some cognitive way. But I think she’s wrong to assume social networking is devoid of a ‘cohesive narrative and long-term significance.’ I can see where she’s coming from, but like a lot of people who don’t actually use these sites, she’s missing a fundamental shift from Web 1.0 chat room days to Web 2.0 social networks: Real identity.”

On ZDNet, Christopher Dawson was similarly upset:

I take serious exception with “Lady Greenfield,” the professor of synaptic pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford, who delivered the report. Will the way we communicate and even think about communication be radically different in 20 years? Probably. Most of my generation thought IRC was pretty cool in college, so you bet communication is going to evolve.

We’re going to evolve with it, though. Social networks (and social media in general) enable communication that can be as deep, shallow, broad, or specific as we might want.”

Greenfield’s criticism is that immersion in social media has the propensity to rewire (or prevent normal) cognitive development through the way the brain interacts with the technology, not because social networks are “unreal” or shallow.

The Wall Steet Journal added a few tart comments to its blog piece on the controversy:

Ms. Greenfield, who is a respected scholar of the physiology of the brain, didn’t point to specific research conclusions on these issues, and couldn’t be immediately reached.

Facebook, for its part, says it sees these as unanswered questions. “To make any type of conclusion with scientific research is difficult,” said spokesman Larry Yu.  Ms. Greenfield is welcome to her opinion, he said, but “we have not seen anything to really back up that worry.”

Electronic Arts, the major video game maker, says it has heard arguments like Ms. Greenfield’s before. “It seems like a new entertainment medium hasn’t really arrived until a scientist jumps up and says it’s making us all crazy. Balancing this are studies from equally credentialed researchers that show media like videogames actually enhance problem solving and other complex brain activity,” said spokesman Jeff Brown.

He added: “I’ll wait to read her study on her Facebook page.”

The problem is that Greenfield focused on social networking rather than children’s entire immersion in virtual media. It is the broad transformation in media use that has led a number of neuroscientists to wonder whether children’s brains are being denied the opportunity to engage in various activities – from reading a book to spending more playtime with other real children – that are essential to full cognitive development. To see why this topic should be cause of genuine concern, and not the flippant retorts of  techies,  check out Dumbed Down on Macleans.

Energy drink ingredients declared safe

Sometimes, science beats the media to a health scare. The European Food Safety Authority has “concluded that exposure to taurine and d-glucuronolactone through regular consumption of energy drinks was not of safety concern.”

Taurine and d-glucuronolactone occur as natural ingredients in food, and are normal human metabolites. However, they are also used at much higher levels in energy drinks. The new data confirmed a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 1,000mg per kilogram of bodyweight per day for both substances[2] .

The Panel concluded that a sufficient margin of safety exists for mean and high-level regular consumers of energy drinks, drinking on average 125ml (0.5 cans) and 350ml (1.4 cans) per person per day respectively; hence, exposure to taurine and d-glucuronolactone at these levels is not a safety concern.

There was some concern that the ingredients might be behind a spate of health problems among young people, but the context of these problems – alcohol and drug consumption combined with physical exertion – were more likely contributing factors, especially as caffeine in the  energy drinks could mask the effects of drugs and alcohol, leading to riskier behavior.

Reasons not to panic over Ritalin cocaine link

By Maia Szalavitz, Senior Fellow, STATS

Watch for widespread panic over a new press release from the National Institute on Drug Abuse finding that Ritalin has similar effects to cocaine in the brains of mice, excerpted here. The fear raised by this finding is that giving children Ritalin could increase their later risk of addiction by causing changes to the brain similar to those seen in cocaine addiction.

Commenting in the release, NIDA director Nora Volkow said,

Studies to date suggest that prescribed use of methylphenidate in patients with ADHD does not increase their risk for subsequent addiction…This study highlights the fact that we know very little about how methylphenidate affects the structure of and communication between brain cells.”

That’s all true; however, even if mice had exactly the same brain changes as humans, this study would not prove that Ritalin as used in treatment causes the same changes as recreational cocaine use. That’s because most children take Ritalin orally—and the mice were injected with it.

A great deal of research shows that route of administration is critically important in the development of addiction: drugs that reach the brain quickly like injectables are far more addictive than those taken orally.

It’s true that the cocaine in the study was also injected—but it’s also the case that injecting cocaine is far more likely to produce addiction than snorting or eating it is. Similarly, smoking crack is more addictive than snorting powder, because smoking gets the drug to the brain about as fast as injecting, some claim faster.

If your child is injecting his Ritalin, this study might give you reason for concern—but if your child is shooting anything, you don’t need a study to tell you to worry!