Close
today i learned (til)

Illegal Substances vs. Neurological Disorders: The Showdown

September 19, 2017

Studies at the forefront of treating an array of neurological disorders are beginning to utilize an interesting choice of drugs as treatments: psychedelics. Researchers use a technique called microdosing with hallucinogenic drugs such as psilocybin, mescaline, and LSD to achieve desired responses for a variety of different disorders.

In people with depression, anxiety, or a combination of the two, experimental studies have been performed by administering psilocybin in a controlled setting, in effort to help the patient feel more connected to themselves and the world around them. Given that recreational users of psilocybin report having spiritual experiences and feeling connected to a higher power, it would stand to reason that, if the trip was a positive experience for medical users, there would be a greater level of connection to external stimuli and a decreased level of depression and anxiety– which was exactly what happened in a significant number of the trials.

“Your Brain on LSD.” (get it? it’s a pun)

In a different realm, LSD has been used as controversial “treatment” for people with schizophrenia who experience visual or auditory hallucinations. Almost counterintuitive, right? Think of it in comparison to how Adderall or Ritalin works to help people with ADHD. When a person experiences a lack of focus due to intermittent hyperactivity, they are prescribed a stimulant– yes, a stimulant– that raises the dopamine levels in the brain to a consistent level, thereby omitting the ups and downs that cause attention problems. This is similar to the effects of microdosing LSD to a person with schizophrenia: by elevating their dopamine levels to a consistent level so the brain doesn’t “panic” in a sense, and spontaneously leap into hallucinations when it receives a massive influx of dopamine in its synapses. While the credibility of the experiment is limited, it is believed that the leveling of neurotransmitter can help to silence the excess noise in the brain caused by hallucinations.

Perhaps the most controversial trials for using hallucinogenics is in people with autism. Behavioral psychologists have previously taken to viewing autism as a disorder of self: people on the autism spectrum have some degree of difficulty connecting emotions to personal or interpersonal relationships, thus making it harder to comprehend others’ experiences. Because of the properties of psilocybin, LSD and mescaline that allow a person to make connections they traditionally do not make. The drugs simulate the neurological condition called synesthesia (where the brain has “crossed wires,” causing people to, for example, see colored shapes with certain noises, or taste colors associated with different foods) and thus introduces the ability of the brain to make connections that it previously may not have been able to comprehend. Between the development of neural connections and the feeling of oneness with the world, researchers hope to pioneer trials using these hallucinogenics as part of therapy treatments for people with autism.

10663413764_426f778c09_b
Brain network. Researchers use maps like these to illustrate connections within a healthy and  “normal” human brain.

Obviously all the trials that have been done thus far have been limited in participants and resources, given that psychedelics and hallucinogenics are illegal in the United States and therefore very difficult to obtain clearance to run trials. However, the limited results seem promising. Several studies have had success in patients with depression, opiate addiction, alcoholism, and schizophrenia. Assuming that further testing can be performed in the foreseeable future, it is possible that we will have a new drug therapy option for some of the most challenging and prevalent neurological disorders.

References:

Ananthaswamy, Anil. The Man Who Wasn’t There. Penguin Random House, 2015.

Andrew, Danielle. “Psychedelics Could Be The Cutting-Edge Treatment We’ve Been Ignoring For Half A Century.” IFLScience, IFLScience, 13 Sept. 2017, www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/psychedelics-could-be-the-cuttingedge-treatment-weve-been-ignoring-for-half-a-century/.

Costandi, Moheb. “Psychedelic Drugs Return as Potential Treatments for Mental Illness | Moheb Costandi.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 Sept. 2010, www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/sep/01/psychedelic-drugs-mental-illness.

Fisher, Gary. “Successful Outcome of a Single LSD Treatment in a Chronically Dysfunctional Man.” Successful Outcome of a Single LSD Treatment in a Chronically Dysfunctional Man, Bulletin of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, www.maps.org/news-letters/v09n2/09211fis.html.

Nye, Catrin. “Microdosing: The People Taking LSD with Their Breakfast.” BBC News, BBC, 10 Apr. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/health-39516345.

“Rapid and Sustained Symptom Reduction Following Psilocybin Treatment for Anxiety and Depression in Patients with Life-Threatening Cancer: a Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of Psychopharmacology, journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881116675512.

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

DIY, today i learned (til)
How to Publish a HTML and JavaScript Game on GitHub
today i learned (til)
Hidden Figures Beyond: Alexa Canady, the First African-American Neurosurgeon
today i learned (til)
Left? Right? Left?
today i learned (til)
The Science Behind AI

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.