Highlights
• Cocaine metabolite benzoylecgonine increased the movement of juvenile Atlantic salmon
• Exposed fish swam up to 1.9 times farther per week than control fish
• Benzoylecgonine increased dispersal by up to 12.3 km
• Cocaine-associated pollution altered salmon spatial ecology in a natural lake
Summary
Cocaine and its metabolites are increasingly being detected in aquatic environments worldwide. While previous research has demonstrated that these substances can affect brain function and behavior in wildlife, this research has exclusively been conducted under artificial laboratory conditions. How cocaine pollution affects animal behavior in the wild is, thus, unknown. Here, we combine slow-release chemical implants with acoustic telemetry tracking to reveal how environmentally realistic levels of cocaine and its main metabolite, benzoylecgonine, affect the movement of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts in a large natural lake (Lake Vättern, Sweden). Benzoylecgonine exposure increased weekly movement rates of fish in the wild, with exposed fish swimming up to ∼1.9 times farther per week relative to controls. In addition, benzoylecgonine-exposed fish dispersed up to ∼12.3 km farther than control conspecifics. These results indicate that cocaine-derived pollutants can alter fish spatial ecology, potentially influencing habitat use, trophic interactions, and population-level dispersal patterns in natural ecosystems.
Skimmed the study but couldn’t find any info on this; how are the researchers getting cocaine? I would assume that’s got some huge risks associated with it. Obviously they’re not buying it in the...
Skimmed the study but couldn’t find any info on this; how are the researchers getting cocaine? I would assume that’s got some huge risks associated with it. Obviously they’re not buying it in the way a consumer would, but is there a “research cocaine” producer or something?
Cocaine isn't as controlled as more dangerous drugs, such as marijuana. You can get FDA-approved prescription cocaine with apparently tongue-in-cheek names Goprelto and Numbrino. Although I...
Cocaine isn't as controlled as more dangerous drugs, such as marijuana. You can get FDA-approved prescription cocaine with apparently tongue-in-cheek names Goprelto and Numbrino.
Cocaine can be bought from licensed suppliers with DEA approval So yeah there are regulated chemical companies that make it ETA for Sweden it'd obviously be the comparable government approval...
Cocaine can be bought from licensed suppliers with DEA approval
So yeah there are regulated chemical companies that make it
ETA for Sweden it'd obviously be the comparable government approval process but still regulated manufacturing exists.
It's generally available, as others have noted. It's used in sinus surgery and I tell you, you come out of anaesthetic very high indeed. The nurses get some entertainment.
It's generally available, as others have noted. It's used in sinus surgery and I tell you, you come out of anaesthetic very high indeed. The nurses get some entertainment.
Bit of a misleading title, sadly. The experiment was mainly to figure out how the byproduct of cocaine that humans excrete after using it affects fish.
Bit of a misleading title, sadly. The experiment was mainly to figure out how the byproduct of cocaine that humans excrete after using it affects fish.
It actually isn't misleading since they concurrently tested the effects of both cocaine itself and its metabolite (benzoylecgonine) on different groups of salmon. From the study: And all the...
It actually isn't misleading since they concurrently tested the effects of both cocaine itself and its metabolite (benzoylecgonine) on different groups of salmon. From the study:
We experimentally exposed 2-year-old, hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon (hereafter referred to as “salmon”) smolts to cocaine or benzoylecgonine in the field (hereafter referred to as the “cocaine” and “metabolite” treatment groups, respectively), using previously validated slow-release chemical implants.34,35,36 Treatment groups (n = 35 fish per treatment) were administered either a cocaine or metabolite (i.e., benzoylecgonine) implant or an implant containing no drug (i.e., control implant). Following implant administration and recovery, fish were released into the southwestern region of Lake Vättern (57° 56′ 29.47″ N, 14° 7′ 35.87″ E), after which their movements were tracked using acoustic telemetry.
And all the study's charts also show the results for the 3 different groups; Control, Cocaine, and Metabolite. E.g.
Focusing entirely on the cocaine for sensationalization and clickbait benefits is the misleading bit, and it serves to trivialize science in the minds of their readers.
Focusing entirely on the cocaine for sensationalization and clickbait benefits is the misleading bit, and it serves to trivialize science in the minds of their readers.
Eh, agree to disagree, I guess. I personally don't see this headline as being particularly misleading, nor do I feel like it trivializes the science by being pithy and focusing on the cocaine......
Eh, agree to disagree, I guess. I personally don't see this headline as being particularly misleading, nor do I feel like it trivializes the science by being pithy and focusing on the cocaine... especially when the lede makes it clear that they also tested the cocaine metabolite too.
They're sort of damned if they do damned if they don't. As frustrated as I get with science reporting, there is a level of needing to get the click in the first place so people will hopefully read...
They're sort of damned if they do damned if they don't. As frustrated as I get with science reporting, there is a level of needing to get the click in the first place so people will hopefully read the article.
There are definitely articles that don't need to be written, but the reality is also that the interesting articles still have to hook clicks.
I don't think this is trivializing either, and the article goes into a lot of depth. But I get the frustration at the state of things too
Yeah, ditto. I totally understand that frustration too since I also often feel the same way about pop-science reporting as well. It's why I almost always hunt down the studies that an article is...
But I get the frustration at the state of things too
Yeah, ditto. I totally understand that frustration too since I also often feel the same way about pop-science reporting as well. It's why I almost always hunt down the studies that an article is based on and read them directly, because I genuinely don't trust the scientific literacy and results interpretation skills of most journalists (especially the editorial teams who write the headlines).
Dammit. Too early to the comments. No one has summarized the article or given their opinion for me to also have. I’ll come back later cause it sounds like a fun one! 🤞
Dammit. Too early to the comments. No one has summarized the article or given their opinion for me to also have. I’ll come back later cause it sounds like a fun one! 🤞
Alas, I hit the “you’ve read your last free article” paywall and no amount of opening the link in a private window of an alternate browser has helped me yet.
Alas, I hit the “you’ve read your last free article” paywall and no amount of opening the link in a private window of an alternate browser has helped me yet.
In case you're looking for non-archive.today workarounds, my gotos are: Make sure no other private browsing windows are open: you might have to close 'em, Use a different browser (e.g. Firefox) in...
In case you're looking for non-archive.today workarounds, my gotos are:
Make sure no other private browsing windows are open: you might have to close 'em,
Use a different browser (e.g. Firefox) in its private browsing mode,
Google search the title (in private browsing mode) and click the article from there -- sometimes they'll let you through because the referer header is from Google.
Ah, the long awaited follow up of the seminal study of drugs on spiders.
This is exactly what I was hoping to see.
Ah yes that research has gotten many a citation
Link to the study:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(26)00315-5
Skimmed the study but couldn’t find any info on this; how are the researchers getting cocaine? I would assume that’s got some huge risks associated with it. Obviously they’re not buying it in the way a consumer would, but is there a “research cocaine” producer or something?
Cocaine isn't as controlled as more dangerous drugs, such as marijuana. You can get FDA-approved prescription cocaine with apparently tongue-in-cheek names Goprelto and Numbrino.
Although I suppose that's irrelevant to Sweden.
Cocaine can be bought from licensed suppliers with DEA approval
So yeah there are regulated chemical companies that make it
ETA for Sweden it'd obviously be the comparable government approval process but still regulated manufacturing exists.
It's generally available, as others have noted. It's used in sinus surgery and I tell you, you come out of anaesthetic very high indeed. The nurses get some entertainment.
Bit of a misleading title, sadly. The experiment was mainly to figure out how the byproduct of cocaine that humans excrete after using it affects fish.
It actually isn't misleading since they concurrently tested the effects of both cocaine itself and its metabolite (benzoylecgonine) on different groups of salmon. From the study:
And all the study's charts also show the results for the 3 different groups; Control, Cocaine, and Metabolite. E.g.
Focusing entirely on the cocaine for sensationalization and clickbait benefits is the misleading bit, and it serves to trivialize science in the minds of their readers.
Eh, agree to disagree, I guess. I personally don't see this headline as being particularly misleading, nor do I feel like it trivializes the science by being pithy and focusing on the cocaine... especially when the lede makes it clear that they also tested the cocaine metabolite too.
They're sort of damned if they do damned if they don't. As frustrated as I get with science reporting, there is a level of needing to get the click in the first place so people will hopefully read the article.
There are definitely articles that don't need to be written, but the reality is also that the interesting articles still have to hook clicks.
I don't think this is trivializing either, and the article goes into a lot of depth. But I get the frustration at the state of things too
Yeah, ditto. I totally understand that frustration too since I also often feel the same way about pop-science reporting as well. It's why I almost always hunt down the studies that an article is based on and read them directly, because I genuinely don't trust the scientific literacy and results interpretation skills of most journalists (especially the editorial teams who write the headlines).
Wait 'til Cocaine Bear hears about this.
Dammit. Too early to the comments. No one has summarized the article or given their opinion for me to also have. I’ll come back later cause it sounds like a fun one! 🤞
Alas, I hit the “you’ve read your last free article” paywall and no amount of opening the link in a private window of an alternate browser has helped me yet.
In case you're looking for non-archive.today workarounds, my gotos are:
Scientific American and Tom Lum have you covered...