Science Friday - Implementing Oregon’s Drug Policy, Wisconsin Wolf Hunt, Johnson & Johnson Vaccine. March 5, 2021, Part 1

Episode Date: March 5, 2021

Oregon Just Decriminalized Small Amounts of All Drugs. Now What? On February 1, a big experiment began in Oregon: The state has decriminalized small amounts of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. In the November election, voters passed ballot Measure 110 by a 16-point margin. Now, if you’re caught with one or two grams of what some refer to as “hard drugs”, you won’t be charged. Instead, you’ll either pay a maximum $100 dollar fine, or complete a health assessment within 45 days at an addiction recovery center. This new system for services will be funded through the state’s marijuana tax. But the measure is still controversial, and members of Oregon’s addiction and recovery community are split on if it’s a good idea. So how did we get here? Read and listen to the full story here.     Wisconsin Oversteps in Wolf Hunt One of the final acts of the Trump Administration in late 2020 was to remove the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially removed the species, which was once nearly extinct in the lower 48 states, in January. The wolves now number more than 6,000 in the northern Rockies and the western Great Lakes states. In Wisconsin, a 2012 state law requires an annual wolf hunt when the animals are not under federal protection. State wildlife officials had begun planning for a hunt next November, but were forced by a lawsuit from an out-of-state hunting group to hold one before the end of February. That hunt lasted only three days before state officials shut it down: Licensed hunters killed 216 wolves in that time, more than 80 percent over the allowed quota of 119, and nearly 20 percent of the state’s estimated 1,000-plus wolves. SciFri producer Christie Taylor talks to Wisconsin Public Radio reporter Danielle Kaeding and environmental science professor Adrian Treves about how hunters were able to kill so many wolves so fast—and what effect this year’s hunt might have on the health of wolf populations in the state.   What Does Johnson & Johnson’s Shot Mean for Our Vaccine Timeline? The U.S. now has a third COVID-19 vaccine in our arsenal, as Johnson & Johnson’s shot got emergency approval last weekend. This one is different from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines already in use: It’s only one dose, it’s inexpensive, and it doesn’t require very cold temperatures for storage. This means rural communities might get vaccinated faster, and our timeline to possible COVID-19 herd immunity could improve. Scaling up vaccinations will be critical as the homegrown U.S. COVID-19 variants are taking hold. Variants from California and New York are becoming more widespread, though it doesn’t seem like we’ll need to change our strategy for fighting COVID-19 yet. Ira is joined by Umair Irfan, staff writer at Vox, to talk about these stories and other big science news of the week.     Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. A bit later in the hour, we'll talk about gray wolf conservation, now that they're no longer considered an endangered species, and Oregon's experimental rollback on drug laws. But first, the U.S. now has a third COVID-19 vaccine in our arsenal. Johnson and Johnson's shot got emergency approval last weekend. However, this one is different from Pfizer and Moderna vaccines already in use. So what does that mean for how well it worked? and will more vaccines be available soon? Well, I'm going to put those questions to Ameri Air Fon, staff writer at Vox based in Washington, D.C., who covers this. Welcome back.

Hi, Ira. Thanks for having me. Nice to have you back. Always good. Let's talk about this Johnson and Johnson vaccine. What makes it different physically from what's already available? Well, the biggest thing is that this is only a one-dose vaccine. The Moderna and Pfizer-Biointech vaccines require two doses spaced several weeks apart, so this is something that can really speed up the distribution of it.

Another factor is that this is a vaccine that can be stored at ordinary refrigerator temperatures. It doesn't require the ultra-cold or freezer storage that the other vaccines require. This one's also cheaper. It costs about $10 a dose where the other mRNA-based vaccines cost about twice as much. And this is also the first vaccine that uses this platform to be authorized in the U.S. The Pfizer and Bojurna vaccines use messenger RNA. This one, the Johnson-and-Johnson vaccine, uses an adenovirus as its very, vector. Basically, it's a modified virus that carries genetic information into the cells, and then

the cells read that information to manufacture a part of the virus. So this uses DNA instead of MRI, and DNA is more robust and able to survive. That's why it lasts longer or doesn't need to be deep frozen. Well, also, this vaccine, because it uses a vector, a virus that exists in nature, it's also more shelf stable. So the packaging is also a big factor for why this is more robust in the wild. And it's efficacy on par with other vaccines? Well, on the most important metric, which is preventing hospitalizations and deaths, yes, it is just about as good as every other vaccine that's on the market. It's about 100% in terms of preventing people from getting sent to hospitals and preventing them from dying from COVID-19. It's slightly less effective in terms of preventing

severe disease, about 85%, and the efficacy number overall in terms of preventing disease at all to begin with, it hovers anywhere between about 65% to about 75%, depending on which market they tested in. And this is actually a little bit lower than the other vaccines, as you were hinting at. And this has caused a little bit of concern, but the researchers I talked to about this said, you know, be careful about reading too much into this number. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was tested in three different countries, and it was also tested later in a later stage of the pandemic when we had far more spread and it was also tested against

the new variants that are spreading. So it's not a strictly fair comparison to just look at that top line efficacy number across these vaccines. Because there's really that bottom line number about deaths and hospitalizations. That's really important. And that's right. And that's why public health officials say the vaccine you should get is the first one that you're offered, regardless of which one it is. Well, Mayor, since the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is only one dose, does that mean? it's faster to produce? Well, it does mean that it's faster to administer to people at the full capacity. So the company has said that they will deliver about 100 million doses by the end of June,

and that means 100 million people will be vaccinated. And so this is something that can be rolled out quite quickly, especially to rural areas or far-flung parts of the country with fewer resources. Let's talk about another vaccine that most people probably have not heard of, and that's from India, co-vaccin? Yeah, that's right. This is a vaccine that has already begun, distribution. It started being authorized back in January in India, but we actually only got results

this week about how well it works. In a trial of about 26,000 participants, the vaccine was reported to have an 81% efficacy against symptomatic disease. And this is also another different type of vaccine. This is a whole inactivated virus vaccine, so much more traditional in terms of the platform. Do we think that other countries are going to start using this one? Well, I think a lot of other countries are a little bit hesitant at this point because, you know, the full results are not yet out. These are interim results. And there was actually a lot of controversy in India as well about authorizing this vaccine before all the data was available. The Indian government to date has already vaccinated about 16 million people and is aiming to vaccinate 300 million people by August. So they have a huge

task ahead of them because they already have a population of about 1.3 billion. But if they do have excess doses, then, yeah, this is something that they would definitely export. India is the largest manufacturer of vaccines in the world. No kidding. I don't think I knew that, or many people did. Let's talk about variants because lots of people keep hearing of new variants in the news, especially the New York variant and the California one. Right. And it's important to emphasize that the virus is mutating all the time, and there's a variation, subtle variations between all the strains that are circulating.

But once the virus accumulates a certain suite of mutations, then it's classified as a variant. And it turns out the U.S. has a couple homegrown variants at this point in the pandemic. And so, as you noted, there's one in California and one in New York. The California variant seems to be more transmissible than the classic version that's been circulating, but it's not as transmissible as the UK variant you may have heard of, the B117 variant that is already spreading in the U.S. The CDC expects that the B117 variant will become the dominant strain in the country. The New York variant, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily seem to spread more readily, but it does look like it weakens the protection offered by the

vaccines. It has a mutation in common with the South Africa variant and the Brazil variants. And it also at this point seems to lead to a slight increase in hospitalizations. So these are not probably going to impact our strategy for tackling COVID-19. Right. The same suite of tactics that we've been using throughout the pandemic are still effective now, social distancing, wearing masks to prevent transmission. And the vaccine still remain to be effective in the vast majority of these cases. And so getting vaccines out as fast. as possible is our best bet to contain variants and to prevent new ones from arising. Let's move on to talking about if someone gets COVID-19 now. Is it likely that they've got

one of these variants at this point versus the original version we had last year? I think it's going to be increasingly likely. Like I said it a little bit earlier, the CDC is expecting that the B-117 variant that was first identified in the UK, that's going to become the dominant variant in the U.S. And so it is going to make a greater and greater share of new infections. over time, this is going to be the most common one we find. And so, yeah, we are definitely going to start seeing a change in the genetic makeup of the virus. And if we continue letting it spread, we'll see even more variants starting to arise, too. And despite COVID-19 still being a big risk, we are seeing some states rolling back mask mandates. Where is this happening?

Right. This week, the governor of Mississippi, Tate Reeves, and the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott both announced that they were lifting mask mandates in their respective states. Abbott said that Texas is open 100%. And it's true that both of these states have seen a decline in COVID-19 cases, and this is part of a national downward trend. But both Texas and Mississippi have a relatively high positivity rate. You know, when you attest for COVID-19, the percentage of tests that come back positive is an indication of how much the virus is spreading. The national average is around 4%. But both of these states have positivity rates above 10%, which indicates that the disease is still spreading there, even though it's on a downward trend. And a lot of health officials are concerned. that this might be a bit premature. Yeah, and there are some states, other states that are rolling back their restaurant capacities and opening for more business, but they're still saying you should be wearing your masks. Right. There's a bit of a contradictory message going out here.

Yes, there's some states and some local cities have been relaxing restrictions on restaurants, on indoor dining, on indoor businesses, and so on capacity restrictions being set back to 100%. But as you noted, you know, the U.S. is not out of the wood yet. Right now we do still have these more contagious. variants of the virus spreading. And while the rate of vaccination is picked up, not enough Americans have been vaccinated yet to reach this so-called herd immunity. And so that's why we still have that recommendation that even if you are vaccinated, that you should still be wearing

masks in public because the risk of transmission is still very high right now. And there is still concerned that if states are rolling back their rules, it could lead to another spike. That's exactly right. And so that's why health officials are trying to stay on their toes and still cautioning that people should be taking precautions at this point. Let's shift gears to some non-COVID news. One that I caught peripherally was that Google is changing how they track data. Tell us about that. Yeah, so if you've been to just about any website in recent months,

you've probably noticed that they're asking you to accept cookies. And so cookies are these little trackers that websites place on your computer, and they sort of monitor your browsing habits, and they're used to sell you targeted ads. And Google said that it's going to start eliminating third-party ads across its platforms, particularly its web browser Chrome. And so they're saying that this is part of its initiative towards moving towards greater and greater privacy and anonymized user information to protect its users.

But Google will still allow first-party cookies, basically the cookies that it gives you through its main functions. So mainly its search website and through YouTube. And it will still use that information to sell you ads. But they say that they will do it in a more anonymized way. Rather than targeting you as an individual, they'll place you in a category and use that as a way to sort of gauge what your interests are and try to market to you. So this does not mean that Google is going to stop collecting personal information. That's right.

I mean, Google itself will still be paying attention to what you're doing, but they're saying that it'll be done in a way that will better protect your personal identity online. And they will also limit third parties, these other advertisers from doing it. And this is going to have some big ripple effects throughout the ad industry because much of the internet runs on these ads. And so it's going to be interesting to see how other websites start adapting to what they'll probably need as a new business model. So just when we think we make two steps forward and then one step back. It's always like that. Yeah. Okay. Well, let's let's end on a happy note about something we love here on Science Friday, cephalopods. And we love our cuttlefish.

Turns out there's some new fun cuttlefish news. Tell us about that, please. Right. You may remember the marshmallow test, you know, the famous experiment where you put a marshmallow in front of a child and tell them that if they can wait 15 minutes, they could have a second one, but they could eat the first one right away. It's supposed to be a test of patience. And later on, researchers said that this would also reflect, you know, future success in life and business. Well, it turns out cuttlefish can pass that test too. And researchers decided to test them by putting, you know, two kinds of treats in front of them in a plastic transparent box, one that they really like to eat and one that they don't like as much. And their favorite

snack was placed under a timer, basically that they, if they were willing to wait, they could get the tastier snack, but they could have the less favorite snack right away. And they found that if they allowed the cuttlefish to have this choice, they would wait. They wanted the tastier snack. And it shows, you know, some pretty sophisticated thinking on the part of the animal. It shows that they can exercise self-control, but it also shows that they can understand past, present, and future. We know how they are related to the other cephalopods, especially the octopus, which I think is really, really smart. So that's not very surprising, is it? Yeah, we've seen these kinds of sophisticated hunting and thinking techniques in other animals. And you're right, octopuses have been another

organism that's been demonstrated to do these kinds of sophisticated tasks. Yeah, I wonder what a marshmallow is for a cuttlefish. That's the topic for another discussion. Umare. Well, their more preferred meal was a live grass shrimp, so that's the equivalent of a marshmallow for a cuttlefish. There you have it. Always great details, Umair. Thanks for taking time to be with us today. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. Umair Irfan, staff writer at Vox based in Washington, D.C. We have to take a break, but when we come back, gray wolves have been off the endangered species list since January. We look at what happened when one state declared open season on hunting them. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Plato. It's time to check in on the state of science. This is KERNO. St. Louis Public Radio News. Iowa Public Radio News. Local stories of national significance. One of the last acts of the Trump administration late last year was the delisting of the gray wolf. That means the removal of this once endangered species from the Federal Endangered Species list. Thanks to a century of conservation efforts, there are now more than six thousand. in the lower 48 states. But what happens when people are then allowed to hunt a once-endangered carnivore like the gray wolf? Producer Christy Taylor has been watching a story in her home state of

Wisconsin. Hey, Christy. Hey there, Ira. All right, Wisconsin had a wolf hunt last week. Tell us about it, please. Yeah, after the Trump administration's delisting last year, state wildlife officials began to plan a hunt to start this fall. This is required by state law. It's happened by before, but a hunting group from Kansas sued for the state to hold one much sooner. So a hunt kicked off last week. Pretty quick, no? Yeah, that's what the state was trying to argue. They said that they needed more time to assess the wolf population, plan quotas, and make sure they issued the right number of licenses to ensure hunters didn't kill too many. Okay, so how did the hunt go? Well, it depends on who you ask, but it definitely went fast. The state decided on a quota of 119

wolves for hunters outside the state's Native American tribes. They claimed another 80 permits for themselves. And the hunt ended just a few days later. By that time, non-Indigenous hunters had killed almost double their quota, which if the state has 1,000 wolves in it right now, that's the last estimate. It means that 20% of them are dead now. Wow, that's a lot, is it not? It certainly sounds like a lot. So I talked to Danielle Cating, a reporter at Wisconsin Public Radio. And my first question for her was just whether that death toll, was likely to go up at all? It shouldn't go up. You know, I've spoken with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. And basically, they have said that they used the permits that were

allocated to them, those 81 permits, to protect wolves because they regard the wolf as a relative that's to be revered. What's interesting about this hunt is how state wildlife officials were rushed to pull it together and come up with a quota in a matter of days. You know, the 260 wolves that were harvested, that's slightly over the overall quota of 200 wolves. And in the past, we've seen harvest levels of around 117 wolves in one season and 257 wolves and another. So the quota is on par with what we've seen in the past. It's just the amount at which hunters went over the quota that was allocated to them. We've never seen hunters in this state before go over the quota by nearly double in a state licensed hunt. That probably was due to the sheer number of

permits that were awarded to try and make sure that hunters met that quota during the span of a week at the end of February. So there was the sheer number of licenses. Is there any other reason this hunting season led to so many excess wolves being killed? Well, one reason might be the fact that the vast majority of hunters were using hounds to hunt wolves. And in the past, we've seen more than half or so of these wolves harvested through trapping instead of using hounds. Also, the fact that under state law, there's a 24-hour notification requirement that must be made to hunters before the season closes. The state wildlife managers have said that part of the problem was that even if they wanted to close down the season sooner because they saw that they

were reaching that quota, they really weren't able to do that because of that 24-hour notice. So I mentioned that this hunting season happened in kind of a hurry after this series of lawsuits and court appeals. Wisconsin officials, the Department of Natural Resources, wanted to wait until November. What difference would that delay have made? Well, they had opted not to hold a hunt this winter because they said that they needed more time to develop a science-based quota. They wanted to revise the state's outdated management plan. You know, that plan was put together in 1999 and last updated in 2007. And they also wanted to gather more input from Wisconsin tribes and the public. And in Wisconsin, you know, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is required to consult with

tribes as part of their federal treaty rights. That was one bone of contention for the tribes because they said that there was in no way adequate consultation with them. One of the things that they've been really concerned about is that this hunt was going to take place in the middle of the wolf's breeding season. Here is Dylan Jennings, a spokesperson with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission on that note. And our tribes have always stressed, too, that especially a hunt during this time of the year would catch a lot of wolves in the middle of that breeding season, potentially in really vulnerable positions. And that's pretty much spot on. It looks like that's what we've seen here, you know, kind of the massacring of wolves around the state. So this number of wolves,

it sounds so big. Again, 20% of the population. What are people saying about whether it's bad news for, you know, this previously endangered species to have lost so many this year? Environmental and wildlife groups are very much opposed to this hunt. You know, some of the things that they've cited is that this was a trophy hunt that had the potential to break up wolf packs and that Wisconsin had never held a hunt before during the wolf's breeding season. Just the lack of an updated plan and using the most or the best available science. One word that they used was a slaughter and a massacre of wolves here in Wisconsin. Hunters for their part have contended that they have a right to hunt wolves under the law here in Wisconsin.

And the fact that they blew past the harvest target means there's a lot more wolves than previously thought. And that was one point that was expressed by Luke Hilgeman. And he's the CEO of the Kansas-based group Hunter Nation. It just proves us right that there's an abundance of wolves in Wisconsin. Why do hunt supporters say hunting is even necessary in the first place? Well, they do say that they have a right to hunt wolves under the law, but they also do say that this is something that needs to happen to get the wolf population back to a sustainable level because wolves have killed livestock and pets. And that was a point that was again expressed by Luke Higman. It's about managing this resource just like we do with deer and turkeys and other wild resources across the board. Managing their numbers and keeping them in check is an important part of our conservation puzzle and one that we're excited.

participating. So assuming nothing changes before November, the state is required by law to have another wolf hunt. Could we see different quotas or tighter regulations of other kinds before that happens? I think that will definitely be part of the conversation is, you know, how does this hunt move forward if it will be in fact held this November? You know, one of the things that hunters had feared would happen is that this would be their only chance to harvest wolves because President Joe Biden, has issued a broad executive order that would review agency rules, and that includes the wolf's delisting. Environmental and wildlife groups have also sued to reverse the Trump administration's decision to delist the wolf across most of the country. So that's definitely one of the things that tribes and animal rights groups

want to see is more input and more consultation regarding especially how this hunt has gone. Dylan Jennings with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission has said the fact that the state couldn't control the quota or enforce that, that's a red flag. The state wildlife managers have also said that the sheer number of permits that were awarded to reach that quota in such a short time frame should also be taken a look at if we're going to have a chance of hitting any kind of target in the future. So is this whole conversation, moot if the Biden administration ends up relisting the gray wolf as federally endangered. That is a great question. You know, in the past, what we've seen, you know, when the animal was

placed back on the endangered species list after a judge's ruling in 2014, is that basically the state abandoned its wolf management plan and efforts to revise that. So I think that's a question of whether or not the state would follow through and update its plan and continue to look at ways to manage the wolf. If and, fact, the Biden administration does move to relist the wolf. Thank you so much for the time, Danielle. Yeah, thanks for having me, Christy. I appreciate it. That was Daniel Cating, a reporter for Wisconsin Public Radio. Next, I want to bring in Dr. Adrian Trevis, who is a professor of environmental studies and science at the Nelson Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Welcome, Adrian.

Thanks so much, Christy. So one of the big questions we have ahead is how the overhunting this year might have affected the recovery trajectory that gray wolves have been on in the state. Do we have data on how much loss wolves can actually take? Just from a strict scientific standpoint, the current status of Wisconsin's wolves is precarious right now because the hunting occurred during the mating seasons. In January and February, every winter male and female, alpha males and alpha females will be bonding, mating and potentially getting pregnant and the hunting interrupted that. So we can't expect normal reproduction in the coming year in 2021 and we actually have no idea how badly the reproduction will be affected and harmed.

The best guess is it'll be serious. A less conservative estimate would suggest almost no successful reproduction this year. We don't really have any idea of how the wolf population is going to do for the rest of this year? I asked our last guest's question, but I also want your stance as a biologist. Why were the numbers of wolves killed by hunters so high in such a short period of time? I mean, we're talking about 200 plus wolves in three days. Again, that's the official tally, which is something like a third of the total number of wolves killed in the last three wolf hunts in Wisconsin. How did that happen? Yeah, I mean, that's a great question. This is an unprecedented hunt in the sense that it occurs in January or February with a lot of snow on the ground here in Wisconsin.

We've never had a wolf hunt under those conditions. They've always ended at the end of December over a much longer time period with a lower rate of killing. So part of it is the snow cover on the ground. It makes it easier to track wolves when there's snow cover, especially if you're using hounds and snowmobiles, right, the speed of the snowmobile, the sense of smell of these scent hounds. pursuing wild wolves through the winter landscape. That's part of the reason why that large number of wolves was killed so quickly and went over the quota so quickly. Part of it probably also has to do with the organization of wolf hunters and poachers who are tracking wolves in anticipation of being granted permission to do this hunt. All of this happened because the gray wolf was delisted from the third.

federal endangered species list this year. For a species coming back from such a deeply endangered status like the gray wolf, how do you decide when the population has recovered in the first place? Like, how do you decide that you have enough wolves? That's a great question, Christy. And what I'd like your listeners to understand is that the Endangered Species Act, which regulates the question you've asked, the Endangered Species Act does not mention the nomenomen of animals of an endangered species needed to be called recovered. And that was part of the wisdom of the U.S. Congress in 1973 when the Endangered Species Act was passed. But instead, the Endangered Species Act specifies that a species has to recover all or a significant portion of its range.

And its range was defined when it was listed. And for the gray wolf being listed back in the 1970s, that range for the listed species was parts or all of 30 of our states. So deciding when gray wolves are recovered requires us to figure out, or actually it requires us to make a value judgment about that phrase, all or a significant portion of its range. But scientists like myself, all over the country, have weighed in on this question. I would say the consensus among scientists is that the current 15 to 20 percent of the historic range is not a significant portion of the range and for other reasons as well the gray wolves are not recovered now let me just explain that the scientific peer review panel in 2019 that i sat on which formally advised the

u.s. fish and wildlife service on this question of delisting gray wolves nationwide four out of five if not all five of us found major shortcomings in the science, and several of us pointed out the problem that wolves were not recovered across a significant portion of range, and therefore they're not secure. They shouldn't be delisted. Just a quick reminder, this is Science Friday. I'm Christy Taylor. Since one of the big questions seems to be, you know, there are people who oppose the hunt, there are people who are in favor of the hunt, who say that, well, it's needed to hunting wolves is the same kind of management as hunting deer or turkey, keeping numbers in check, preventing predation of livestock. What do you think is the better management alternative?

So wolves are found in social units we call packs that are like extended families. Generally, all the individuals are related, occasionally and unrelated, wolf will join the family unit or pack. it's not just a loose group. It's a multi-generational group with cooperative breeding, cooperative territoriality, and cooperative hunting. And so when humans intervene and kill one or two members of a pack, especially the alpha male or female, we often see the pack structure destabilize, the pack may disband, and we see behaviors that are rather unusual in comparison to an intact wolf pack. Those intact multi-generational wolf packs are often extremely effective in keeping their neighbors at bay, so there's less wolf-to-wolf conflict or at least fewer transgressions

of the territory, and they're extremely effective in hunting their prey, whereas smaller packs and those with unstable structures that have been affected by human lethal management seem to be more likely to attack domestic animals and wander the landscape in search of easy food because as a team they've been disrupted or had their team destroyed. And the survivors are often hungry looking for food and unable to hunt wild prey as effectively. I think what the Wisconsin wolf hunt shows us is how quickly a determined group of hunters and poachers can reduce a wolf. population to the level where it's going to be endangered again. But basically, we already knew that because the history of wolves in the U.S. is one of eradication. They actually need more care

than they've been given to date. Thank you so much for joining me today. Thank you, Christy, and your team at Science Friday. I'm a big fan. Dr. Adrian Trevis is a professor of environmental studies and Environmental Science at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. For Science Friday, I'm Christy Taylor. Thank you, Christy. Oh, one quick thing before the break. International Women's Day is Monday, and you can get a head start this weekend

by checking out our breakthrough film series, stories of women paving new paths in science. Check it out at breakthroughfilms.org. When we come back, a look at Oregon's new rules for drugs. How will they impact people living with a day? addiction. Stay with us. This is Science Friday. I'm I Refleto. There's an experiment going on in Oregon. Last month, the measure went into effect that decriminalizes small amounts of all drugs. Needless to say, this is a big deal. Oregon voters have cast their ballots in favor of measure 110.

This is getting headlines around the country. In Oregon, voters chose to decriminalize small amounts of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, also mushrooms. The first state in the country to have a rollback like this, possession of common street drugs will go from a misdemeanor to a citation. And on that citation will be a number to call for recovery help. Oregon, like many other places in the country, is dealing with an addiction crisis. And the people behind this measure know that. It's an effort to treat addiction like a health care issue instead of a criminal justice one.

But Oregon's addiction and recovery community is split. on whether this experiment is a good idea. Sci-Fry producer Kathleen Davis takes a closer look. Haven Wheelock runs a health services program for drug users in Portland, Oregon. It's called Outside In. She works with people in the community who are often homeless and primarily inject heroin and meth. It runs one of the oldest syringe access programs in the country.

I am working to promote health and healing and hope with people who are using substances, regardless of where they are. are on the continuum of change. If they want to change their behavior, then great, let's help do that. If they don't want to change your behavior, that's fine too. Haven has been feeling pretty optimistic about the people she works with lately. That's because on February 1st, a measure went into effect that decriminalize the possession of small amounts of all drugs in Oregon. That means if you're caught with one or two grams of a drug like heroin or meth, you won't be charged. Instead, you'll either pay a maximum $100 fine or complete a health assessment within 45 days at an addiction recovery center.

When people tell me that they've spent like the last five years constantly scared, constantly looking over their shoulder, constantly feeling vilified because of their substance use disorder. And they tell me that they feel like they can breathe a little bit, that's a win. Just decriminalizing simple possession is a huge win for folks. Haven was one of the chief petitioners behind Measure 110, meaning she was out there getting signatures to get it on the ballot. In November, Oregonians voted to approve it by a 16-point margin. It's the first state in the country to approve decriminalization at this scale. But wait, a lot of you are probably wondering how we got here. We've been conditioned to think drugs are capital B bad.

Remember those commercials, your brain's going to fry like an egg. So why decriminalize them? Drugs for half a century have been treated as a criminal justice issue. When that started, it was kind of an experiment itself. What we know as the war on drugs here in the U.S. started during the 70s, during the Nixon administration, right after the civil rights movement of the 60s. Nixon framed civil rights as contributing to an increase in crime

and targeted drugs as a way to crack down. Heroin, meth, and marijuana were all made Schedule 1, which means they have no medical benefits and high potential for abuse, according to the government. But it wasn't based in a lot of science. Here's Catherine Neal Harris, a fellow in drug policy at Rice University's Baker Institute in Houston. And so that's when the whole idea of this law and order politics really took the group.

And, you know, being tough on drugs is sort of an extension of being tough on crime. And it really allowed Nixon and other Republicans to kind of capitalize on this racial animus and for appeal to white voters and also turn public attention away from other problems that the country is facing, both at home and abroad. So for decades, this tough on crime attitude towards drugs remained. Drug use did go down, according to the federal government. But the war on drugs also decimated neighborhoods, very frequently black, Latino, and other minority communities. But things started to change in the 90s. according to Catherine.

You know, the war on drugs is really expensive. And states need balanced budgets. And so they were like, okay, you know, we need to do something to reduce incarceration if we can. And so there were some very sort of, they were very limited, but some sort of rollbacks that you started to cease. In 1996, California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana. Over the next two decades, 34 states followed suit. And 16 states have voted to legalize recreational marijuana. But weed is not the same.

same as heroin or meth. So why was Oregon willing to take a risk with decriminalizing small amounts of what so many think of as, quote-unquote, hard drugs? Well, Oregon has long been looked at as a progressive state for health-related measures. It was the first state to decriminalize weed possession in 1973. Eugene, the third largest city in the state, deploys health care workers, not police, when someone is having a mental health crisis. And Oregon was the first state to announce. And Oregon was the first state to enact a Death with Dignity Act in 1997. This allows terminally ill people to end their lives on their terms with lethal medications. Measure 110, the Drug Decriminalization Measure was spearheaded by the Drug Policy Alliance, or DPA, an organization focused on reducing criminalization associated with drug use

across the country. Oregon seemed like the perfect candidate. DPA has worked in Oregon for over two decades. Cassandra Frederique is the Drug Policy Alliance's executive director. She and the organization are based in New York. So we have worked with folks on medical marijuana, on adult use, and, you know, we've supported folks on the ground there for a very long time. And Oregon also has urban centers and rural centers and like super rural centers, right? And so there's a lot of diversity. In Oregon, as it is in the rest of the country, there's a racial disparity in who's written

up for drug possession. Before Measure 110 in Oregon, if you were, were black or native, you were a lot more likely to get in trouble for possession of a controlled substance. Overwhelmingly, folks told us it's really bad. Like, we don't want to criminalize people. It's important to note, though, that possession of small amounts was already reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor in Oregon.

So not a lot of people were spending time in jail just for this. Cassandra and the other big backers behind Measure 110 say, look. Throwing people in jail, giving them hefty fines, treating them as criminals, for drug possession and addiction can't be the best solution. So they say, let's treat decriminalization as a health care issue. Andy Seaman is an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University. He's also a health care clinician for the homeless in Portland. He says successful health care for people with addiction is all about transparency and empathy.

I will not judge you for your substance use. and addiction can be a relapsing and remitting disease, it's okay if that happens. If you use again, please just come back. Andy used to be a doctor in the Multnomah County Jail in Portland. He says he often saw a cycle with patients who had to go cold turkey in jail. They go through withdrawal in an unfamiliar environment. They're traumatized. And then when they're released, they seek out drugs to self-medicate.

For opioids, overdose risk is a hundred and twenty-nine times higher. in the first two weeks of someone being released from jail. Certainly, there are case scenarios where people have gone to jail and then were arrested and that was a wake-up call or maybe they were in prison and they found their recovery that way. A lot of people in Oregon recovery are those people, right? They're people who made it through a pathway like that. But these are the people who survived. Like so many states, Oregon is grappling with an addiction.

problem. In 2018, there were eight overdose deaths for every 100,000 residents, and it's gotten worse. There was a 40% jump in overdose deaths over 2019 and the first half of 2020. Officials in Oregon say pandemic disruptions are to blame. This problem is exacerbated because Oregon has a really poor system for getting people help for addiction. We have three to four to five week waits to find a treatment bed. That's Mike Marshall, Executive Director of Oregon Recovers, an organization that serves and advocates for people in recovery for addiction. Mike is in recovery himself. He's 13 years clean from alcohol and crystal meth. He was one of the loudest voices against Measure 110 in the recovery community. Mike says Oregon's recovery system is fractured and incomplete. A lot of centers were developed outside of the health care system. He calls them mom and pop shops.

And because the system is so fractured, it can take time to get help. The problem with that, the absence of a statewide coordinated plan is here in Multnomah County, which is Portland, we have one treatment bed per 1,100 population. Now, nobody knows if that's the right metric in a state with 9.5% untreated addiction rates. That should be the first question we answer. But nobody knows that. Clackamas County, which is on the other side of Multloma County, they have one treatment bed per 36,000 people. Measure 110 requires the establishment of a statewide network of addiction recovery centers. Instead of getting in legal trouble for possession, you can either pay a fine or get a

health assessment at one of these recovery centers. Side note, these centers will be funded by the state's recreational marijuana tax. The problem is, these centers haven't been established yet, and they don't have to be until October. Temporarily, there's a phone line where people can call to do their assessment on the phone. Or if you don't want to do that, you pay a fine. The service limbo is because Measure 110 was a people's measure, meaning it got on the November ballot because the Drug Policy Alliance and their associates gathered enough signatures. But it wasn't a push through the legislature. The state now has to adapt to it after the fact. Mike says he's all for decriminalization. When they said, we need to make this a health care system not a criminal justice problem,

they're absolutely right. But he says it was irresponsible. for the people who push the measure to do it without the resources available first. There's nothing in 110 that prepares the health care system or expands the capacity of the health care system to do that. They simply deconstructed one system without recognizing that it's all well and good to say they should be in the health care system, but the health care system isn't prepared for them. Mike says when people got arrested or written up for possession, a lot of them got court-mandated treatment. Mike says it wasn't perfect, but it worked for some people. to get them into recovery. Now, he says a lot of people are going to be cut off from that if they're just getting a citation for possession. And I will tell you that I think the largest unintended

consequence is that the overdose rates are going to shoot up. They've shot up under COVID. There's going to be more people on the street using drugs and no mechanisms to either interrupt that or direct them out of it. And so we're going to lose more lives. Nearly everyone I spoke to for the story was an agreement about one thing. That Measure 110 is an experiment. Something like this has never been done before in the U.S., but there's a good chance it won't be the last state to do something like this. Cassandra Frederique of the Drug Policy Alliance says

they're in talks with a whole bunch of states to do something like this again, including in Washington State, Colorado, California, and Virginia. You know, this is the same thing we did years ago, where we had conversations with a bunch of folks and say, who's ready? What can we do? For those on the ground in Oregon, the next few months and years will be crucial for how they can serve vulnerable people in their communities. For Mike Marshall with Oregon recovers, he says he'll be working with legislators to do some retooling on Measure 110. You know, it's not a matter of being for against Measure 110. 110 is law. And so now it's a matter of what I would like to see is that it focused exclusively on funding harm reduction,

and peer support services, because that's really what the local folks who got behind it. That's what they know and that's what they care about and direct the funds into clearly articulated outcomes. Haven Weelock, who runs the Needle Exchange program in Portland, says she's hopeful, but she's not looking at this with rose-colored glasses. I would work myself out of a job any day. I would love to run around with a magic wand and cure everyone's substance use disorders by Towers. on the forehead. That's not realistic. And we do have more work to do, right? Like, we are going to need to continue to build out this system. The system has been left in disrepair. And I'm really hopeful for what this means, for our community, for our state. And hopefully, if we can show that

this is working, hopefully Oregon being brave will lead other places to be brave to. For Science Friday, I'm Kathleen Davis. For the rest of the hour, a quick trip into the uncanny valley and some computer-generated, or rather, computer-evolved art. It's up on our website in our SciArts video. Here to tell us about evolved art as Cy Fry's video producer Luke Groskin. Hi, Luke. Hi, Ira.

What is this? How does somebody evolve art? What does that mean exactly? Yeah, that's kind of the question, right? It's not like you can send a photo or sculpture out into the wilderness. and wait a decade and see what becomes of its offspring. It doesn't really work that way. But what you can do is you can evolve art digitally using computers.

And that's what artist Joel Simon did. He's an artist and programmer. He made this website called Art Breeder. And the ideas behind it are really ingenious. He's taken biology and plugged it into a digital interface. So what he did was he built a system where users can take a photo or an artwork of portrait or a landscape or something like that. And you blend it with another artwork of the same type.

And when you blend it, the offspring is the average between the two. And that means not just visually, but like on a data level. And when you do that, it's pretty much like breeding. And now you can do that in three different ways. You can breed an artwork with itself, randomly selecting the visual genes you want to get enhanced. And that's kind of like aselectual selection, you know, with one creature breeds with itself to produce more. and then you can breed an artwork with another,

and then you get a perfect mix between the two. That's kind of like sexual selection. And then lastly, you can pick which visual genes you want to enhance in the next generation, and that's kind of like CRISPR. And when you do this over dozens and dozens of generations, obviously with users guiding the aesthetics, you get basically evolving art.

You can see the progress of how art changes is over many, many generations. It's pretty fascinating. And how real do these things look? Are they real or are they uncanny Valley real? Oh, they're very, I mean, the photo ones are super surreal. Like, they have that, you've probably seen it online where, like, people are these semi-computer generated blended mixes, you know, you have like, if you take a dog mixed with a flower. But then there's other types of artwork that you can see, like actual works of art, like famous works of art that have been blended and mixed and molded or fantasy landscapes that have been just blended and mixed until they're just delightful to look at. They're just so visually delightful.

You know, the things that artists could never have imagined. There's no way artists could have come up with these things in so many different iterations. And that's, that's the goal for Joel Simon. He wants people to use this website that is 100% built on biological ideas as a creative discovery tool. You know, everyone needs to find inspiration somehow. And also we have our processes to do that. And so I think a lot of design is inspired by the results of growth and evolution, but I think actually the process is just as beautiful as the results, because the process gives rise to some of that beauty that might otherwise be impossible to comprehend. So this is something people can try at home. Yeah, absolutely. You can and you definitely should

try this at home. After you check out the video, head over to artbreeder.com. It's genuinely fun and actually truly inspiring. That sounds really cool. I'm going to have to try that out. Give it a whirl. Thank you, Luke. Syphre's video producer Luke Groskin. And that's about all the time we have. Charles Berkwist is our director. Our producers are Christy Taylor, Katie Feather, Kathleen Davis. Our senior producer is Alexa Lim, contributing producer John Dan Koski. BJ Leatherman composed our theme music. And of course, if you missed any part of this program, you can subscribe to our podcasts or ask your smart speaker to play Science Friday. Enjoy your

weekend. I'm Ira Plato.