Science Friday - Proactive Policing, The Social Brain. June 12, 2020, Part 2

Episode Date: June 12, 2020

In the 1980s and 1990s, in the midst of rising crime rates and a nationally waning confidence in policing, law enforcement around the country adopted a different approach to addressing crime. Instead of just reacting to crime when it happened, officers decided they’d try to prevent it from happening in the first place, employing things like “hot spots” policing and “stop and frisk,” or “terry stops.” The strategy is what criminologists call proactive policing, and it’s now become widely used in police departments across the nation, especially in cities. Critics and experts debate how effective these tactics are in lowering crime rates. While there’s some evidence that proactive policing does reduce crime, now public health researchers are questioning if the practice—which sometimes results in innocent people being stopped, searched, and detained—comes with other unintended physical and mental health consequences. Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminology at the University of Nebraska Omaha and an expert in police accountability, reviews what led police departments to adopt a more proactive approach, while medical sociologist Alyasah Ali Sewell explains the physical and mental health impacts of stop-question-and-frisk policing. Over the past few months, people’s social lives have transformed. We’re now told to stay home, and when we do go out, to maintain at least six feet between ourselves and others—forget about a handshake or a hug. Many are now isolated in their homes, with just a screen and its two-dimensional images to keep them company. But our brains are wired for social connections. “We’re social primates,” says psychiatrist Julie Holland. “It’s in the job description.”  Holland’s new book, Good Chemistry: The Science of Connection, from Soul to Psychedelics, looks at what happens to the brain’s chemistry when we connect socially, and how devastating disconnections can be. She joins Ira to talk about the social life of the brain, community, and the mental health impact of the stressful times we’re living in. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

Last week, authorities charged the four former police officers involved in the death of George Floyd, one officer with an upgraded charge of second-degree murder, and the three others with aiding and abetting murder. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators have gathered in protests across the country in response to the deaths of Floyd and other Black Americans. The demonstrations have called for an examination of policing practices. One strategy used by departments is called proactive policing. including stop and frisk, and it's meant to stop crime before it happens. Experts have debated the effectiveness of this tactic, but public health researchers are investigating the health implications,

the physical and mental impacts these tactics may have on the community. These ideas were discussed in a conversation we had last fall with Sam Walker, Professor Emeritus in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Omaha and Nebraska, and Aliasa Ali Sewell, Associate Professor of Sociology at Emory University. I began by asking Sam Walker to define for us the term proactive policing. What does it mean to police proactively?

Well, contacts between the police and citizens fall into two categories. Proactive actions are where the police initiate the contact. The other category, the majority of them, are reactive. That's where somebody calls 911 or they flag down. a police car and the police react to that. And so you have written about the history of proactive policing. Tell us how this sort of policing came to be. Well, the police always did reactive policing,

excuse me, proactive policing, where they would initiate some kind of contact. But I think there was a real shift in the late 70s and 1980s where because of developments in technology and criminology and our understanding of crime and disorder. order. Today's proactive policing programs, a lot of which are referred to as smart policing, are really much better, much more scientific than the old style. What do you mean by that, scientific? They are data-driven. And so one of the most popular of the proactive programs is called hotspots. There was this one study, it started out as a small study in Minneapolis, and they

discovered that when you analyzed all the 911 calls coming into the Minneapolis Police Department, 5% of the locations in the city accounted for over half of all the police contacts, all of their actions. And so hotspots represents the idea that, that, you know, crime and disorder is really concentrated in certain geographic areas. And so it logically follows, if you really want to deal effectively with crime and disorder, you concentrate police efforts. in those areas. And so this is really smart policing. You know, back in the old days, let's say the old days, like the 1960s, there would be a bunch of robberies or something in a neighborhood, and the police would just flood the area with more patrol cars. That's, let's politely call it,

not smart policing. We could call it some other things, but it's basically, it's not driven by any plan, any data, any strategic objectives. That sounds like the old days where we had the cop on the beat would be walking around, getting to know everybody. Well, the cop on the beat is shrouded in mythology and this idea that, you know, back in the late 19th century, for example, you know, the cop on the beat knew everybody there, not true. There's no evidence to support that. That's part of this myth making of, once upon time there was a golden age that was better than the way things are today. not true. So what you're saying is once we brought some science into it and we can analyze the data,

we can get a better idea of where the crime was happening. Right. Well, the science told us where it is, where these bad events are occurring. Then it fell to police departments working with this whole new generation of criminologists to figure out to develop some strategies for effectively dealing with that crime and disorder. And did those strategies work? Some are more effective than others. Most of them, there's very limited evidence about effectiveness.

You mentioned the history of proactive policing that I did. That was a special report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, which had a panel. This is their standard operating procedure. And they reviewed all of the evidence on proactive policing. So I was not a member of that panel. They just commissioned me separately to do this paper on the history of proactive policing. And what did that show the panel or the conclusions? Well, there are some programs which there is some good evidence that they work, but most of them there's mixed evidence at best or weak evidence or just no evidence at all.

And one of the most important finding, which they stress, you know, very strongly in the report is if you do too much proactive policing in particular neighborhoods or neighborhoods where particular communities, African American community lives, Hispanic community lives, you can do a lot of damage. You can result in unconstitutional policing of excessive stops and frisks and arrests. So there's some real problems built into proactive policing. I want to bring on another conversation, bring on another guest. Alia Ali Sewell is a associate professor of sociology at Emory University. Welcome to Science Friday. Thank you for inviting me. You're welcome.

You've done some research on the health impacts of stop and frisk, a proactive policing tactic. That was the focus of much media attention and activism here in New York. First, tell us what exactly is stop and frisk? So stop and frisk refers to a criminal surveillance program where people can be stopped on the street because they appear to be a suspect or they appear to be doing something that is wrong. And we'll get into the nitty-gritty of your research after the break,

but in the big picture sense, what has your research revealed about how this sort of police impacts health? My research has shown that policing sick in society, proactive per surveillance, etches ailment into our neighborhoods and embeds illness into the body. And you actually went out and studied the statistics on these societies? Yes, most of the work, actually all the work that has been published is focused on New York City, which is where we have the best data.

And we're using, me and a couple of colleagues are using pretty, advanced statistics to bowl down and pull apart the ways in which society matters not just for the individual, but also matters for the context in which the individual is located. And were you surprised by these results? Honestly, I was. My work, before I started doing work on policing, my work really focused on housing redlining. And in that literature, we all know that where you live matters. We know it matters for your health and for other types of social outcomes.

But when I started to do to work on policing, Stop Pushing Frisk in particular in New York City, I found that the effects of policing were far more robust than anything I'd ever seen before. So I was very surprised. I want to bring in someone who was firsthand knowledge about this. Our producer, Danya Abdul Hamid, caught up with a young man named Cassiam Walters to talk with him about his experiences with Stop and Frisk. He is a 24-year-old, 4-year-old Brooklynite, and the first time he was stopped, he thinks he was about seven,

but it would happen again and again many times after that. I'm going to say roughly like a dozen, a dozen times, and that was like when I started counting. I had a really bad experience in high school. I was a high school senior, so about 17, maybe. I was waiting for my friend. He was deaf, so I was kind of like trying to, like, get him integrated into the community.

I was waiting for him outside of his house, and they came up to me, They're like, hey, you know, we're truancy cops. And truancy cops who are their sole purpose is to kind of like stop kids from, like, cutting school. So I guess they thought I was cutting school. And I was like, no, I'm just waiting for my friend. You know, we don't have a zero period or a first period. We start second period.

And he was like, you know, like, we're not that done. We weren't born yesterday. And he kind of like turned me around really roughly. There was nobody else on the block. So, like, no one was able to, like, witness what was going on. And just like manhandled me. I'm like a little kid at the time. You know, I'm not really built at that age.

I'm super scrawny. And, like, like, really turned me. around, roughed me up, emptied my bags, went through my things, my belongings, just, like, throw it all on the floor. And they're like, where is it? And I'm like, where is what? They're like, where is it? We know you have someone you, and they're like, everyone does it. You know, you think you're cool. You cut school to do it. And I'm like, I still don't. I can't connect again. And they're like, okay, well, then you're going to put this back in your bag. And then we'll just catch you another time. You got away this time. You know, when I see a cop now, again,

it's not the same fair I had when I was younger, but no matter what, like, and people can say, like, oh yeah, I know my rides. I'm a stand up to them at the end of the day. And every single person, especially a black male, there's always a PTSD moment. Even if you haven't had stopping frisk, you know the culture. Like, what do I do when I walk by?

You shouldn't have to feel like that. As a black male, I've never had to think so much about the passing of someone more than I have with a New York City cop or with a cop in general. You know, I think the fear comes from the thought of what could happen if you do this, if I walk home the right way, what could happen, I passed this precinct, what can happen? If I wear this hoodie today, what can happen? If I wear these certain colors? Like, you shouldn't have to, as a young African-American male, say, okay, what colors am I allowed to wear? That sounds crazy. You know, it wasn't until I got out of high school when I was like, this is crazy. And, like, that's really how I was. And, you know, I didn't have the, again, I didn't have the guidance around me to say, no, like, you can do this, you can do that. So I just settled. And I settled, and I settled, and I settled. And I think that's another effect on the mind. And it's an effect on your self-esteem, you know, what?

what that can do to a person. It breaks down just your confidence, your social skills. It does so much because I saw it, you know, spelling into other areas of my life. That was Kasim Walters, a 23-year-old, Brooklynite. And this is not uncommon, Sam Walker. You guys, someone who studies this, these kinds of confrontations? Yes. Actually, I should add here, I was an expert witness in the court case that declared the New York City policy unconstitutional. So I had sort of an inside look.

I got to see all the policies and procedures and data. And the New York City policy was not smart policing. It was stupid policing. It was also unlawful and unconstitutional. And the story we just heard was repeated hundreds of thousands of times. But to talk about the health consequences, proactive policing where the police initiate that contact, well, for all people, you know, that's an unpleasant.

isn't an uncomfortable, stressful situation. Now, if it's repeated many times, that just jacks up the level of stress and the mental health consequences and the physical consequences. And so, you know, policing that is unconstitutional, as we've just heard described, is also very unhealthy policing for the victims of those stops. That's what I want to get into after our break. When we come back, we'll continue a conversation about proactive policing and the mental and physical health impacts. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato.

In case you're just joining us, we're revisiting a conversation we had last fall about the mental and physical impacts of proactive policing. With guests Sam Walker, Professor Emeritus in the School of Criminology

and Criminal Justice, University of Omaha and Nebraska, and Aliasa Ali Suil, Associate Professor of Sociology at Emory University. I asked Dr. Sewell, what sort of physical and mental problems she was seeing in connection with stop and frisk? So they run the gamut. The gamut includes physical health problems like believing that your health is poor or fair,

having a diagnosis of diabetes, having a diagnosis of high blood pressure, even having an asthma episode within the past year, and obesity is linked to higher levels of obesity. And is this affecting people of all ages or where they live? And what is the demographics of this? Well, the first couple of studies I did, they looked at all ages, everybody over at 18. So there is work on how policing affects youth, primarily thinking about the direct effects of it. So if you are personally stopped, the extent to which that is going to be linked to higher levels, primarily of mental health problems, of psychological distress.

but in my studies, I use adults going up to the age of 95. Wow. And you're saying now you can, because of the studies, draw a direct line between the policing practices and the health of the people. And particularly the policing practices that are happening within a context within the neighborhood. So the primary, the strongest relationship is linked to absolute levels of use of force and physical and mental health problems.

This includes all the ones I just mentioned to you as well as psychological distress. There's also increases of mental health problems among neighborhoods and neighborhoods where people are having force use against them. And there's also higher levels of physical health problems in neighborhoods where there are large racial disparities. This is referring to the relative rate of use of force

against minorities compared to their white counterparts. Does this affect men and men, women the same way? It actually doesn't. And most of the research that looks at this focuses on male population. So until the study that I did, which came out in social science and medicine, actually compared men and women living in the same neighborhood, the extent to which they experience psychological distress, you really didn't know that the burden is at least what regards to psychological stress is stronger among men. What about the difference between relative and absolute use of force?

So there's a lot of evidence that suggests that the overall rate of use of force and frisking, and this is different than just being stopped. Now, being stopped itself is linked to higher levels of poor health among Latinos and higher levels of high blood pressure among both blacks and Asian Pacific Islanders. But you also find that it's linked to... things such as racial disparities in the stop. That's also linked to physical health problems primarily. But the absolute measures that I use, which are basically higher levels of frisking, higher levels of use of force,

they've been linked to both physical and mental health problems. They've been found to experience higher levels of illness if you're predominantly in a black or Latino neighborhood, primarily if you're male. and in the case of high blood pressure, which is a really interesting case, Latinos and Asians actually have higher rates of high blood pressure if they live in neighborhoods where there's large uses of force among the pedestrians. You know, this almost seems intuitive, does it not, that people would suffer from feeling targeted on the street? I guess what you're doing is actually scientifically investigating

and putting data behind those feelings. Well, that is true. And just to be clear, I don't necessarily study whether you yourself are stopped and then whether you yourself have illness problems. I examine the environment, the policing environment, the types of practices that are happening to pedestrians after the stop occurs. If in areas where the stop is more likely to result in frisking particularly and use of force, you're seeing higher levels of physical health and mental health problems. independent of whether you personally are stopped. Sam Walker, have police departments started to change their procedures in light of this new research? Actually, all of the protests that followed Ferguson five years ago, five years in a couple months,

the national protests and all of the other incidents in Baltimore, Cleveland, and around the country, have had an important positive effect. I'm actually giving a paper on this in November. there's been an extraordinary outburst of reform. Now, the problem, in several different areas of life, state legislatures have passed, you know, numerous laws, number city councils have passed, new procedures for holding the police accountable. There's one group of police chiefs, police executive research forum, which is, you know, far more progressive than the main group, the IECP, and they've been doing some tremendous things.

So there is a lot happening. there's cause for optimism. The problem is the national news media focuses on the bad news. You know, the evening news, it's the shooting, it's the beating and so on. And so the conventional wisdom among most people is that, well, gee, nothing's happened since Ferguson. Actually, a lot has, and there's a lot of cause for some cautious optimism about that. Let's go to the phones, 844-724-8255. Orlando, Audrey and Orlando. Hi, welcome to Science Friday. Hi, thank you for having me. Go ahead.

My question was, I'm a master's in criminal justice student while I just graduated. And one of my questions was, could there be an argument made, because I had one professor that made this argument, that minorities are primarily stopped due to crime mapping and not so much as their ethnic makeup, but the neighborhoods that they live in and the crime that takes place there. Can the argument actually be made or is there data that proves otherwise? Otherwise, okay, let's think that's get an answer. I'll ask us or Sam. Yeah, I think my work speaks directly to that because in all of the analysis that I do, I actually adjust for the crime levels of the neighborhood. So we actually get data from New York Police Department on whether people are calling in about robbery complaints or homicides or so on and so forth. And we actually are able to, we are able to wipe away the variation in health that is due to specifically due to crime. We're also able to.

able to wipe away the relationship between policing and health that is linked to crime. So the numbers that I mentioned to you before, you know, something between, you know, a nine or more percent increase in physical health problems, physical mental health problems in neighborhoods where there's large levels of frisking and use of force. That is independent of the crime of those neighborhoods. Is it, do people who feel like they have mental problems, can they go get help for this as a legitimate reason for feeling that way? I mean, I think that's where we're moving towards. I think one of the key things that my work has been doing is establishing a public health relationship that suggests that in fact policing itself is an epidemic. So it's creating an epidemic of

assaults. It's creating an epidemic of illness. And it's a type of epidemic that's not going to go away just because we're starting to delegalize, stop and frisk. That effect is going to stay in body because the types of illnesses that form when someone is when it's stopped and they're under a climate of fear those things are get encoded into the body to get embedded further and deeper into ourselves Sam Walker what do you think about this well you mentioned crime mapping hot spots policing which is the you know the the the most successful program most widely used program is a form of mapping you're identifying those parts of town where there you have the highest rates of crime and disorder. Well, the fact of the matter is those are low-income neighborhoods, and they are

primarily neighborhoods of people of color. And so this highly respected program hotspots, it has this aura of science about it. Wow, it's driven by data. Now, this is really good stuff. Well, you're, you're concentrating, you know, police, whether it stops, risks, and other things on a particular segment of the population. And the primary targets are young black men. And that's confirmed by every bit of good data that we have. And so I think we're just beginning to get the point of thinking that, wait a minute, we need to rethink, you know, these kind of scientifically data-driven programs because of their impact on a particular part of our community.

Ali, what do you think about that? You know, I think that the case I want to talk to you about is high blood pressure. high blood pressure is one moment within the life cycle where the way you respond to stress changes. And what I've found is that when you talk about the relative use of force, the most palpable associations with illness is in regards to high blood pressure. So in areas where minorities are more likely to have force used against them and more likely to be frisked, There's higher levels of high blood pressure. But I also want you to understand that it's not just minority areas or minority people.

So there is a paper that came out in sociological forum, which suggested that in predominantly white neighborhoods where black and brown pedestrians were targeted for use of force, you see higher levels of physical health problems, cardiovascular disease, metabolic issues regards to obesity in those neighborhoods, then comparable white neighborhoods where black, brown, and white pedestrians are treated the same. Wow. Great discussion. We're going to have to end it there. I'd like to thank my guests, Aliasa Ali Suu, Associate. professor of sociology at Emory University, Sam Walker, Professor Emeritus in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Omaha in Nebraska. Thank you both for taking time to be with us today. Over the past few months, the picture of social life in this country has, well, it's been very different,

right? People staying home encouraged not to touch to stay six feet away. You can forget about the handshake or the hug, and some of us are isolated in our homes with just our screens, and their two-dimensional images to keep us company. But our brains are wired for social connections. We are wired to be together. So what happens when they're not available? Psychiatrist Julie Holland has looked at what's going on in the brain's chemistry when we connect and how devastating disconnections can be.

She's a practicing psychiatrist based in New York, author of the new book Good Chemistry, The Science of Connection, from Seoul to Psychedelics. Always good to have you back, Dr. Holland. Welcome back to Science Friday. Thank you so much for inviting me back, Ira. You know, I'm struck that you wrote this book and it's coming out at this time of social distancing.

Oh, definitely. Very ironic. I was worried, actually, at first, that it would just be that all the information no longer applies, but it turns out it applies more than ever. The beginning of the book talks about this big epidemic that we're all going through, which is the loneliness epidemic, and that the overdose epidemic is really because of loneliness and isolation.

And the whole beginning of the book, I talk about how bad isolation is for our bodies and our psyches and how it can lead to things like insomnia and obesity and drug addiction, and also that it really interferes with learning. But a big message in good chemistry was this idea that we're not really getting what we need from our phones and from our laptops and that we need to disconnect from our devices and get things face to face and skin to skin.

And we need to breathe in people's pheromones and hug and cuddle and that these are all things that will release oxytocin. So some of the advice in good chemistry now either needs to be sort of put on hold or taken with a grain of salt, but a lot of it really still holds. We are currently watching demonstrations where people are engaged, are trying to engage.

Can it be applied to the point we are now where people are trying to get people to understand their points of view in a large crowd situation? versus an intimate family situation. Absolutely. Well, you know, there's difficulty interacting on every level, right? Like just trying to connect with yourself, but there are some sort of facets of your personality

that aren't on the same page. Or, you know, trying to stay in a relationship with a partner or to stay in a small area with a lot of family. It's all very challenging. So there are challenges sort of at every level. And societally, yes, we are more polarized than ever, and we're more sort of dug in to whatever side we are on. And, you know, we're sort of curating the information that we get

because we like what we get and we get what we like. But, you know, good chemistry talks a lot about oxytocin. Oxytocin is this hormone that's also a neurotransmitter. And it helps to facilitate trust and bonding and connection. And, you know, the sort of classic examples of oxytocin or like a nursing mother with a newborn, and the infant and the mother are sort of both flooded with oxytocin, and it's helping to solidify their bond.

But you also have oxytocin in group situations. You know, oxytocin also helps us sort of figure out who's in our tribe or who's in the other tribe. So it can fuel things like social cohesion and xenophobia. It can make sort of clans even more tight-knit. So do we get, so we're getting a high then out of being in our clan or being on our side in a sort of a we versus them situation? Yes, absolutely, unfortunately we are. You know, oxytocin is, it may not necessarily cause pleasure unto itself, but the social interactions that are enabled by oxytocin

create a cascade of chemistry in our brains. Things like endorphins and endocannobinoids and dopamine and sort of, all the little feel-good chemicals that your brain is capable of creating, oxytocin is almost like a master player in deciding, you know, everybody has their own sort of proprietary blend of good chemistry and what gives them pleasure. But yes, social connections. For most people, if we're not sociopaths or psychopaths, then yes, bonding, trusting, connecting, cooperating, altruism, these things give us tremendous pleasure. And, you know, if connecting weren't pleasurable, we would not, you know, bond or have children or take care of our children. So we are

designed for this sort of, for this type of connection. But yeah, as groups, we are also designed for social cohesion because, you know, back when we were on the Savannah, if you were not in the group and you had been ostracized or shunned, you're much more at risk of getting sort of picked off by a, predator. Or just dying out in the cold because nobody was helping you build a shelter or take care of you. So we have very deep sort of primal responses to being ostracized, to not being in the group. And we get tremendous pleasure from being part of the club, you know, especially if it's an elite club, it doesn't let in other people. Like, let's be honest. So that is also about oxytocin and good chemistry. You also write that we are built for empathy, which means you put yourself on someone

else's shoes and and guess what they might be going through. Isn't that what Black Lives Matter and people who are on the streets are asking other people to do? Absolutely. Absolutely. I think that's a great way of encapsulating some of what is fueling the rage at the injustice is that, first of all, a lot of us have a sense of what is fair and what is unfair. And when we see things that are unfair, when we see people being victimized or we see injustice, we get very angry at who's perpetrating it. And we also, many of us are capable of having a sort of empathic response where we feel bad for the person who's being victimized. And, you know, in truth, all of us in our lives, in our childhoods, we were victimized. At some point, we were bullied. But also, we need to remember

that at some point in our past, we were victimizers and we were bullies. And everybody has these things inside them. So, you know, there's this thing called identifying with the aggressor also, which is that you would rather be on the side that's winning. We need to take a short break. We'll be back with more conversation about the chemistry of the social brain. I'm Ira Plato. This is Science Friday from WNYC Studios. This is Science Friday.

I'm Ira Flato. In case you're just joining us, I'm talking with psychiatrist Julie Holland, author of the new book Good Chemistry, The Science of Connection from Soul to Psychedelics. It's all about the social human brain. and we're talking about what our human brains are going through doing these times that we're living in. And you mentioned earlier a bit about loneliness. And you say that there's a loneliness epidemic in this country.

And you said that time spent on the screens alone can generate brain chemistry similar to infatuation and attachment. The two stages of falling and staying in love? Are we falling in love, literally, with our machines? Yeah. Well, it's actually even worse than that. we are designed so that if we have an orgasm, there is a release of oxytocin, which means that if some of us are having sex, you know, with our computers to some degree or watching porn, for example, that there may be that little surge of oxytocin helps you bond and connect and trust with your device.

So, yeah, I mean, now more than ever, right? We're on our phones. We're on our laptops. And, you know, I'm a parent who was often sort of telling the kids to get off your phone and go play with your friends. I mean, they're just, I've turned into like a bit of a hypocrite. You know, we are all on our devices more than ever. And I don't think that the outcome of that is going to be very positive.

And you say it's bad news for those of us isolating at home. And this was amazing for me. You say social isolation has a lethality on par with being obese or with smoking about 15 cigarettes a day. I thought just being a couch potato was bad enough. But this is, you're taking it up another notch, right? Yes, social isolation is bad for our bodies. First of all, it keeps you in the sympathetic mode, right?

So that is a place where you're not sleeping well. You're not digesting your food very well. So, you know, you have insomnia. You've got GI problems. It creates anxiety. We're not built to be socially isolated. We are, you know, the human species is categorized as obligatorily gregarious. We are supposed to be social creatures, you know,

We're social primates. It's like it's in the job description. So that is our default state. That is when we can be in the parasympathetic state, which is where our bodies can rest and digest and repair. When we are isolated, we are much more likely to be in this sympathetic fight or flight state. And we are shut down.

We are more paranoid. We're more suspicious of other people. The irony is even though you're socially isolated, you end up more suspicious of social connection when you get in this fight or flight state. So it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not good, not only for our psyches, it's really bad for our bodies. It makes us overweight.

We don't sleep well. We're more likely to have poor impulse control around healthy choices. So we're more likely to eat bad food or to drink more or to smoke more, or to smoke more, whatever your vices are, or to, you know, do more things online than you typically would. Social isolation, as we saw in Bruce Alexander's work, makes us more prone. to compulsive drug use and drug addiction. Well, how do we get ourselves into that state? How do you get yourself into parasympathetic?

Right. So there's lots of ways. If you happen to have a partner with you, then things like eye contact and a soothing voice and maybe somebody holding you or stroking your arms, cuddling, you know, skin to skin is great for oxytocin, kissing, nipple stimulation, orgasm, all of these things can help make oxytocin happen.

But if you don't have a partner to do this with family members work, babies work, pets, puppies, dogs, any kind of eye contact and connection can bring about an increase in oxytocin. If you're totally alone, no dog, no kids, no partner, nothing, you can, first of all, you can always breathe through your nose. That helps to keep you out of fight or flight and over into parasympathetic. Also, if your exhale is longer than your inhale, that helps a parasympathetic. And also you can do something called havening when you actually sort of hug yourself and stroke yourself. You stroke from the shoulder to the elbow downward, repeatedly.

And you can say things to yourself while you're havening, while you're stroking from shoulder to elbow, and you're sort of hugging yourself. And you can say things like, I am safe, I am cared for, I am looked after, I am loved. You know, you need to feel safe in order to sleep, digest, have sex, learn, grow, change. So if you're feeling paranoid or unsafe in any way, and whether that's

physical or psychological, it does not matter. You know, if you feel sort of emotionally unsafe, it's the same thing. You're going to be in fight or flight. Do you think there's going to be any lasting emotional fallout from this stressful period we're in now? And I mean, both from a COVID-19, we're isolating ourselves and the Black Lives Matter marches and demonstrations and attacks by the police and everyone involved in those things. Yes, I absolutely think that there's going to be a lot of trauma coming out of this time. I mean, first of all, the medical workers who were surrounded by people dying. And, you know, I will tell you as a physician, I don't like being wrong.

I was not the kind of person who would settle for less than 100 on an exam or 104 if I could get extra credit. And doctors don't like being wrong. Doctors don't like losing. We don't like losing patients. We do not like being surrounded by death. We hate saying we don't know. We're not sure. All incredibly traumatizing and, you know, the scale of the people who were dying and the people who could not be saved in, you know, in March and April and May,

definitely took its toll on health care workers and frontline workers. But then you also have people who have been completely physically isolated for months on end and have gone without any kind of human touch, which never really happened in human history, and certainly not in our lifetimes. And that's got its own level of trauma or just being afraid that if you go outside, you're going to catch a lethal virus, potentially lethal virus, and you're going to die.

That's traumatizing. And then now, yes, the demonstrations, watching a nine-minute video of somebody being killed and watching all these videos of police brutality, that is also traumatizing. So I've got plenty of business. head of me as a psychiatrist, I know. But in the meantime, it's going to be very challenging.

Let's point to some of the specifics. For example, Dr. Robert Klitsman, a psychiatrist at Columbia University, writes in the New York Times about the lingering effects of COVID-19 survivors. I mean, they've been in intensive care ordeal. They've been locked up for weeks on ventilators, suffering when he calls post-intensive care syndrome, cognitive, neurological problems, PTSD? And no one talks about these people at all, he says. No, no one is focusing on the fact that a lot of people who survived these ordeals.

First of all, there's physiological sequelae, and there are things like strokes and, you know, long-lasting lung problems or kidney problems. So, but there's also the sort of physiological and psychological toll of being on ventilators and being in ICU, You know, which, I mean, when you're in there, there's a lot of beeps and machines and you think you're going to die and nobody lets you sleep for very long because they're interrupting you to take your vitals or else they put you in a coma, basically. But it does take its toll on the body for sure. If nothing else, you come out of there really emaciated and sort of feeble. And then there's also this issue of survivor guilt, right? That, you know, which we hardly ever talk about, but it is a real thing. that the people who survive or the people who are unscathed,

but other people around them really suffered, there is also just this extra little icing on the cake of the trauma, which is that you have survivor guilt for, you know, somehow making it or doing better than somebody else did. So we're creating long-term effects. I mean, there are real changes, if I hear what you're saying, going on in our brain, physical changes in our brain, that are going to affect us possibly for a long time to come.

Yes. The fact that we had sort of a loneliness epidemic and an overdose epidemic coincidentally was not a coincidence. So we were already sort of set up with a lot of isolation, a lot of injustice, and, you know, these diseases of despair, right? Things like death from alcoholism or from suicide or from drug overdoses, the diseases of despair were already going up before the pandemic, before the civil unrest. So, you know, we've got a lot of problems that really need address.

And good chemistry talks about very practical solutions to a lot of these problems. And then it also talks about psychedelics as a potential solution to how isolated we are and how disconnected we feel. Tell us more about that because we've had a few guests on. I remember when Michael Pollan wrote his book a while back, he came on and talked about it and actually went through the experience himself of using controlled psychedelic drugs. and we've talked about a couple of other researchers. So I'm eager to hear what you have to say about the potential it might have for helping people. Well, I guess the first thing I would talk about is that for a lot of people, when they have a peak psychedelic experience, at sometime during the peak, they have this sense that everything is connected and that they are part of it all.

you know so um it's a feeling for most people of sort of awe this sort of transcendent experience um but but also the the sense that it really makes sense that everything is connected and we are all connected and we are all interdependent and the thing that is connecting us is is light or energy or love you know when you tap into that kind of awe some mystical experience um it's it's profound and it's life changing and people who come away from those experiences will often have huge changes in their behavior, especially around substances. So there's lots of interesting research going on with psilocybin or ayahuasca or ibogaine. These are all plant medicines that are psychedelics, but that can help people have healthier

behavior around compulsive drug use. So I understand the irony of using a drug to help somebody disentangle themselves from a problematic relationship with other drugs. But that is what's happening. This is in the context of ongoing psychotherapy, right? So there's psilocybin assisted psychotherapy or MDMA-assisted psychotherapy, which allows people to sort of look at their trauma, look at their place in the world and come to some measure of like deeper, greater understanding about how interconnected and interdependent we all are. And that feeling of connection is extremely pleasurable. And also enables neuroplasticity. You know, the oxytocin enables neuroplasticity, which is that feeling of bonding

and trust, but also the psychedelics themselves enable neuroplasticity. So you're talking about new synaptic connections, new dendritic connections, and sometimes full-on neurogenesis with neuroplasticity in these substances, not to mention that they are, many of them are also anti-inflammatory. So you foresee a day not too far in the future when this will be part of the medicine chest that doctors have. Well, psychiatrists need it desperately. So I really hope that that is the case. Yes, you know, we, we've always needed better ways to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. We've always needed to help people process the fact that they're going to die. You know, this end of life sort of existential dread is, is one of the other indications

for psilocybin assisted psychotherapy in particular. So the, the field of psychiatry, having more tools at its disposal is great news for us. And it's coming just in time because we're going to have a lot more people who need to process their trauma. And these plant medicines are very helpful for helping people to debrief and process their trauma. I'm Ira Flato, and this is Science Friday from WNYC Studios. The fact that they work in the brain means that there have to be receptors in the brain where they hook into, right? doesn't that mean that evolutionarily speaking, we should be used to having these plants around us because there's a place for them to work in the brain.

Right. Well, you know, I often say that about cannabis. You know, the fact that we have an endocannabinoid system and that we've got and that we've got receptors that so well, so sort of neatly fit the main psychoactive chemicals in these plants, then I would say yes. you know, we certainly co-evolved on the planet with things like the cannabis plant or the poppy plant or psilocybin containing mushrooms. And ayahuasca is a combination of two plants. You know, it's a psychedelic tea that consists of two plants. So these are plant medicines. And, you know, I also think just in terms of sort of drug policy, there is a real movement now for these plant medicines to be decriminalized.

So that's one avenue. And then this other avenue is that there's tons of really interesting research going on with psychedelics and with MDMA-assisted psychotherapy. And they're getting huge effect sizes from these double-blind placebo-controlled trials. And you can certainly argue that the placebo is questionable because it's pretty clear, I think, to people eventually, whether they've gotten the psilocybin or not or whether they've gotten the MDMA or not. But every once in a while, we have been surprised by people who have very strong responses to the, placebo, which is a whole other thing I'd love to talk to you about another time. Wow. Wow. To the placebo. Yes. Yes. The placebo effect on this. Wow. Yeah, I know. Okay. Well, save it for another time. Because I want, you said you wanted to tell a story about me. The last time I saw you when I came to

talk about the pop book, the thing I remember when I left your studio, I don't know if you remember this or not, but I actually kissed your head on the way out as a way to say goodbye because I had like, such a good experience with you and I felt like close with you afterwards and I wanted to demonstrate that and I was thinking about how now, you know, I can't even like shake your hand or anything. Like, you know, I'm in my, I'm in a bunker in my house and you're in your house and like I can't shake your hand. I can't kiss your head goodbye. But I'm, I did want to, you know, just express my real sincere appreciation for the work you're doing. It's very important to me to educate people about science and it's, it can be hard to do that. So I really appreciate.

appreciate the work you're doing. Thank you very much. I'm giving you a virtual, virtual kiss on your head right now. Thank you. I can. I can. It's coming right through the, right through the lawnmower noise outside. It's like a tiny little bit of oxytocin made. Well, thank you. But I'm, you know, equally, I'm in all of the kind of work that you're doing and the kind of work that you keep doing and have been doing. And please keep doing more of it because we need more of it these days and probably and possibly, certainly into the future. Thank you for taking time to be with us. You're very welcome. We have run out of time. I want to thank Dr. Julie Holland, practicing psychiatrists based in New York, author of the new book Good Chemistry, The Science of Connection from Soul to Psychedelics. It's published by Harper Wave, and what a great writer she is and a terrific person who can speak about science. Thank you again, Dr. Holland.

Thank you so much, Ira. If you missed any part of the program, you'd like to hear it again. Subscribe to our podcast or ask your smart speaker to play Science Friday. Every day now is Science Friday. And of course you can say hi to us on social media, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or email us. The address is SciFri at ScienceFriday.com. Please send us feedback.

Tell us what you'd like us to cover. And this week on the Science Friday Vox Pop app, are you a healthcare worker feeling burnt out? Yes, we want to hear from you. Maybe you're dealing with a lot of COVID patients, seeing layoffs in your workplace. Whatever is going on. If you're a health care worker, tell us how you're feeling. That's on the Science Friday Vox Pop app wherever you get your apps.

Have a safe weekend. We'll see you next week. I'm Ira Flato.