Science Friday - Psychedelics Can Treat Depression, Climate Meeting, Dopesick Show. Nov 12 2021, Part 1

Episode Date: November 12, 2021

Psilocybin Effective In Treating Serious Depression Depression is often treatable with medication, therapy, or a combination of the two. But some 30% of patients don’t respond well to existing medications—and may try multiple antidepressant drugs with little or no improvement. This week, researchers reported that a new trial suggests psychedelics may be an effective therapy for treatment-resistant depression. A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial found that people with treatment-resistant depression who were given 25 milligrams of psilocybin, the psychedelic component of magic mushrooms, had a significant decrease in depressive symptoms. The treatment didn’t work for everyone, however, and more research needs to be done before the finding can move to clinical use. Sabrina Imber, a science fellow at the New York Times, joins Ira to talk about the trial and other stories from the week in science—including a new timeline for the planned Artemis missions to the moon, screaming bees, and a very wayward eagle. Activists And Vulnerable Nations At COP26 Seek More Than Promises There’s a big international climate summit wrapping up in Glasgow, Scotland this week. COP26 is the followup to 25 previous United Nations meetings about how the world must respond to the climate crisis—and its shortcomings in doing so. This year leaders had a big conversation to tackle: Countries needed to pledge to reduce emissions even further to prevent a global temperature rise of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. To do so, they needed to finish hashing out the details of how they will enforce the 2015 Paris Agreement’s provisions. Meanwhile, island nations and other vulnerable countries, who themselves don’t emit much carbon, have continued to lobby for payment for what’s called loss and damages. That’s the harm they’ve already encountered as seas rise, threatening to obliterate their existence. The first week kicked off with bold pledges about methane emissions, coal phaseouts, and ending deforestation. This week, former President Obama spoke about the need for urgent action, and called out large greenhouse gas polluters like Russia and China for not attending. And a grim United Nations report was released, forecasting that despite all the bold pledges, the world was on track to warm a dangerous 2.4 degrees Celsius. The team of Threshold, a podcast that tells stories about our changing environment, has been reporting on these updates from Glasgow, talking to attendees and occasionally witnessing negotiations. In today’s show, Ira talks to journalist Amy Martin, Threshold’s executive producer and host, about her opinion on the outcome of COP26—and if transformative change can still come out of this year’s meeting.   ”Dopesick” Takes On The Opioid Crisis The opioid epidemic has affected millions of people across the country—and more than 800,000 people are estimated to have died from an opioid overdose. At the root of this crisis is the painkiller Oxycontin, manufactured by Purdue Pharma. The company has made billions of dollars from the drug; but has also spent the better part of the last two decades fighting legal battles over its impacts, falsely arguing the drug is non-addictive and completely safe. Meanwhile, people from all walks of life, particularly in small towns across America, have been crippled by addiction to Oxycontin. The limited series “Dopesick” traces the story of the opioid epidemic, from the creation of the Oxycontin pill to a landmark legal battle where Purdue Pharma admitted it misbranded the drug as being less addictive than other prescription opioids. “Dopesick” follows a wide range of characters, from Purdue Pharma executives and federal prosecutors, to an Appalachian doctor and his pain-addled patients. Joining Ira to talk about bringing the show and its people to life is Danny Strong, creator and writer of “Dopesick,” joining from New York, New York. 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 Irafledo. Later in the hour, a close look at the COP26 climate summit going on in Scotland, and a talk with the creator of the show, Dope Sick. But first, depression is often treatable with medication, therapy, or a combination of the two. But some 30% of patients don't respond well to existing medications, and may try multiple antidepressant drugs with little or no improvement. This week, research has reported that a new trial suggests that psychedelics are a highly effective therapy for treatment-resistant depression. Here to talk about that and other headlines from the week in science is Sabrina Imbler, a science fellow at the New York Times. Welcome back to Science Friday, Sabrina. Hi, Ira. Thanks for having me back. You're quite welcome. Let's start right there. Tell us about this trial, what they were looking at, what they found.

Yes, so Olivia Goldhill has the story with stat news, and the results have just come out from the largest ever study of psilocybin, which is essentially the psychedelic component of magic mushrooms. And this trial was randomized, controlled, and double-blind. And it showed that people who have treatment-resistant depression who were given 25 milligrams of psilocybin had a significant decrease in depressive symptoms compared to people who were given a placebo in the trial. And, you know, the trial's results still have not yet been peer-reviewed, so the data still needs to be examined in more detail. But scientists say it's super promising. that's a really significant number of 30%.

Yeah, so 30% of patients who were given the highest dose in the study, which is 25 milligrams, they were in remission three weeks after treatment compared to just 7.6% in the control group. Wow. So I know not too long ago there was research into using ketamine to treat depression. How does it fit in with that? So the effects of psilocybin at three weeks after this single dose of treatment seem on par with the effects of ketamine at one day. So this suggests the benefits of psilocybin can hold up well over time. That is good news. Let's move on to other good news and some bad news in the world of spaceflight. First, Wednesday, there was a successful launch of astronauts en route to the space station, but also a revised timeline for a planned trip to the moon, pushing it back a bit. Tell us about that.

NASA is pushing back its deadline for returning U.S. astronauts to the moon by at least, a year. NASA leaders in a press conference, they cited a number of delays, including issues over a contract. They said that the timeline set by the Trump administration was too aggressive. They also cited funding and some technical delays. So the original timeline, which planned for a 2024 landing, you know, NASA is now aiming for some time in 2025. And the lunar program, which is called Artemis, will have its first launch in 2022 when NASA will use the Orion capsule and launch the to launch an uncrewed flight test. The second mission will happen in 2024

as a crew loops around the moon and then finally as Artemis 3, which is the crude lunar landing mission. You know, this is all such a deja vu for those of us old enough to remember the 60s, all these progressions of spaceflight, but everybody else is going to be able to live through that again. First you test it out with the uncrew

and then you send people around the moon. Yeah, maybe it feels less special for people who saw it the first time around. Never, never, no, it was special then. It will be extra special now. Let's move on to some other good human space flight news, and it's a bit, shall I say, spicy. It is spicy.

So things got heated at the International Space Station recently when astronauts feasted on their first space-grown crop of chili peppers. I see what you did there. That was good. Thank you. I tried to match the spicy. Daniel Victor at the New York Times reports that, you know, NASA planted 48 pepper seeds on Earth and then send them up.

to space on a cargo resupply mission. And then at the International Space Station, astronauts watered and pollinated the flowers in July and recently had their first harvest of seven mature peppers. And the chili is part of a larger effort to offer astronauts a more gourmet experience in space, which is not traditionally known for its cuisine. Yeah, because I know salsa is like the top condiment

now in the U.S. or close to it. So I guess you want to bring chilies into space. and I'm wondering how hard it is to grow peppers in space. Do you need a special space pepper to do this? Well, it's very hard to grow any kind of food in space. You know, you don't have gravity and you also don't have natural light. So you need to grow food in a special chamber. But the peppers proved a particular challenge

because they take a long time to germinate and a long time to grow. But you don't actually need a special space pepper. But the astronauts did choose very carefully. They spent two years picking the perfect pepper. This is a tongue chister. You qualify for announcing them right there. From around two dozen options. And the chili that they settled on hails from Hatch, New Mexico.

It has a rating of 2,000 to 4,000 Scoville heat units, which apparently makes it about as spicy as Tabasco sauce. So is it a pepper that we can grow ourselves since we could grow it along with the astronauts? We could definitely grow it ourselves. But I think similar to Champaign, if you grow it outside of Hatch New Mexico,

it's not known as a hatch chili pepper. It's just a green chili pepper. I get the politics of that. Thank you for pointing that out. And they taste the astronauts like the taste? Yes, one astronaut, Megan MacArthur, she ate them on tacos. She had a fajita beef taco with rehydrated tomatoes, artichokes, and these newly grown space peppers. And, you know, she called it her best space taco yet, but I don't really know, you know, what the competition looks like in that area.

And yes, I'm sure there will be some. Let's talk about Closer to Home. You wrote a story this week about screaming bees. Wow, tell us about that. So scientists have described a new acoustic signal that Asian honeybees deploy when their hives are being threatened by giant hornets. And these hornets are fearsome, brutal predators that hunt in packs. And, you know, once they approach an Asian honeybee hive, they can eliminate the hive of the workers and its brood in a matter of hours.

And the smaller, weaker honeybees are left somewhat defenseless. Yeah, because they can really decimate a hive, can't they? Yes. And so how do they make this noise? So the Asian honeybees make this scream-like noise, not with their mouths, but with their bodies. They lift their abdomen up. They vibrate their wings, and then they just run around.

It's very chaotic. But the result is a noise that sounds a lot like a scream or a shriek. extremely loud and unpredictable. And the scientists called a signal an anti-preditor pipe. Probably chaotic to us, but not to the bees, right? They probably know what's going on. Yeah, I guess they're highly organized in comparison to us. The researchers first collected these recordings when they were studying the honeybees practice of smearing feces outside the hives. But one of them just, you know, recognize that whenever she'd pass by a hive that was under attack by these hornets,

she would hear this very alarming cry, which is how, you know, it was somewhat of an accidental discovery of this scream. And they collected nearly 30 hours of bee noise. And, you know, over the pandemic, we're just listening and listening, trying to figure out what exactly was happening. And, you know, the discovery came to one researcher at like 2.30 a.m. after a sleepless night of just listening to this horrible screaming bee noise. when she finally was able to identify, you know, this new sound that bees are able to make.

That's a fantastic discovery. So is this just a warning cry? I mean, what can they do to defend the hive if there are these hornets around? So the scientists don't know the precise function of this bee scream yet, but the fact that the bees only scream as the hornets draw close to the hive does suggest that the antipreditor pipe might function as a warning cry or a defensive signal. And the bees do have a few other defenses against the hornets. They do smear feces that they collect from other animals on the edges of the entrance of their hives, which appears to ward off the hornets. And they can also surround the hornets in a bee ball, which is basically one hornet surrounded by a bunch of bees.

And they suffocate and overheat the hornet with the vibration of their wings until the hornet dies. So collective action. Well, they know how to make heat because during the winter they keep their hives at over 90 degrees. while it's freezing outside, so they know how to do that. Oh, that's balmy. And let's talk about other nature news. There's new research explaining something that I have always wondered about, and that is why pearls are round.

And I know they're roundness. Makes them very valuable. Very valuable. Yeah, so when you think of a pearl, you think of a perfectly spherical gem. But pearls form when a piece of sand or debris gets trapped inside a mollusk, like an oyster or a muscle, and the mollusk forms a pearl by building layers and layers of an iridescent substance called Nacre over the grit. But for a long time, scientists did not know how an irregular grain of sand could lead to such consistently spherical pearls. But as Rachel

Crowell reports for science news, scientists have discovered that oysters actually have a complex mathematical process to produce the perfect pearl. And as oysters build these layers of Naker, they correct growth aberrations as the pearl forms, and they can modulate the thickness of the layers to prevent a lopsided pearl. And if a defect arises, the Naker can self-heal with just a few layers to become perfect once again. And finally, there's an eagle that's just a bit off course, I understand. Yes. So as Marianne Rennon reports for the New York Times, some very confused bird watchers have had their minds boggled after spotting a stellar sea eagle, which which is known to live around Asia and Russia,

and in eastern Canada, which is around 4,700 miles from home. The bird was first spotted in Alaska in August and has since flown to Nova Scotia. And no stellar sea eagle has been known to appear near the Atlantic Ocean before. And the bird is hard to miss. You know, it's an eagle with a Cheeto-orange beak,

a six-to-eight-eight-foot wingspan, and this particular eagle has a very distinctive white spot on its left wing. So this is one eagle that's really way off course. I mean, it shouldn't be there. Very. Never been spotted before, but people are seeing it over and over again. Yes, and it's very easy to spot because of its own spot.

Somebody get that eagle a GPS. Yeah, you know, one birder said it would be like an elephant walking up out of Africa and into Scandinavia. So this must be driving the birdwatching community bananas a bit. Yes, so bird watchers all across where the eagle has been spotted have been driving sometimes hours to go see this. eagle, you know, once someone reports it, they are describing it like an avian soap opera. They really don't know where this eagle is going to go next. You know, it could migrate along with native bald eagles down the coastline. It could wander its way back to its home in northeastern Asia. It could just live forever in Nova Scotia. They really don't know what this eagle is going to do, but they're all

waiting with faded breath. This could give a whole different meaning to the phrase, the eagle has landed. That's true. Thank you, Sabrina, for talking with us today. Thank you so much for having me. Sabrina Imbler, Science Fellow at the New York Times. We're going to take a break, and when we come back, it's the biggest international gathering for climate change since the last one. But what's going to come out of the last two weeks of negotiations and diplomacy?

We report from the COP 26 in Glasgow. Stay with us. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. If you've been paying any attention this week, you know there is a big international climate summit wrapping up in Glasgow, Scotland, this week. COP 26 is the follow-up to 2019's COP-25 meeting and 24 previous UN meetings about how the world is and must continue to respond to the climate crisis. And this year was supposed to be a big one. Countries needed to pledge to reduce even more of their emissions and finish the details of how they're,

would enforce the Paris Agreement's provisions. Meanwhile, island nations and other vulnerable countries continue to lobby for payment for what's called loss and damages. That's the harm they have already encountered as seas rise and threatened to obliterate their existence. The first week kicked off with bold pledges about methane emissions, coal, phaseouts, and ending deforestation. This week, former President Obama spoke about the need for urgent action and called out large greenhouse gas polluters like Russia and China for not attending. But what else has been happening in these halls of power and can transformative change come out of this year's meeting? One group that has been on the ground in Glasgow talking to attendees, our friends on the team of Threshold,

a podcast that tells stories about our changing environment. Here with more is Amy Martin, the executive producer and host. She joins me from Glasgow. Welcome back, Amy. Thanks, Ira. Good to be here. Nice to have you. Okay, so we know there's a huge crowd for this meeting, something like 40,000 people. What is this cop trying to achieve in a nutshell? I think the simplest way to think about the purpose of this cop in the broadest terms is that if the Paris Agreement set the vision for what the world is going to do around climate change, this cop is supposed to be about how to implement that vision. And as anyone knows who's ever had a vision, the devil is in the detail. As hard as it was to come to agreement on that vision, it's actually probably much harder to figure out how to make the goals of the Paris Agreement real, how to hold countries accountable for their mitigation efforts, who's going to pay for what, how much do they pay and when.

All those kinds of where the rubber meets the road kind of questions are what people are struggling over at this cop. Tell us what the vibe in the place is like. What does it actually feel to be at this event? It feels kind of manic. My current working visual is ants in suits. It's like entering an ant hill with everyone just running, crisscrossing in different directions. Everyone looks like they have an important purpose and everyone is dressed in business clothes. You kind of enter this space that feels like a giant airport terminal. You get completely detached from anything that's going on in the outside world. It's intense, honestly. You can feel the urgency that everyone has here. They're not a lot of smiles and laughter. It's like a lot of serious looks people talking on cell phones as they walk busily by to this meeting or that. Yeah, I'll bet. I heard that some of your team made it into some negotiating rooms. Maybe without clearance, is that right? Yeah, you know, if you just kind of show up and walk in, sometimes you can see things that people. You own the place. So what did you see? What did you learn when you got into those

meetings. Well, you know, what's really fascinating about it, this is going to sound paradoxical, is how boring it is, because it's sort of like, if you've ever been to a school board meeting or a city council meeting and you're entering an issue midstream, and there's all kinds of arcane language about a very specific detail of something, and yet you can tell that the people who actually are inside that language and can decode it. There are like these high stakes questions that are coming down to things like, I would like in paragraph 2A for the word to be shall and somebody else wants it to be will and somebody else wants it to be might. And, you know, these are the kinds of things that get tussled over in these negotiating rooms that end up having these real world impacts

on how countries are required to, you know, like report their emissions or provide funding to one another. I've never been in any room quite like it, to be honest. That's really interesting. I know you just alluded to loss and damage a bit. Can you explain for us in more detail what that exactly is? Yeah, loss and damage, I think, is really going to be one of the headlines that comes out of this cop as well. And it's something that people in the developing world have been talking about for a long time, but people in the wealthier countries may not be aware of. There's actually no officially formal agreed upon definition of loss and damage yet, which is something that the people who are advocating for loss and damage are pushing for, the easiest way to understand it is in comparison

with two other terms, mitigation and adaptations. So mitigation is trying to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that we're releasing into the atmosphere. Adaptation is all the stuff people are doing to try to adapt to a warming world. It could be putting solar panels on your roof or strengthening the infrastructure of your city so it can handle higher-powered storms. But Chavon McDonald is, is one of the lead negotiators for the island of Fiji. And she really wanted to make the point that not all aspects of climate change can be adapted to. Some things will just be lost. Loss and damage is about describing how sometimes you need to go beyond adaptation,

that there are impacts that countries and states and people can no longer adapt to. We are talking about relocation and resettlement of atoll islands. There are no measures of adaptation, no amount of seawalls, no amount of mangrove plantations. So this is really the heart of climate justice. This is the global south saying to carbon emitting countries, we emit almost no carbon for the most part, particularly the Pacific, And yet we bear the brunt of these impacts through cyclones, through sea level rise, through changing weather patterns, two category five cyclones in the last five years, as well as a drought. And Chavon also really wanted to make the point that some of the things that are going to be lost because of climate change aren't just physical structures like buildings and roads, but entire islands may be lost, as well as less tangible things like communities, languages.

cultures. We've been hearing a lot about the $100 billion promise by wealthier countries to the developed world. Is that about loss and damage? That $100 billion is supposed to be about adaptation and mitigation, the two other categories I just defined a minute ago. Money for loss and damage has never been included in any of the agreements and any of the conference of the parties talks, the cop talks so far. And that's what the people who are advocating for loss and damage are really pushing for at this cop, that it's time to start recognizing that loss and damage is real and it's happening. Dr. Salim al-Hook is another person I've talked to about this.

He's the director of the International Center for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh. And he says the crucial thing to understand about loss and damage is that loss and damage is about countries who have contributed the most of the problem taking responsibility for their impact. This is a convention to tackle pollution by emissions of greenhouse gases, which come from burning fossil fuel, and have a very long history. So it's a polluter pay principle here, not charity, not rich countries, helping poor countries. It's polluters paying the victims of their pollution. That's what the money is for.

That's what they promise to give and they're refusing to give. When Salim says they're refusing to give, who is the they, who are the players, in this debate? I'm learning that here within the cop process, there's this interesting dynamic that no country stands up and says directly, we're opposed to providing compensation for loss and damage. That just doesn't happen. The whole process plays out in this diplomatic language where intentions aren't made plain. And usually the groups who are opposed to something, you know, they kind of dance around a topic. They try to slow down the decision-making process or block action. That being, said, everyone says, I can't really say for sure, but actually we all kind of know it's the wealthy

countries and the blocks, the U.S., the EU, Japan, Australia, who are resisting action on loss and damage because those are the countries that have caused the bulk of carbon emissions. Salim says this resistance to action is kind of a new form of climate denial, not denying the science anymore, but just denial of the fact that the developing world has been bearing huge costs from climate change for many years. And he feels like leaders of the developing countries know this, but they just want to pretend that's not happening. The question here in the cop is, are they going to recognize that reality? Are they going to do something about it? We hope they will. When I say we, I'm talking on behalf of the vulnerable countries who are here, we haven't got

very far with them yet. So let's see. Very interesting to hear that from his perspective. What's happening at the conference? Is Saleem feeling like there's any progress being made because I know I've been to a lot of U-N conferences and other places. You go on, like you say, talking, talking, but does he get the feeling there is any progress? I would say his level of optimism is varying day by day, meeting by meeting. I would say overall, though, Salim and other people I've spoken with, say the process here inside the conference, although there may be some incremental progress made, it just doesn't match the reality of how much loss and damage is actually occurring right now.

The problem of loss and damage has burst out of the negotiations. It's happening in the real world. And the negotiators are not dealing with it at the level of importance that it requires. They're dealing with it in a small technical discussion. It's simply not enough. And I know there have been protests outside this event since it started. Youth activists including Greta Thunberg, Ugandan activist Vanessa Nakate,

are petitioning the UN legally for an emergency declaration on climate change. Those protesting seem to feel that not enough is being done inside the event where the power is, correct? Very much so. Yeah, the whole threshold team was out with the protesters pretty much for two days straight. The energy is intense. You know, there are strong youth activists out there, but really it was very multi-generational, you know, grandparents to very little. little kids with one pretty clear message, like do more, do it faster. One of the people I talked with was a woman named Shannon. She's in her early 20s. And I asked her what she thought was happening inside the Blue Zone where all the UN delegates are. And she said she thought it was just

a fancy meeting. We have conferences like this every so often. And we have parliaments. We have politicians. But they don't do what they're voted in to do. They're full of promises and they don't do it. So leadership comes from the people on the ground. So I think, think you're not going to see real change until you bring that inside, stuff like that. So what do the protesters really want? What will they feel satisfied with? They know they're not going to get everything, but what's their bottom line? You know, that is an excellent question in part because I think it points to the way that these two groups of people who are here in Glasgow to try to work on climate change are disconnected from each other. The protesters, I mean,

I think the things that they want are like big general statements like stop burning oil and gas and stop, you know, digging up more coal. And inside, it's all extremely specific and extremely technical. And it's almost like the worlds have diverged a little bit. And the bureaucracy and the incredibly detailed work that's happening inside here, I don't know if it would ever satisfy the protesters outside. In here, we're not talking about massive citizens. system change. We're talking about paragraph 4A and which words should go where, you know? And I think

that's a really, there's a tension there for sure. This is Science Friday from WNIC Studios. In case you're just joining us, we're talking about the COP 26 conference that's been going on in Glasgow all week. I think probably the protesters hear the clock ticking like we all do, right? They want the negotiations to go quickly, do it faster. I mean, is that message getting through? I think it is, but it's like they're working inside a machine that is not meant to go fast. And I think that there's a lot of stress and struggle around that. I should say there are people here in the negotiations who absolutely don't want it to go faster, who are working to slow things down.

Countries who would really prefer to keep burning coal like Australia or oil like Saudi Arabia, they find ways to gum up the works for sure. I think that one thing that's interesting that I'm learning from being up close is that there are a lot of passionate people on the inside who want it to go faster and do more and bigger just as much as the protesters outside do. We all share, a lot of people share this goal, but it's just really hard to actualize it, which is deeply frustrating. I talked to Adele Thomas about this. She's a lead author for the IPCC and a senior fellow of the climate change adaptation and resilience research center at the University of the Bahamas. She's also involved in the loss and damage issue. And she says that one thing that's really troubling for her is that she heard a lot of things from U.S. politicians

leading into this cop that made her think there might be significant progress this time, but that there is always this huge gap between words and action. The negotiators are just doing their jobs. So if it doesn't change from the top, then we're not going to see changing an individual negotiator's minds. The pressure needs to be.

be at the political level. We've seen the lip service, but now it needs to translate into policy and action. Incredible to hear that. Translating to policy and action, I guess it's hard to get meaningful action at these cops, as you say, because of the bureaucracy. Yeah, exactly. And at the same time, you know, that bureaucracy had to be created in order to try to have some sort of forum to deal with these things. You know, I think President Obama referenced this in his speech this week. week that it's actually really hard to get the whole world to do something together. And I was thinking, yeah, it's really hard to get a whole family to do something together, let alone, you know, all the countries in the world and to do so with urgency and with and with transformative, strong action.

It's a big ask. And yet it's the ask that's before us. We have to try to figure that out. So yeah, I also asked her, how can ordinary people put pressure on these negotiations or have any influence here at all. I think the pressure needs to be on the politicians to get them to actually reconcile what they're saying in these speeches with what they're telling their governments to do. Let me conclude with just a couple of news items to run past you. A new report from the UN earlier this week says we're on track for 2.6 degrees Celsius. And in his speech Monday, former President Obama pointed out that some of the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluters like Russia, like China, are absent from the meeting, and he scolded them for not attending. Now, that might feel

pretty dispiriting to people after all the buildup. So overall, how do you describe the value of this event, even if nothing big, no big changes come out of this meeting as it wraps up? I think it's a tough question, but my off-the-cuff answer is that we, don't have time to invent an entirely different process for solving the climate crisis. This process, as flawed and frustrating as it is, is what we've got. And it's certainly not the only thing we have. I mean, there are things happening in the business sector. There are things happening in education. But we do need some form for global collaboration here. And this is the one that we have built. And so it's like, how do we use this flawed tool to solve really

humanity's biggest problem. I am fascinated, troubled by this question, and I'm going to be exploring it further on our show, for sure. Amy Martin is the executive producer and host of Threshold, a podcast that tells stories about our changing environment. She joined us from Glasgow, Scotland. Safe travels, Amy, on your way home. Thank you so much. We have to take a break on when we come back. We'll take a look at the show Dope Sick, which chronicles the mess Purdue Farmer-created with the OxyContin pill. Stay with us. We'll be right back after this break. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. The opioid epidemic has affected millions of people across the country. It's estimated more than 800,000 have died from opioid overdoses. The drug Oxycontin is at the root of this crisis.

Purdue Pharma, the company behind it, made billions from the drug. But it has also spent the better part of the last two decades, fighting legal battles and falsely arguing the drug is non-addictive and completely safe. All the while, people from all walks of life were being crippled by addiction to Oxycontin, particularly in small town America. The new limited series Dope Sick traces the story of the opioid epidemic, and it follows a wide range of characters, from Purdue Pharma executives and federal investigators to a rural doctor and his opioid-addicted patients. These people, my people, trusted me.

I can't believe how many of them are good now. The eight episode series is airy now on Hulu. Joining me today is Danny Strong, creator and writer and showrunner, as they say, of Dobsick. He's joining us from New York. Welcome to Science Friday. Thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it.

You're quite welcome. I know that the show is based on a book by journalist Beth Macy called Doep Sick Dealers, Doctors and the Drug Company that Adel de America, how much did you pull from the book for making the show and how closely did you work with Beth? So I love Beth Macy. She is a really wonderful person, incredible journalist, and wrote just a fantastic book. So she was very involved. She was in the writer's room full time. She was a great member of the team. However, the goal of the project wasn't to be truthful to the book Dopesick. I would say that the show, it's sourced from a number of different.

books, but the heart of the addiction stories, particularly the small town, Finch Creek, her book really kind of captured that energy and that story and that tragedy in a really profound, detailed way. So there's certainly the inspiration of what her book set out to do is very much in the portrayal of Finch Creek and our characters that become addicted. You know, I was way into the TV show Dope Sick before I got to understand what the name Dopesick means. Yeah, yeah. Can you explain what it means? Sure.

I mean, it's a great title to her book. So someone who has opioid use disorder who is addicted to opioids, they feel a tremendous amount of pain when they are in need of their next fix. And that pain, that withdrawal pain or the fear of that withdrawal pain that you know it's coming, which can be so overwhelming, is called being dope sick. And so that's where that term comes from. And at the center of the story, of course, is Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family. This legal saga has been going on for decades. So when did you first become interested in telling the story? And what was your motivation for that? Well, it was a producer, John Goldwyn, came to me. And it was after the New Yorker article written by Patrick Raiden-Keefe, that basically sort of exploded

the story of the Sackler family's involvement with the opioid crisis. The opioid crisis had certainly become famous at that point. But the Sackler family and the fact that they micromanaged Purdue Pharma that pled guilty to misbranding the drug and promoted and sold the drug is practically non-addictive when that was very clearly not the case, they themselves, hadn't really become so well known as the family behind OxyContin. So that story really blew it up. It created a lot of interest in that. So that's when I started researching it.

And I called the Purdue Farmer Rabbit Hole that once you start reading about it in depth, you're so stunned by what they did. The fact that this national health crisis didn't just organically happen. It's not COVID-19, right, where a pandemic starts and spreads and some type of, of, you know, active science or nature, right? It was manipulated, planned out, and executed in the most devious, deceptive manner, so devious and deceptive, that they pled guilty to a federal crime for that very deception in 2007. And then they would go on to ignore elements of that guilty plea, basically the oversight, and continue the exact same practices. There's such a villainy to it. It's

shocking how villainous it is. Well, you know, that's one of the things you learn from watching the series is many times you think, well, when somebody fictionalizes the facts, they have to sensationalize it. But the facts are so terrifying. You didn't really have to do much of that. No, no. The facts that we lay out in the show, and basically each episode is kind of centered around a different crime, a different deception or manipulation by Purdue. And what we cover in each episode, it's basically Purdue Pharma 101. It's literally the simple facts of, okay, so this was a lie. They made this claim, and that claim was a lie because of this. It's not even hyperbolic. It's sort of the bare minimum of what they said, and then we show you why that is

completely untrue or manipulative or deceptive. And then we intercut it with the people that are suffering because of this deception, which I think is part of the power of the show. You know, the main character in the show, one of the main characters is a doctor who prescribes OxyContin to his patients, played by Michael Keaton, a young coal miner who gets addicted to the drug, played by Kate Lindiever, a Purdue Pharma salesman, played by Will Poulter. How much are these characters based on real people? So they're all three of them are composite characters. They're all based on just many different anecdotes. In the case of Michael Keaton's character, Dr. Finnex,

it's really inspired by three different doctors that I had read about. One of them I'd interviewed. However, the more you read and the more you go down, the rabbit hole that I discussed, there are so many doctors that go on the journey that his character ends up going on in the show.

And then the other two characters, too, are based on just many different anecdotes. I interviewed multiple former produce sales reps. And in Caitlin's character, I mean, there are just endless stories of the journey of addiction. And there's a lot of similarities to these stories. A lot of sort of the same kind of events happen to people, particularly in Appalachia, not just during that time, but over the next two decades. And I thought by creating a composite character, I could get in way more anecdotes,

way more true stories as opposed if I was confined to just the facts of one person's life. So that was the reason why I thought that that could be not only more powerful as a composite character but weirdly more truthful because I could get more true stories into the journey. I noticed that

stylistically there's a lot of time jumping in the show from when Oxycontin was created to legal battles in 2000. You go back and forth in history. Why did you decide to tell the story this way instead of a linear fashion? Well, because if I had told the screen a linear fashion, there would have been no TV show. The investigation,

which began in 2002, wouldn't have showed up until episode seven, right? So that means Peter Sarsgaard's character and the U.S. Attorney John Brownlee and Randy Ramseyer, they would have just showed up in literally the last two episodes, maybe the last three episodes. So it would have been a completely different show that I don't think would have had the dramatic tension the show has. You know, right now we're intercutting these two active investigative. that took place in different time periods with the crimes and the victims that happen in a different time period and the sort of interweaving back and forth, I thought, A, I kind of don't really have a choice because it's the only way this will work, but it could be quite powerful, I think, that

in which a time cut into a different time period could have its own emotional energy to it. And quite frankly, I've seen many shows and documentaries that have been doing this sort of back and forth over the last five years. So I didn't think the audience would have a problem. I guess that's why you decided to focus on the early part of the crisis instead of what's happening more recently because you would have to jump around and lose a whole bunch of stuff there. Well, to be honest with you, the origin story of the drug and the crimes that were committed to market and sell it and distribute it, that's what I was interested in. To me, that's the story, right? Is how did this company that was micromanaged by one family, how did they do

this. And I thought that the country needs to know exactly how they did it. And it's, it's incredibly disturbing and quite fascinating. So that was very much one of the main goals when I set out to begin this in the first place. And that is very much of the story. Is it not? It's all in the family, so to speak, isn't it? Well, for years, the Sackler family would claim they were passive participants in Purdue Pharma, that they were just on the board and that other people were running the company. And then sure enough, all their emails started coming out. Internal documents started coming out in discovery from all of the litigation. And that turned out to be yet another lie.

They weren't passive participants. They were the participants. They micro-managed this company and everyone that worked under them were, yeah, I don't know, second-class citizens is too hard a phrase for it. But they were clearly employees to the very small group of people running it. And in the case of Oxycontinent, really was Richard Sackler, who was the godfather, the quarterback, the general, whatever, whatever, you know, title you want to use. He was the one who was the driving force behind this drug. And that's just come out in all of discovery of their internal documents.

And you make the point, and you show it very clearly how much greed, Sackler greed was at the center of this to just grow this company without regard for the people it was hurting. Yeah, I mean, it's the greed is so overwhelming that for me, I very much wanted to to really try to explore what else was going on. Because Richard Sackler grew up wealthy. They were a rich family before OxyContin ever existed from this pharmaceutical company and from these other, you know, key investments that involved the pharmaceutical industry. So what is it? What is what is driving this person? Is it literally just because he knows. needs more money? What is it? I think that the greed element is stronger on some of the cousins that didn't actually work at the company that just wanted and on that, you know, there's A shares and B shares. They were divided up into factions with the Mortimer side being the A shares and the Raymond's side being the B shares. So you definitely have this very kind of dilettante piggy, piggy,

piggy, piggy, piggy side. But in Richard's case, he actually did the work. So what is what else is happening with him. And that's one of the things we explore throughout the season. In September, there was a big news story that the Sackler family was granted a bankruptcy settlement, which makes the family immune to future lawsuits. What was it like to see this news come in as you're preparing to release your show? Yeah, you know, the news on this family and on this company and this drug, it never stopped coming in. Beth Macy and I, we basically had an active investigation through the entire writing process and the entire production process. We were constantly doing interviews either together with sources or separately and then coming

back to each other with what we got. People were leaking us documents. They were leaking us emails. I would change scenes sometimes the day before I shot them because new information would come up at the last second. And in the case of the bankruptcy, it was occurring many years after when the show ends. The show ends basically in 2007, but I do this sort of archival kind of catch-up at the end, and I didn't know what that was going to be. The bankruptcy is very disturbing for many, many reasons, but specifically because they're going to have just as much money or if not more money once they've paid off the $4.5 billion because they can pay it off over a 10-year period. So the yearly payments are less than the amount they'd be making an interest

on their principle. And so it's once again, like, they just get away with it and they always get away with it. And I know that activists are really starting to push for criminal investigation into certain members of the Sackler family. I think there's a feeling that's enough is enough. Why hasn't any of them been charged? Why haven't they've had active investigations into them specifically at this point? Even the Attorney General of Massachusetts said that she has seen the evidence and that there is enough evidence to charge some of them. And that's also fired the activists up as well, that recent statement. This is Science Friday from WNYC Studios. Talking with Danny Strong, creator and writer of Doapsic. He's joining us from New York. Did you find that as you got into

the story and watched the news around it, that you took this personally? I mean, did this become a personal crusade of yours to look for justice for all the people who are of affected? Well, I took it personally when I first read about it back in 2018. It just, because I don't have addiction issues in my background, and I'm very fortunate for that. I'm very fortunate that I don't have any family members or close friends that I've lost to addiction. You know, it wasn't, it wasn't personal in that it had happened to me. It was personal in that it offended and enraged every ounce of my soul. I could not believe what they had done. And when I first started in on this in 2018, they had basically been exposed in the United States. Oxycontin prescribing had gone way down in this

country. So what they were doing, according to the New Yorker article, was that they were using the same techniques that they had used here in other countries. And I just thought, wow, that is just the personification of evil that, you know, no matter how much damage. and destruction they've caused here in the United States. They don't care. And they're moving on to do the exact same thing to other countries. And I thought, I need to do this show as a warning to the rest of the world that Purdue Pharma is coming to addict you. They are coming to poison you and lie to you. And that was a big motivation for me in the early stages of this. Have you thought about another second season of Dobsick? Is there more you want to tell about the story?

I think that you could for sure. I mean, the show, like I said, ends in 2007. Sadly, the malfeasance and the criminal behavior and the villainy, it continued on. In fact, it continued on to such a profound extent that in 2020, Purdue Pharma had to plead guilty to two more felonies. And instead of $600 million in fines, it became $8.5 billion in fines. It's literally, I mean, this company is at its core, a criminal enterprise. People have referred to it as the mafia, and I think that is very accurate. There are definitely a lot more stories post when our show ends. But I'm not sure.

I think it's we're right now. We're just seeing how we do and just getting through this phase of launching season one. And the goal never was to have a season two. It was designed as a limited series. Well, it's a great show, Danny. It's a great show, and I enjoy enjoying watching it. Thank you for taking time to be with us and for the work that you're doing with the program. Oh, I really appreciate it.

I really appreciate you covering it and putting a spotlight on it. So thank you, and thank you for everything you do on your program. I think it's terrific. Thank you. Danny Strong, creator, writer, and showowner of Doep Sick. He's joining us from New York, and you can watch Doep Sick. Highly recommend it on Hulu. And that's about it for this hour.

Here's Nahima Ahmed with some of the folks that made these. show possible. Thanks, Ira. Zana Montano is our outreach manager. Jennifer Fenwick is our director of institutional giving. Ariel Zich is our education director. Beth Rami is our controller. And I'm Naheim Ahmed, manager of Impact Strategy. Thanks for listening. Thanks, Nehima. B.J. Leiterman composed our theme music. And on the SciFri Vox Pop app, we're going to be speaking to Ralph Nader about the 55th anniversary of his groundbreaking book, unsafe at any speed. And that book sparked major change. And that book sparked major change for auto safety here in the U.S. Do you have questions for Ralph Nader about consumer safety in our new age of technology?

Let us know, and you can do that on the SciFri Vox Pop app wherever you get your apps. Have a great weekend. I'm I Refledo.