2
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Thursday, December.7, 1967
LSD 'experts' wrong
By Edward I. Shaw Professor of Radiation Biophysics
A short time ago students in one of my classes brought to my attention a news article printed in the University Daily Kansan on Friday, Nov. 19, 1967. The article quotes Dr. Kenneth Godfrey, reported to be the psychiatrist in charge of LSD research at Tepeka Veteran's Hospital, as having said "LSD is not physically dangerous. It's one of the safest drugs known. . . ." It also stated that a Saturday Evening Post article
faculty forum
which claimed that LSD caused breakage of chromosomes within reproductive cells, that in turn resulted in deformed babies was "Garbage . . ." and had no basis in fact, according to Godfrey. These statements, if true, are misleading and irresponsible when they are spoken publicly by a professional man taken by the public to be an informed authority on the subject. Such dextratic statements are incredible to anyone who has read the recent scientific literature upon the subject. The statements indicate either ignorance of the current literature or an unwarranted rejection of scientifically proven facts. I am not an expert on the current investigations of the effects of LSD, but their effects on chromosomes and the development of embryos is closely related to my area of professional training and research; the effects of radiation on the breakage of chromosomes and the killing of cells.
Since March 17, 1967, there have appeared in the periodical "Science," which I have selected because I personally subscribe to it and read it regularly, no less than five reports on the detrimental effects of LSD. Two articles reported the appearance of chromosome abnormalities in white blood cells (which can be induced to undergo cell division in tissue culture so that the chromosomes can be examined) either treated with LSD or in cells removed from LSD users. In one study (Science, Vol. 155, pages 1417-1419, March 17, 1967), the investigators found that the culture of white blood cells within concentrations as low as 0.001 micrograms per milliliter of solution resulted in a frequency of chromosome aberrations about 5 times above the spontaneous frequency.
A similar increase in chromosomal damage was observed in a patient treated for four years with LSD in amounts ranging from 80 micrograms up to 175 micrograms for the first six treatments and 200 up for the last nine treatments. The average man weight 70 kilograms. A treatment of 200 micrograms per 60 kilograms is almost three micrograms per kilograms of body weight. The concentration of 0.001 microgram per ml of culture medium is equal to one microgram per kilogram of culture or about 1/3 of the concentrations in the patient.
Another recent article (Science, Vol. 157, pages 313, 314, July 21, 1967) surveyed the frequency of chromosome abnormalities in LSD users and in non-users. Six out of eight LSD-25 users had a significant increase in chromosome abnormalities averaging over 25 per cent abnormal cells.
Of what significance are these effects that can be observed in tissue cultured blood cells? Similar damage will occurs in all body cells that are capable of cell division including the reproductive cells. In a developing embryo most of the cells undergo cell division. Three of the articles in "Science" (Vol. 157, pages 459-463, July 28; Vol. 157, pages 1325-1326, Sept. 15, and Vol. 158, pages 265-267, Oct. 13) report that LSD and related drugs produce "a 57 per cent incidence of grossly abnormal embryos" when injected during early pregnancy into mice and similar effects in rats and hamsters. Recently a news report appeared locally that a physician in a neighboring state attributed the birth of an abnormally developed child to the use of LSD by the mother during pregnancy. The cells of the child were observed to have abnormal chromosomes.
The use of LSD can cause birth defects through production of abnormal chromosomes, when used at times other than during pregnancy. It has long been known from radiation studies that abnormal chromosomes in the reproductive cells will produce: (1) grossly abnormal progeny, (2) an increase in the rate of stillbirths, and (3) an increased rate of early mortality soon after birth. The potential damage that LSD can produce in the genetic material of the reproductive cells may not jeopardize the physical health of the individual who uses LSD; it just destroys his future.
Letters to the Editor
McCollum not hot
To the Editor:
The shocking front page covering of the lurid activities going on at McCollum suggests that someone could make a great deal of money taking home movies to be sold for considerable profit, as "adult-only" material, to one of the so-called "art theaters" in nearby areas. Doubtless the audience drawn by this would greatly limit the number of "embarrassed" witnesses suffering in the midst of such "undue physical contact" allegedly occurring in their dormitory. It might even compete with the crowds surrounding city blocks in anticipation of the next James Bond "thriller."
A visitor to McCollum Hall might also observe that residents appear to be so involved in their ritual bridge-games, t.v. viewing and face-feeding that they could seldom afford a glance aside to notice what their fellows are doing. Eesides, graphical illustrations are not necessary to explain that what "gees on" at Mc-
Carolyn Cogswell Topeka senior
As for the "crack-down" policy, the question arises as to exactly "down" upon what are they going to "crack?" Two nights ago several harried male residents were seen en masse, pointing out and otherwise harrassing mixed couples expressing vague and unspecific degrees of "PDA" (a rather vague and unspecific term itself). One of these "men" was noticed earlier parading with both his arms respectively around two girls—all appearing to be enjoying themselves immensely. It is upsetting that those who are not upset by the type of superficial roof-raising prevalent on campus, in dormitories and in local taverns, would take offense at the occurrence of two people evidencing, within reasonable bounds, of course, that they like or (pardon the expression) love one another.
Collum is not the torrid display of brazen shamelessness that yesterday's article implies.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY kansan
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates $6 a semester $10 a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence Kan 66044 Business services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color or national origin. Quotients expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents
President Johnson:
...quotes..
"The best way to rid the nation of draft demonstrations is to induct all those recalcitrant young men into the armed services."
"Another Thing, Dopey----We Don't Like Paying Full Rates For The Propaganda Mail We Dump On You"
Letters to the Editor
Dossiers attacked
To the Editor:
I have had two experiences which indicate that the dean of men and the dean of women, have, at least in the past, kept dossiers on the personal lives of students. In one case the father of a friend of mine went to see the dean of men when his son was ill. The dean of men at this time discussed the boy's folder with his father. The father afterwards told me he was amazed at the amount of personal "information" in the folder. This information consisted of various dorm counselors' detailed opinions of the boy's study habits, dating habits, mental health and emotional health. In the other case the sister of a friend of mine was herself a dorm counselor. Evidently dorm counselors were allowed to read their
own folders when they graduated. My friend told me that her sister and many other counselors were very depressed when they got a chance to read the often critical evaluations which their own counselors and others had made of them.
I feel uneasy about the university having a dossier about me which I cannot see. The evaluations in it may be inaccurate or unfair but I don't know because I cannot confront them. Also, how can I be assured that the dean of women will give me the same "interpretation" of my dossier that she will give my prospective employers? All in all, such secretive activities seem a strange function for university officials.
Cheryl Butcher
Lawrence graduate student
Kansan drama review
'Hedda Gabler' fails Ibsen
"Hedda Gabler" is probably Ibsen's greatest play. The character Hedda Gabler is without doubt the most complex, brilliant character that Ibsen created. The University Theatre's production fails to come up to this double challenge.
The play is about a woman caught in a tangle of insoluble character dilemmas. Society demands that she be a wife, yet she cannot accept the responsibilities or the loss of freedom this entails. The title of the play is her maiden name, although she is married when the play begins. She must live in a Christian society, but she is driven by the pagan spirit of the old Scandanavian gods. She longs to live in beauty, but can see beauty only in an unattainable romantic world. She is beautiful, appealing, wicked, pathetic, and tragic.
Susan Tisdall's Hedda is only beautiful and wicked. The fault lies mainly in the first act. Hedda comes upon the stage with a bearing worthy of Lady Macbeth and speaks throughout that act in a tone of voice strident and bitter enough for Albee's Martha. It becomes difficult after this introduction to see Hedda as much more than a villainness.
An even more serious misinterpretation cr
Th
roles is Gerald Rabkin's portrayal of Judge Brack. Judge Brack is sophisticated and lecherous, a man who takes his sensualism seriously. He is more evil than he realizes. There is nothing of the fool about him. Rabkin's Judge Brack, dwelling as he does upon sexual innuendoes (real or imagined), becomes a source of tasteless humor which is utterly alien to the mood of the play.
Dennis Dalen is adequate as Hedda's husband, but at times his protrayal of the engrossed scholar becomes that of a scholarly fool. Hedda's problem is not that she married a fool, but that she sees him as an insensitive fool.
Cherie Shuck handles her part quite well, and Richard Kelton, after a slow start, provides, in the third act, the most effective scene in the play.
The fault for the failure of the play would seem to lie with the director, James Hawes, since the misinterpretation of the play is a general one. Of course, a director is free to interpret a play as he wishes, and with a play as complex as "Hedda Gabler" there is more than one possibility. This particular one deprives the play of a great deal of its meaning.
—Jerry A. Balch