Talk:Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 August 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
(William M. Connolley 08:47, 2004 May 14 (UTC)) I split this from the Science (journal) page because it was unbalanced there.
I've also edited para 1 somewhat, to point out that this is not really a peer review problem.
And I've deleted the Blakemore "quote" because as written its impossible to tell whether its a quote, paraphrase, or where Blakemores words end and the editors opinion begins.
"The Ricaurte article was not sensationalized by Science for its implications concerning any pending anti-rave legislation before Congress." This is a POV statement without any qualifications. Or was it supposed to be a quote? 80.203.115.12 13:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article needs renaming
editThe article refers not to the general controversy about MDMA neurotoxicity but a specific issue of "the retracted finding of dopaminergic MDMA toxicity in primates". It should be renamed. I'm not sure how one goes about doing that.
Question about supplier
editAs quoted in the article, Holden wrote that the MDMA was supplied by Research Triangle Institute. But in the supporting material by Ricaurte et al.[1] they write that MDMA was obtained from the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Any explanation for this discrepancy?--Custoo (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- NIDA presumably does not manufacture chemicals itself. RTI may have been the supplier for NIDA. I haven't looked deeply into this, however. Sizeofint (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)