Talk:Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA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: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Categories:
|
(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
[edit]The 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.
--67.101.96.107 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Question about supplier
[edit]As 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)