Narcotics research, rehabilitation, and treatment. Hearings, Ninety ...

14suppresses signs of abstinence we then can qiiantitate this in a roughway and say this drug has morphine-like properties. This has been aA^^ery useful test.The number of drugs that have gone to Lexington during thisperiod for test—and they were sent only to Lexington if they possessedsome special propeities that were superior to morphine—I wouldguess, maybe, is in the order of 40. I am not certain about the exactnumber. The facility at Lexington has never had the capacity to testmore than six or eight drugs in a year.The ultimate test, of course, is whether the effect in man is desirableor undesirable. Monkeys are not men, but close enough to it that it hasbeen a very useful screen. We hope to continue it.I feel certain that the direction which the research is taking today,moving to find a compound of antagonist type, ultimately will be successful.We have some good compounds now. Unfortunately, they aretoo short acting and have to be administered too often to fulfill thepractical requirements as substitutes.This class of drugs, incidentally, acts entirely opposite to methadone.]\Iethadone simply suppresses and acts like heroin. These newdrugs antagonize heroin and create a situation so that an individualtaking the antagonist can take the heroin without anv effect on him.In fact, in proper amounts, it completely wipes out any effects ofheroin. In the long run, this is an area where money could be wellspent. I think it is possible to find techniques to make available forpractical use, substances that we currently have available.Many other antagonists have been screened in our laborator}^ whichare potential candidates for this type of action. But they have beenof no particular interest to the manufacturers, so they were justdropped after testing. But a careful review of all antagonists that havebeen studied in the laboratory might uncover some longer acting compoundsthat might be useful.Dr. Eddy, I run sure, will speak to this point, because he has beenthe one that has channeled the compounds to our department and canlook at the problem with perspective.Chairman Pepper. Doctor, you do think it is within the realm offeasibility to develop an antagonistic drug which for all practicalpurposes immunizes the addict against the euphoria th.at he ordinarilygets from taking heroin ?Dr. Seevers. I think so. Of course, one problem that you must recognize—apractical problem—is whether it is possible to take heroinaddicts and force them to take this drug. This is analogous to themethadone situation. I don't believe you will ever get beyond thevohmteer situation where the addict says "I want to get rehabilitatedand will take the drug voluntarily." I suppose theoretically it would bepossible to force any addict to take the drug. I have doubts whetherit could be done from the enforcement point of view.Mr. Perito. Dr. Seevers, could you explain how your laboratory isfinanced ?Dr. Seevers. W^ll, up until recently the National Research CouncilCommittee of the Problems of Drug Dependence had collected moneyfrom a wide variety of industrial groups. This is, I believe, the onlygranting agency in the National Eesearch Council. They have collectedthis money and have used it to support our laboratory and also-