Hysteria and Fanaticism

For those old enough to remember, back in the 1980s talk show hosts, like Oprah, milked the concern over "crack babies" for all it was worth. The host would bring in "experts" who would pain pictures of the bleak future for infants who had suffered at the hands of the addict mothers.

Well... twenty some years later and the truth comes out. Some harm was done, but nothing like the doomsday scenario drawn by the fanatics. (Can we draw a lesson here from contemporary doomsday promoters, e.g. "global warming"?)

Here is a bit from the Mind Hacks blog by Vaughan Bell:

I've just noticed a smattering of articles that have tackled the idea of the 'crack baby' which became popular during the worrying emergence of crack cocaine during the late 80s. It turns out that babies exposed to crack in the womb weren't necessarily massively brain damaged tragedies as the stereotype had it, but the concept has remained with us.

This is despite the fact that we have solid research to show that while those exposed to cocaine in utero do show some differences from other kids, the effects are undesirable but actually relatively small.

This is from The New York Times last year:

Cocaine slows fetal growth, and exposed infants tend to be born smaller than unexposed ones, with smaller heads. But as these children grow, brain and body size catch up.

At a scientific conference in November, Dr. Lester presented an analysis of a pool of studies of 14 groups of cocaine-exposed children — 4,419 in all, ranging in age from 4 to 13. The analysis failed to show a statistically significant effect on I.Q. or language development. In the largest of the studies, I.Q. scores of exposed children averaged about 4 points lower at age 7 than those of unexposed children.

In tests that measure specific brain functions, there is evidence that cocaine-exposed children are more likely than others to have difficulty with tasks that require visual attention and “executive function” — the brain’s ability to set priorities and pay selective attention, enabling the child to focus on the task at hand.

Cocaine exposure may also increase the frequency of defiant behavior and poor conduct, according to Dr. Lester’s analysis. There is also some evidence that boys may be more vulnerable than girls to behavior problems.

But experts say these findings are quite subtle and hard to generalize. “Just because it is statistically significant doesn’t mean that it is a huge public health impact,” said Dr. Harolyn M. Belcher, a neurodevelopmental pediatrician who is director of research at the Kennedy Krieger Institute’s Family Center in Baltimore.
A piece from City Limits Monthly tracked how the myth arose. It's probably the best account I've read of the cultural currents that promoted the concept to front page news and keep it afloat even today.

Go to the original article to get the embedded links.

I think the lesson to take from this is to be wary of media manipulation. People "selling" a story are not the generous, uninterested bystanders they claim to be. In this case, talk show hosts milked this story of ratings. They really didn't care if the story was true or false. They only cared that it was a "gripping drama" that would get viewers.

Beware of manipulation!