Team:Queens Canada/Human Practices
Introduction
Queen’s iGEM (QGEM) is excited to share, excite, and inspire the next generation of iGEMers. As science has always been interconnected with social, economic, political, and cultural development, we must maintain that relationship by going beyond our laboratory to consider the desire of the general public. We’ve integrated our practices through externally-reaching activities with youth, interviewing local experts to gain insights, and collaborating with other iGEM teams.
Browse our gallery of various activities as we consider the implications of our research on the real world.
Integrated Human Practices
Public Questionaire
Objective
Our team explored the interests of potential user groups of our device. We collected public concerns on marijuana legalization and opinion on each marketing approach. With this information, we were able to evaluate the practicality of our product for each customer group.
Methods
Participants were asked to fill in a survey during Queen’s University events in the Kingston area and on Facebook. The anonymous questionnaire was developed by our team based on current social issues. The document “A Review of Australian Public Opinion Surveys on Illicit Drugs” published by the Australia National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in 2008 acted as guidance for the structure of our survey.
Methods
Conclusion
The results reflect that cannabis-impaired driving seems to be the most pressing issue and there is a high degree of concern in the general public. We believe the best use of our device would be to aid in the detection of roadside driving impairment and the public shares our belief since the majority voted Law Enforcement to be most in need of a cannabis detection device.
Expert Interviews
We consulted Drug Recognition Experts and researchers in the field gain a deeper understanding of their unique perspectives and utility of our product.
Law Enforcement: Kingston Police
Cst. Filip Wisniak and Cst. Smith, Drug Recognition Expert
In order to create a product that fits within its niche market, we must ensure that our product design is well-suited for its end-user. Since members of the law enforcement are believed to be most in need of our THC detection device, we have conducted a thorough interview with the Drug Recognition Offices of Kingston Police to collect their unique requirements and feedback. We hoped to gain insights on the procedure for drug influence detection and features that would increase the practicality of our product.
Interview Summary:
- Training and duties of Drug Recognition Experts (DRE)
- The current impairment evaluation process and logistics of drug screens
- Psychoactive effects of cannabinoids
- Our product’s utility and design features
To become a qualified Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), police officers must undergo a 2-weeks of extensive training at the Ontario Police College. In this program, they must learn about all types of drugs and their psychoactive effects, receive training on impairment evaluations and understand the legislation in place for prosecuting impaired drivers. They must pass the examination at the end of the program and are expected to apply all the information learned on duty.
The SFST (Standard Field Sobriety Test) is used by DREs when personnel suspected of impairment is identified. The driver would be asked to pull over and the DRE would look for physical cues of impairment through tests: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk and Turn Test, and the One Leg Stand Test. Currently, the alcohol breathalyzer is being used on the road to detect alcohol consumption, and the Dräger device is expected to perform the same function for the detection of cannabis. The time spent in a pull-over detention must be within a reasonable time limit (~10mins). If there are signs of impairment but the driver seems to be under the effects of substances other than alcohol, the driver will be invited to the police station for the Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE).
The DIE is designed to be a thorough examination of the physical cues that reflects impairments, and DRE officers are often able to narrow down the substance used based on the results. The entire process of the evaluation must be recorded to be considered in court, however, since it is a test conducted by humans, charges do get dropped as results can be questioned in court.
To do a drug screen for substances other than alcohol, urine samples of the impaired driver would be collected for analysis. Samples that are to be analyzed for identification of specific substances would be sent to the laboratory Toronto for processing. The toxicology conclusions can take weeks to months to formulate. If there is an accident, the driver would be sent to the hospital for a check-up and subsequently do a blood test to detect the substances used. However, as hospitals are often full of patients in emergency situations, this can easily exceed the 2-hours detention limit for this kind of situation.
We had a brief discussion on the influences of cannabinoids and learned about their perspective of marijuana legalization. The general concern is that the concentrations of THC does not directly relate to the impairment of a driver, and impairment is indeed a physical condition displayed by people under the influence of substances. Different people have different tolerances, so there are some voices of disagreement in the society when the legal limit of THC has been decided by the government. Additionally, different methods of consumption would result in differing levels of effects on judgment, reaction time, and duration of psychoactive effects. Cst. Filip reflected that more research should be done on the psychoactive and health impacts of marijuana.
First of all, our device must have high specificity for THC as the detection of other cannabinoids/ metabolites that do not contribute to impairment would affect the results. We must also consider the legal limit of THC in saliva and know that it is different from that of blood. In addition, the legal limit of THC is much lower when consumed with alcohol. The currently approved Dräger 5000 device is expensive and rather large, so the DREs said that it would be greatly advantageous to them if the equipment could come in a lower price point and is portable as a handheld device. Our device must also be stable in all kinds of weather conditions since Canada experiences a large variation in temperature change between seasons and roadside conditions are often not ideal for fragile equipment. They pointed out that they would prefer a device with minimal training and human involvement so that would reduce the amount of time spent on training, repair, calibration, and testifying for non-biased evaluation. Lastly, they suggested that we include a way for them to transfer the results to a laptop or electronic device capable of keeping record. For reference, the Dräger 5000 uses infrared to send results onto a device for printing. We were then encouraged to explore the possibilities of implementing a Bluetooth connection to the laptops on police cruisers.
Policy Researcher
Dr. Christine Wickens
Dr. Christine Wickens earned her PhD in psychology and is an Independent Scientist at the Institute for Mental Health Policy Research at CAMH (The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health). Her research includes examination of the public health implications of alcohol and drug policies and determinants and consequences of stress. She is a person of interest as she has applied her work in the context of roadway safety and is involved in the study of how cannabis and alcohol use may affect driving . Interviewing Dr. Wickens was a great opportunity to hear her thoughts on the legislation that is currently in place for identifying impaired drivers. She pointed out that, although Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Evaluations used by law enforcement to detect impaired driving have been well-validated, qualitative studies suggest that not all members of the general public are convinced that DRE evaluations are effective or reliable for the detection of cannabis. This may, in part, result from the fact that DRE evaluations involve subjective testing of the driver in question, compared to alcohol breathalyzer technology that is more objective. This is an important issue to be addressed given that the perceived likelihood of legislative enforcement has been associated with deterrent effects. Dr. Wickens found value in a fully automated drug test device and had encouraged us to keep our design portable, cost-effective, and non-invasive. Lastly, she has reminded us to consider the sensitivity of our device in comparison to the legal limit.
