Talk:Kenneth Blum

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 1 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Collytte. Peer reviewers: Keh13, JaymaGoodwin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If

If you can establish notability and it was just speedily deleted (not RFD'd) I believe you're welcome to recreate the article. I don't know who did it or why. PS: Recreating it to ask the question is probably not the most prudent way of doing things. Good luck. Zelse81 22:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how the content is not notable. What does not that mean. Can someone explain? And who deleted it? Brianmeshkin 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Issues

The current tone of the article is extremely laudatory of Dr. Blum's accomplishments. However, my own search on the web of his research uncovered more criticisms (e.g., [1]) or even accusations of quackery (e.g., [2]) than praise. (Having read a couple of his professional scientific articles on reward deficiency syndrome, I am myself a bit suspicious of his interpretations.) Indeed, what information I've been able to find about his previous business (formerly located at www.docbluminc.com, now off the web) smacks of pseudoscience. I attempted a search for a personal or professional webpage for Dr. Blum, and was unable to find one (unusual for a professional academic!). The link to Blum's blog provided in the article appears to be broken, and I was unable to find any information on Blum on the Salugen website referenced by the article.

In short, I would suggest that the article needs some discussion of the controversy surrounding Blum's theories. It also definitely needs some sort of references; I able to confirm almost none of the claims in the article based on a web search. Geoff 02:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To state that Dr.Blum's work is quackery is absolutely untrue and borderlines on quackery itself. Dr. Blum has contributed over 300 peer reviewed articles in top journals. His work has been confirmed worldwide. The Dopamine D2 Receptor gene association work with Ernest Noble has led to over 2,944 papers on that subject alone. Reward Deficiency Syndrome has been accepted by many scientists in the United States and abroad. In terms of a web site please refere to www.rewarddeficiencysyndrome.com. This is DR. Blum himself responding with disappointment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.149.237 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the Journal of RDS be mentioned?

Not that it has come to particular acclaim [1], but it seems like it should be noted. A view on both sides (research vs self-promotion) could be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.104.2 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Its publisher, USG, is generally considered a predatory open access publisher. τ℗ʍ (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

{{connected contributor personal friend and editorial assistant on many articlesMargMad (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)}}

I agree that "the article needs some discussion of the controversy surrounding Blum's theories" and "some sort of references." Please review the following information about the scientific investigations that are the basis of those theories and include them at the beginning of the Research section.

During the 1960's Blum and Irving Geller investigated neurotransmitters including dopamine. In 1969 this research demonstrated that dopamine can control tremors in the periphery of cats. From 1968-1972, Blum and Geller, focused on aberrant alcohol drinking in animals, and stress-induced changes in brain chemistry. The discovery, that reduced serotonin in the brain of rodents resulted in intense stress-related behavior eventually led to the development of the KB220 neuro-nutrient. Shared neurochemical mechanisms between alcohol and opiates were demonstrated when the narcotic antagonist naloxone blocked alcohol induced sleep –time in mice. These early findings were controversial but led to the development of Vivitrol (Naltrexone) and (buprenorphine/naloxone) are now used to treat alcohol and opiate addiction respectively.

In the early 70’s investigations of Alkaloids from catecholamines published in Science, suggested that when drinking alcohol, a substance is formed in the brain which resembles a substance found in poppy plants (opiates). The identification of an isoquinolone metabolite in the brain of mice following ethanol ingestion led to the idea of a shared brain mechanism in both alcohol and opiate addiction. Described in a book published in 1978, the idea of shared brain mechanisms became the theoretical basis for cross addictions and poly-drug abuse. Blum also showed that alcohol intake in different genetically bred mice (they love or hate alcohol) was in proportion to brains content of endorphin-like brain substance called methionine –enkephalin (METENK). Specifically, low METENK caused high alcohol drinking, while, high METENK induced low alcohol intake. Now interested in the effect of genes on neurotransmitters... MargMad (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 11-MAR-2019

  Edit request declined  

• The proposed text is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. Per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, additions to the article ought to be written in an editor's own words using an editor's own phrasing.

Regards,  Spintendo  18:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Also faces problem of directly citing studies, which runs into the WP:MEDRS limitation "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." The studies are not secondary sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

{{connected contributor personal friend and editorial assistant on many articlesMargMad (talk)}} Can this URL be added to the Publications section "My Bibliography". nih.gov.//MargMad (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If we want a list of his PubMed entries, it would likely be better to go with the PubMedAuthorSearch template - Search Results for author Blum K on PubMed. - which is less curated and would update itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

And in fact I have now added that, as an External Link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed this link as redundant because I've updated the Wikidata article with the ORCID ID which gives more specific and more complete results than Pubmed, and links automatically from the Authority Control bar. τ℗ʍ (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but that is all in some code that the typical person reading this article is not going to understand. Can we have some line of human-readable text that provides a link to his publications? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I put a link through to his publications that was pointed to via ORCID. What do you think? τ℗ʍ (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks! -Nat Gertler (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"pseudoscience"

There have been recent attempts to add this page to a category regarding pseudoscience. Barring a reliable source referring to Blum in that manner, we cannot add this on a biography of a living person. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with Quackwatch as a source, as it is used in many articles, and is accepted by us as reliable, particularly for unscientific crap designed to exploit ignorance to make huge amounts of money. It’s immoral what Blum does. Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

While Quackwatch provides a valuable service, ::looking up its entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - the self-published and partisan nature of it should be a big sign of caution for using it on a BLP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fair to demand a better source than Quackwatch. I have no problem with the reversion: the removal of the category seems justified. τ℗ʍ (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting change in placement of information in sections

{{connected contributor personal friend and editorial assistant on many articlesMargMad (talk) MargMad (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)}}

Blum originated the term "reward deficiency syndrome". There is no consensus among addiction researchers that empirical evidence exists to justify such a concept.[1]" Could this sentense be moved to the == Research ==, === Reward Deficiency Syndrome ===

"He holds multiple patents relating to genetic testing and treatment for the supposed syndrome that have been licensed through various different corporations." Could this sentense be moved to the == Commercial activities == .MargMad (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The introduction is supposed to be a summary of the material below. Those concepts are both covered in the appropriate sections, but are reasonably included in the introduction as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Some suggestions to update the Commercial activities section

MargMad (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Blum is the editor-in-chief of Journal of Reward Deficiency Syndrome and founded the company that publishes it, United Scientific Group. Blum was also editor-in-chief of OMICS Publication Group's Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy (JART) from 2013until march 2015 when he resigned.He is currently serving on fourteen other prestigious journal’s Editorial Boards. He is the founding President of United Scientific Group (USG).Much of the research relating to RDS has been published by Blum himself in JRDS and JART. USG and OMICS featured on Beall's list and are widely regarded as predatory open-access publishers.MargMad (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)MargMad (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm not seeing what there is to add here. The information is either already in the article ("editor-in-chief of Journal of Reward Deficiency Syndrome and founded the company that publishes it...") or it is unhelpfully vague ("He is currently serving on fourteen other prestigious journal’s Editorial Boards") or it is not phrased in a manner which makes it approvable ("Blum was editor in chief from 2013 to 2015. April 2, 2015 when he resigned." [sic]) Pinging @NatGertler: for their input on this.  Spintendo  03:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Please consider a rewrite here as the information is inaccurate and was placed 5 years after Dr Blum's resignation from OMICS group and the formation of USG. Please consider correcting the name of the journal in the first sentence from "Journal of Reward Deficiency Syndrome" to the "Journal of Reward Deficiency Syndrome and Addiction Science (JRDSAS)." Please consider adding adding "from 2013 until March 2015 when he resigned. " to the end of sentence "Blum has also been editor-in-chief of OMICS Publication Group's Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy (JART) since 2013." Please consider adding a sentence about Blum's current editorial work "Blum is currently serving on the editorial board of Current Psychopharmacology and holds editorial board positions on fourteen other journalsMargMad (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 5-APR-2019

  Edit request partially implemented  

1. Y The journal's name was updated.
2. Y The subject's term as editor of the other publication was given the end date of his term as 2015.
3. N The claim "Blum is currently serving on the editorial board of Current Psychopharmacology and holds editorial board positions on fourteen other journals" was not added because the 14 other journals were not listed or referenced.

Regards,  Spintendo  14:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like you picked the appropriate portions to include; the source was insufficient for "resigned". The only thing that concerns me is the name of the journal, and that's because the publisher sites for that are inconsistent. Here, and in the cover image seen various places, it's "Journal of Reward Deficiency Syndrome Addiction Science", no and. Here it's "Journal of Reward Deficiency Syndrome & Addiction Science" - an ampersand rather than "and". Here it has an "and". On the published papers, there's the ampersand. For citation purposes, it's "J Reward Defic Syndr Addict Sci", which tells us nothing. I'm leaning toward the ampersand as on the published papers. (Nitpicky, I know.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Academic background

Blum received his B.S. in pharmacy from Columbia University in 1961, his M.S. in medical science in 1965 from the New Jersey College of Medicine, and his Ph.D. in pharmacology in 1968 from the New York Medical College. Blum completed postdoctorate research in psychopharmacology at the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education. He also completed a fellowship in pharmacogenetics under Gerald McClearn at the University of Colorado College of Pharmacy (Boulder) in 1977. He retired in 1995 from his position as a professor at the Department of Pharmacology, Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, University of Texas.MargMad (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

References