This article reviews the development of hair analysis as a drug-screening technology. It compares the advantages and disadvantages of drug screens that employ urinalysis and hair analysis technologies. It reviews the various controversies that have attended the development and implementation of hair analysis. It discusses the role of ideological, sociological, and political factors in the evolution of the technique. Finally, it reviews professional and governmental responses to the technology and recommends future courses of research to resolve the outstanding disagreements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Karl Popper , The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books, 1969).
2.
2. Tom Mieczkowski, “The Accuracy of Self-Reported Drug Use: An Analysis of New Data,” in Drugs, Crime and the Criminal Justice System, ed. R. Weisheit (Cincinnati: Anderson, 1989).
3.
3. Eric D. Wish and Bernard Gropper, “Drug Testing by the Criminal Justice System,” in Drugs and Crime, ed. Michael Tonry and James Q. Wilson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
4.
Lana Harrison , “The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use among Arrestees” (Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Reno, NV, 24 Nov. 1989).
5.
5. S. Maguraet al., “The Validity of Methadone Client's Self-Reported Drug Use,”International Journal of the Addictions, 22 (1988).
6.
6. A false positive is a drug-free urine that is recorded as a drug-positive urine. A false negative in a urine that has a drug or drugs present but is recorded as drug free.
7.
7. M. Harkey and G. Henderson, “Hair Analysis for Drugs of Abuse,” in Advances in Analytical Toxicology, ed. Randall Baselt (Chicago: Year Book Medical, 1989).
8.
8. A. Chattet al., “Scalp Hair as a Monitor of Community Exposure to Environmental Pollutants,” in Hair, Trace Elements, and Human Illness, ed. A. Brown and R. Crounse (New York: Praeger, 1980).
9.
9. R. Goldblum, L. Goldbaum, and W. Piper, “Barbiturate Concentrations in the Skin and Hair of Guinea Pigs,”Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 22:121-128 (1954).
10.
R. Martz , “The Identification of Cocaine in Hair by GC/MS and MS/MS,”Crime Lab Digest, 15:67-73 (1988).
11.
R. Welchet al. , “Radioimmunoassay of Hair: A Valid Technique for Determining Maternal Cocaine Abuse,”Substance Abuse, 11(4):214-217 (1990).
12.
J. Baeret al. , “Hair Analysis for the Detection of Drug Use in Pretrial, Probation, and Parole Populations,”Federal Probation, Mar. 1991, pp. 3-10.
13.
13. Cone, “Testing Human Hair for Drugs of Abuse.”
14.
14. When reference is made to a “drug” test it should be understood that in some cases the assay actually detects a metabolite of a drug, such as benzoylecognine. For the sake of brevity, I will use the term “drug,” in that context, to mean drug or drug metabolite.
15.
15. L. Cartmellet al., “The Frequency and Antiquity of Prehistoric Coca Leaf Chewing Practices in Northern Chile: A Radioimmunoassay Study of a Cocaine Metabolite in Human Mummy Hair,”Latin American Antiquity, in press.
16.
16. Baumgartner, “Hair Analysis for Drugs of Abuse.”
17.
C. Allgood , L. Sniegoski, and M. Welch, “Determination of Drugs of Abuse in Hair by GC/MS” (Paper delivered at the 38th ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry and Allied Topics, Tucson, AZ, 3-8 June 1990).
18.
18. E. Coneet al., “Testing Human Hair for Drugs of Abuse II: Identification of Unique Cocaine Metabolities in Hair of Drug Abusers and Evaluation of Decontamination Procedures,”Journal of Analytical Toxicology, in press.
19.
19. D. Kidwell, “Caveats in Testing for Drugs of Abuse” (Paper delivered at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Technical Review, 1990).
20.
Although some vapor deposition products remained on the hair after washings, Allgood et al. believed the issue was resolvable by relying on ratios of compounds in the hair. They concluded, “It appears that the determination of drugs or their metabolites in the hair is a viable method of analysis and offers several advantages to the commonly used urinalysis.”C. Allgood, L. Sniegoski, and M. Welch, “The Analysis of Human Hair for Drugs of Abuse” (Paper delivered at the 39th ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry and Allied Topics, Nashville, TN, 19-24 May 1991). Kidwell presents data on several subjects in evaluating the relative comparison of black and brown hair. Goldberger et al. and Cone et al. each did control-group studies of groups of twenty comparing “known users” with “known abstainers.” Although they raise some questions on the effectiveness of the washing techniques, they report that GC/MS of the hair samples in all cases identified the experimental subjects, as distinct from the controls, without error. Kidwell, “Caveats in Testing for Drugs”; Goldberger et al., “Testing Human Hair for Drugs”; Cone et al., “Testing Human Hair for Drugs.”
21.
21. M. Harkey and G. Henderson, “Hair Analysis for Drugs of Abuse: A Critical Review of the Technology” (Report to the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, State of California, Contract #D-0053-6, 1988).
22.
22. W. Baumgartner and V. Hill, “Hair Analysis for Drugs of Abuse: Decontamination Issues” (Paper delivered at the 2nd International Congress of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Toxicology, Barcelona, Spain, 9-12 Oct. 1990).
23.
23. Kidwell, “Caveats in Testing for Drugs.”
24.
R. Welchet al. , “Radioimmunoassay of Hair.”
25.
T. Mieczkowskiet al. , “The Concordance of Drug Use Indicators: Urine, Hair, and Self-Report” (Monograph submitted to the National Institute of Justice, Contract #90-IJ-CX-0023, 1991).
26.
26. J. Baeret al., “Hair Analysis for the Detection of Drug Use in Pretrial, Probation, and Parole Populations.”
27.
27. Baumgartner and Hill, “Hair Analysis for Drugs of Abuse.”
28.
28. S. Barrett, “Commercial Hair Analysis: Science or Scam?”Journal of the American Medical Association, 254:1041-1045 (1985).
29.
Paul Feyerabend , Against Method (New York: Schocken Books, 1982).
30.
30. United States v. Medina, 749 F. Supp. 59 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).
31.
See also R. Hawks and C. Chiang, Urine Testing for Drugs of Abuse, NIDA Research Monograph 73 (Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 1986).
32.
32. W. Baumgartner, “Hair Analysis for Drugs of Abuse: Obstacles to a Powerful, New Technology” (Paper, Psychemedics Corporation, 1991).
33.
33. A. McBay to Robert Bost, president of the Society of Forensic Toxicologists, 1990.
34.
34. DuPont, “Comment on SOFT Report on Hair Testing.”
35.
35. United States v. Medina. RIAH has been sustained by the courts, so far, each time it has been introduced as an evidentiary element. It is currently used for preemployment and employee drug screening and also has been used by several probation, parole, or similar agencies to monitor compliance with court or correctional stipulations.
36.
36. I have received from SOFT an excerpt from their newsletter TOXTALK, dated Dec. 1990, which discusses SOFT's involvement in the consensus report. In this excerpt, the panelists who prepared the SOFT report are identified. It also includes a motion made during a SOFT business meeting, but I cannot determine from the motion its exact meaning or intent in reference to the SOFT report.
37.
37. Although the report did not mention Psychemedics by name, Psychemedics is the only laboratory in the country performing the large-scale screening of hair specimens for illicit drugs.
38.
38. Suzuki, Hattori, and Asano, “Detection of Amphetamine and Meth-Amphetamine.”
39.
39. McBay to Bost.
40.
40. C. Visher and K. McFadden, “A Comparison of Urinalysis Technologies for Drug Testing in Criminal Justice,”Research in Action (June 1991).
41.
41. Harkey and Henderson, “Hair Analysis for Drugs of Abuse: A Critical Review of the Technology.”
42.
42. U.S., Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, RIA Analysis of Hair to Detect the Presence of Drugs of Abuse, FDA Compliance Policy Guide no. 7124.06, 1990.
43.
43. DuPont, “Comment on SOFT Report on Hair Testing.”
