I've had a number of people wonder why, as someone with a research background, I'd be interested in psychiatry. There's a tendency to view psychiatry as 'fluffy' and not something that would be interesting to a person who has spent years getting down and dirty with cells and proteins.
In my view, psychiatry is truly biomedicine’s last frontier, and no medical specialty could be more fascinating for someone who loves unanswered questions.
Medical science can speak knowledgeably on a molecular and tissue levelabout the causes of diabetes, asthma, and cardiovascular disease. We can trace Type I diabetes from the death of a specific cell type (pancreatic beta-cells) through the loss of their hormone product (insulin) to the immediate result (inability to use and store food energy) to the final result (death, before insulin was widely and cheaply available). We could tell you another good story about heart disease: fatty deposits build up inside the arteries that feed the heart, narrowing their cavities until they can be clogged by small bits of clotted debris, starving the heart of blood and resulting in the death of its muscle tissue - a heart attack. (Yes neither story is so simple, in a nod to the endocrinologists and cardiologists out there - but let's not get bogged down in details.)
However, the DSM-IV lists not one disease for which such a clear pathophysiological chain of events has been established. When faced with depression or schizophrenia, medical science begins to wave its hands, to stutter and mumble vaguely about deficits or excesses of this or that neurotransmitter. In this sense, psychiatry is truly biomedicine’s last frontier.
Sure, we have some vague hypotheses about things. Take for example the 'dopamine hypothesis' of schizophrenia. That's the hypothesis that schizophrenic patients have too much dopamine in the frontal cortex (resulting in positive symptoms like hallucinations and delusions) and not enough in the subcortical areas (resulting in negative symptoms like social isolation and flattened affect). That explains why dopamine-blocking drugs improve the positive symptoms but aren't so great at fixing the negative ones.
That's a nice finding, and it is likely accurate to a degree; but it's not what you would call pathophysiology. That's like saying the problem with my computer is that it's got too much electricity in the hard drive and not enough in the disk drive. The computer doesn't work by bathing its various parts in electricity, and neither does the brain work by bathing its various parts in neurotransmitter soup. The important thing for each of them is the patterns in which the circuits are communicating with each other, and naming the medium of that communication - be it electricity or dopamine - isn't anything like the answer to a question about why the system is broken.
But nonetheless, psychiatry continues to offer explanations like "Too much dopamine!" or "Not enough serotonin!" to questions about why people have various psychiatric illnesses.
Many of these answers are based on reverse-engineering from medication effects. We've got this drug that increases serotonin transmission, and it fixes depression, so therefore depression must be the result of insufficient serotonin. We've got this other drug that blocks dopamine transmission, and it fixes schizophrenia, so therefore schizophrenia must be the result of too much dopamine.
The obvious problem with this reasoning is that a drug isn't a perfect reversal of a disease process. A disease has some complex effects, and a drug has some other complex effects, and some of the drug effects work to cancel out some of the disease effects, but the overlap is in no way perfect and doesn't necessarily offer us any information about the root cause of the disease.
When John Snow removed the handle of the Broad Street pump to halt the1854 cholera epidemic in London, did that mean that working the pump handle gives a person the cholera? No, and neither does 'fixing' your depression with more serotonin mean that depression is ultimately caused by 'not enough serotonin.' Serotonin is playing a role in there somewhere but a 'serotonin deficit' is overly simplistic as a cause of anything so complex as a psychiatric disorder.
So the drugs do a bunch of things, and symptom relief is only part of the picture. I don't really think they're fixing whatever the underlying problem is, only pushing the brain into a more manageable state (not quite a normal one). Although some schizophrenics are quite pleasant and normal when they're appropriately medicated, lots of others are still evidently off.
So what would a theory of psychiatric disease look like - a real one? Don't look at me, I'm just the critic. But this very interesting and timely article in the New York Times describes a couple of authors who have developed something that's much more along the lines of a Good Theory than any of the other vagueness I've heard. I'm not certain I agree with their lumping of psychosis and mood disorders as fundamentally similar, but I like the way they think.
In my view, psychiatry is truly biomedicine’s last frontier, and no medical specialty could be more fascinating for someone who loves unanswered questions.
Medical science can speak knowledgeably on a molecular and tissue levelabout the causes of diabetes, asthma, and cardiovascular disease. We can trace Type I diabetes from the death of a specific cell type (pancreatic beta-cells) through the loss of their hormone product (insulin) to the immediate result (inability to use and store food energy) to the final result (death, before insulin was widely and cheaply available). We could tell you another good story about heart disease: fatty deposits build up inside the arteries that feed the heart, narrowing their cavities until they can be clogged by small bits of clotted debris, starving the heart of blood and resulting in the death of its muscle tissue - a heart attack. (Yes neither story is so simple, in a nod to the endocrinologists and cardiologists out there - but let's not get bogged down in details.)
However, the DSM-IV lists not one disease for which such a clear pathophysiological chain of events has been established. When faced with depression or schizophrenia, medical science begins to wave its hands, to stutter and mumble vaguely about deficits or excesses of this or that neurotransmitter. In this sense, psychiatry is truly biomedicine’s last frontier.
Sure, we have some vague hypotheses about things. Take for example the 'dopamine hypothesis' of schizophrenia. That's the hypothesis that schizophrenic patients have too much dopamine in the frontal cortex (resulting in positive symptoms like hallucinations and delusions) and not enough in the subcortical areas (resulting in negative symptoms like social isolation and flattened affect). That explains why dopamine-blocking drugs improve the positive symptoms but aren't so great at fixing the negative ones.
That's a nice finding, and it is likely accurate to a degree; but it's not what you would call pathophysiology. That's like saying the problem with my computer is that it's got too much electricity in the hard drive and not enough in the disk drive. The computer doesn't work by bathing its various parts in electricity, and neither does the brain work by bathing its various parts in neurotransmitter soup. The important thing for each of them is the patterns in which the circuits are communicating with each other, and naming the medium of that communication - be it electricity or dopamine - isn't anything like the answer to a question about why the system is broken.
But nonetheless, psychiatry continues to offer explanations like "Too much dopamine!" or "Not enough serotonin!" to questions about why people have various psychiatric illnesses.
Many of these answers are based on reverse-engineering from medication effects. We've got this drug that increases serotonin transmission, and it fixes depression, so therefore depression must be the result of insufficient serotonin. We've got this other drug that blocks dopamine transmission, and it fixes schizophrenia, so therefore schizophrenia must be the result of too much dopamine.
The obvious problem with this reasoning is that a drug isn't a perfect reversal of a disease process. A disease has some complex effects, and a drug has some other complex effects, and some of the drug effects work to cancel out some of the disease effects, but the overlap is in no way perfect and doesn't necessarily offer us any information about the root cause of the disease.
When John Snow removed the handle of the Broad Street pump to halt the1854 cholera epidemic in London, did that mean that working the pump handle gives a person the cholera? No, and neither does 'fixing' your depression with more serotonin mean that depression is ultimately caused by 'not enough serotonin.' Serotonin is playing a role in there somewhere but a 'serotonin deficit' is overly simplistic as a cause of anything so complex as a psychiatric disorder.
So the drugs do a bunch of things, and symptom relief is only part of the picture. I don't really think they're fixing whatever the underlying problem is, only pushing the brain into a more manageable state (not quite a normal one). Although some schizophrenics are quite pleasant and normal when they're appropriately medicated, lots of others are still evidently off.
So what would a theory of psychiatric disease look like - a real one? Don't look at me, I'm just the critic. But this very interesting and timely article in the New York Times describes a couple of authors who have developed something that's much more along the lines of a Good Theory than any of the other vagueness I've heard. I'm not certain I agree with their lumping of psychosis and mood disorders as fundamentally similar, but I like the way they think.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Bellwether Vance
Stephanie Tames
Redstocking Grandma
Saturn Smith
Heather Michon
LuxeCalmeVolupté
Salon.com
Comments
It's been known for some time that, at least for certain genes, it really makes a difference whether they come from the mom or the dad. But we only knew a few specific examples. The science of 'epigenetics' - which includes the study of things like imprinting the parent's gender on the gene - is just starting to take off.
What parts of it ring true to you?
And this might be a stupid question- but if they are the result of a push and between the mom and dad's genes, are there some that are entirely male that exist only on the dad's Y chromosome? I'm a student, and only have a minimal grasp on what actually happens during meiosis.
referring to the following:
"Dr. Crespi and Dr. Badcock propose that an evolutionary tug of war between genes from the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg can, in effect, tip brain development in one of two ways. A strong bias toward the father pushes a developing brain along the autistic spectrum, toward a fascination with objects, patterns, mechanical systems, at the expense of social development. A bias toward the mother moves the growing brain along what the researchers call the psychotic spectrum, toward hypersensitivity to mood, their own and others’. This, according to the theory, increases a child’s risk of developing schizophrenia later on, as well as mood problems like bipolar disorder and depression."
What parts of it ring true to you?
I think I'm just attracted to Big Theories. :) I love evolutionary explanations for things as well, they're so elegant when they're right.
if they are the result of a push and between the mom and dad's genes, are there some that are entirely male that exist only on the dad's Y chromosome?
1) There's very little on the Y chromosome (SRY and the hairy ears gene as far as I know), but the expression of SRY starts a chain of events that affects the expression of many other genes.
2) But anyway, a gene doesn't have to be unique in order to be 'marked' as maternal or paternal. You can mark autosomal genes with little methyl groups to activate or deactivate their expression, and the pattern of methylation can be specific to the mom or dad. You could google 'epigenetics' for a more thorough explanation.
Laugh, me too. I love the way they set my imagination and sense of wonder on fire. Even if I don't come anywhere near 'getting it' they bring me a sense of hope that somewhere, someone is getting it and using the info to help us all move forward :D
Ok, off to look up 'epigenetics'. I've got today off and am in the mood for a little mental adventure! Thank you.