Wednesday, July 26, 2006
The Science of Addiction
I heard a news piece recently about a phenomenon psychologists are calling ‘addiction transfer’. Apparently, patients who are able to stop overeating develop new addictions such as alcohol, gambling, shopping. For example, The Betty Ford clinic reported that 25% of alcoholics who relapse use a new drug (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/jul/25/addiction_transfer_seen_after_weightloss_surgery/?neapolitan)
I brought the article up over dinner the other night with a friend who is about to begin work on a Ph.D. in clinical psych. I thought the phenomenon made a strong case for the biology of addiction versus the psychology of it.
And my wise friend (I miss you already Jamie!) used a good analogy of the blind men holding onto the elephant; each one holds a leg, or a tail or the trunk and they are so sure not only that it’s an elephant but that they are the only person holding onto it. At least I think that’s how the analogy goes. In any case, his point was just that you can have half a dozen people study addiction, and each one makes a strong case for the biology of it, or the psychology of it, or the genetic dependence, and no one is wrong.
In my quest to find some insight on the subject I came upon this article.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19940901-000020.html
The article references the ‘disease theory’ of addiction, which prevails at least among us ‘laypeople’ in this country, the theory being that alcoholism is a disease, and either you have it or you don’t; if you have it you can’t change it and if you don’t have it you need not concern yourself. Although the theory works well for us on a daily basis; alcoholics absolve themselves of responsibility, non-alcoholics sleep well believing there is no risk, academics are claiming it isn’t quite so clear cut. Apparently the mechanism to become addicted may be universal and lie within all.
"The most likely truth about addiction is that it's not a single, basic mechanism, but several problems we label 'addiction,'" says Michael F. Cataldo, Ph.D., chief of behavioral psychology at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes. "No one thing explains addiction," echoes Miller. "There are things about individuals, about the environment in which they live, and about the substances involved that must be factored in." Experts today prefer the term "addictive behaviors," rather than addiction, to underscore their belief that while everyone has the capacity for addiction, it's what people do that should drive treatment.”
I wonder what it would take to change prevailing ‘disease’ theory?
I brought the article up over dinner the other night with a friend who is about to begin work on a Ph.D. in clinical psych. I thought the phenomenon made a strong case for the biology of addiction versus the psychology of it.
And my wise friend (I miss you already Jamie!) used a good analogy of the blind men holding onto the elephant; each one holds a leg, or a tail or the trunk and they are so sure not only that it’s an elephant but that they are the only person holding onto it. At least I think that’s how the analogy goes. In any case, his point was just that you can have half a dozen people study addiction, and each one makes a strong case for the biology of it, or the psychology of it, or the genetic dependence, and no one is wrong.
In my quest to find some insight on the subject I came upon this article.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19940901-000020.html
The article references the ‘disease theory’ of addiction, which prevails at least among us ‘laypeople’ in this country, the theory being that alcoholism is a disease, and either you have it or you don’t; if you have it you can’t change it and if you don’t have it you need not concern yourself. Although the theory works well for us on a daily basis; alcoholics absolve themselves of responsibility, non-alcoholics sleep well believing there is no risk, academics are claiming it isn’t quite so clear cut. Apparently the mechanism to become addicted may be universal and lie within all.
"The most likely truth about addiction is that it's not a single, basic mechanism, but several problems we label 'addiction,'" says Michael F. Cataldo, Ph.D., chief of behavioral psychology at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes. "No one thing explains addiction," echoes Miller. "There are things about individuals, about the environment in which they live, and about the substances involved that must be factored in." Experts today prefer the term "addictive behaviors," rather than addiction, to underscore their belief that while everyone has the capacity for addiction, it's what people do that should drive treatment.”
I wonder what it would take to change prevailing ‘disease’ theory?
# posted by Sarah : 11:20 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Sorry, having chosen the blurb for my post I didn't realize it included quotes from two researchers. Here is another blurb from the same article explaining who "Miller" is-
" 'I began to understand the bankruptcy of many addiction theories when a lot of my predictions about alcoholism and treatment for it were dead wrong,' says William R. Miller, Ph.D. A professor of psychology and psychiatry and director of the Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions at the University of New Mexico, his controversial studies of "controlled drinking" in the early 1970s were among the first to dash with the "disease" theory of addictions.
Did you have a comment on the post? are you familiar with addiction research? Its not really within my field, but I took Neuropharmacology this spring and we covered some reward pathways and I did a little reading on my own-
Post a Comment
" 'I began to understand the bankruptcy of many addiction theories when a lot of my predictions about alcoholism and treatment for it were dead wrong,' says William R. Miller, Ph.D. A professor of psychology and psychiatry and director of the Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions at the University of New Mexico, his controversial studies of "controlled drinking" in the early 1970s were among the first to dash with the "disease" theory of addictions.
Did you have a comment on the post? are you familiar with addiction research? Its not really within my field, but I took Neuropharmacology this spring and we covered some reward pathways and I did a little reading on my own-
<< Home
