Already a subscriber? Log in
Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not.
Beginning with Arvid Carlsson’s 1957 discovery of dopamine’s role as a neurotransmitter, a whole new line of neuroscientific research opened up and we developed new understandings of the complexity of brain activity. Notably, there were attempts to explain mental illness by invoking a presumed deficit or surplus of a particular neurotransmitter. A shortage of serotonin was widely promoted as the cause of depression. This speculation, and it was no more than that, proved a marketing bonanza for pharmaceutical houses. Unfortunately, as Nord acknowledges, ‘the central claim of a monoamine/serotonin deficit causing depression is now known to be wrong’ – and has been known to be so for nearly two decades. Yet it continues to circulate in popular culture. In its place, neuroscience has failed to come up with a plausible, let alone demonstrable, physical cause for depression or anxiety.
As for treatment, Nord suggests that patients should try antidepressants (though she concedes half of them won’t derive any benefit and largely neglects to discuss the side effects many suffer from). Or perhaps they should try psychotherapy. That might work, and will for some. That’s scarcely novel advice. Alternatively, what about diet, exercise or magic mushrooms? Here she concedes there is no real evidence of efficacy, but why not try them? They might fix a broken brain.
Finally, she touts the possible value of transcranial stimulation with electricity, or, in recalcitrant cases, deep brain stimulation, done by implanting electrodes in the brain. She mentions that when a controlled trial was done of the latter, it failed and was terminated early. Actually, there were two such trials, funded by two rival manufacturers, and both were stopped because of poor results, and in some instances devastating side-effects: brain infections, worsened psychiatric states, even a suicide. Bizarrely, Nord then cites the case of a single patient treated by an enthusiast for the approach as though it is reliable evidence in the therapy’s favour, when she must know that such anecdotal evidence is scientifically worthless.
In the middle of her discussion of neurotransmitters Nord tells a story about a conference she attended at which a celebrity uttered some platitudes about the wonders of the brain. She warns us:
Because of the seductive appeal of vague statements about the brain, individuals and organisations can lay claims based on the shakiest of foundations of experimental science, and people will listen. Be suspicious when you see this prefix, and be wary of ‘neurobollocks’.
Amen to that.
Because you read about antidepressants
Also by Andrew Scull
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in