Miller2012-Why Is Mental Ilness So Hard To Treat
Miller2012-Why Is Mental Ilness So Hard To Treat
Miller2012-Why Is Mental Ilness So Hard To Treat
CREDIT: SUICIDE BY AMBER CHRISTIAN OSTERHOUT, CREATOR OF THE GAINING INSIGHT CAMPAIGN, WWW.GAINING-INSIGHT.COM
signs of giving up (Science, 30 July 2010, antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs, atric medicine, it seems, got lucky early on,
p. 502). Meanwhile, mental illness remains says Steven Hyman, who directs the Stanley and then it got in a rut.
However, several new tools and new ways
of thinking could help the field gain new
traction. One example, Insel says, comes
from drugs that target receptors for the neu-
rotransmitter glutamate, which recent evi-
dence suggests can reduce hopelessness and
suicidal ideation in people with depression
far faster than current drugs do. “That story,
while it’s still developing, is extraordinary
because it tells us we need to rethink our
expectations,” Insel says. “It may be possi-
ble to treat this in hours instead of weeks.”
Another encouraging inroad into
depression comes from deep brain stimu-
lation (DBS), in which surgeons implant
electrodes in brain regions thought to be
involved in regulating emotion and cogni-
tion. The approach is still experimental, and
only severely depressed patients who’ve
failed to respond to less invasive treat-
ments are eligible, but DBS seems to help
about three-quarters of them, says Helen
Mayberg, a neurologist at Emory University
in Atlanta and a pioneer of this therapy. The
success of DBS, Mayberg and others sug-
Don’t despair. Progress on new treatments for disorders of the mind has been frustratingly slow, but some gest, undermines the decades-old concept
researchers see new hope on the horizon. of mental illness as primarily a chemical
imbalance—too much or too little serotonin example, may involve mal- “Research and are some hints of con-
floating around the brain, for example—and functions in one network, development in this vergence: Many of the
points instead to faulty neural circuits as the while disordered think- autism risk genes appear
core problem. In their quest for the next gen- ing and other cognitive
area has been almost to be involved in com-
eration of treatments, researchers should problems involve another. entirely dependent mon biological functions,
focus less on single molecules and individ- This brain-based view is on the serendipitous such as synaptic signal-
ual brain regions, Mayberg says, and think at odds with the traditional ing and brain develop-
discoveries of
of the brain as “a dynamic system that has to approach of diagnosing ment. Researchers now
be properly choreographed.” disorders according to the medications.” have novel tools at their
One powerful new tool for examining behavioral problems and —THOMAS INSEL, disposal to follow up on
neural circuits at the cellular level is opto- inner anguish they cause— U.S. NATIONAL INSTITUTE these leads, including
genetics, which combines laser optics and the approach taken by psy- OF MENTAL HEALTH the ability to create neu-
genetic engineering to stimulate or inhibit chiatry’s go-to diagnostic rons from reprogrammed
specific classes of neurons in rodents and guide, the Diagnostic and stem cells from patients
monkeys. Researchers have employed opto- Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Science, 26 November 2010, p. 1172).
genetic methods in mice to investigate the (DSM), published by the American Psychiat- Gene expression prof iling—investigat-
mechanisms of DBS therapy for Parkinson’s ric Association. “There’s no doubt that these ing the activity of thousands of genes—in
Why Are Our Brains So Big? brain were easy, one might think that every
animal would have one. Yet brains use a lot
of energy, and most species have maintained
With an average volume of about 1400 cubic scanning studies in humans and monkeys smaller ones throughout their evolution,
centimeters, the human brain is more than have found correlations between the size apparently avoiding the cost of fueling all
three times as large as that of the chimpanzee, of social networks and that of specific brain that processing power.
our closest living evolutionary cousin. And areas linked to sociality (Science, 4 November One key question is whether a species’
although the brains of whales and elephants 2011, p. 578). One study of people, for exam- group size, which is usually considered a
are bigger in absolute terms, once adjusted ple, found a positive relationship between proxy for its social complexity, was the driv-
for body weight the size of the Homo sapiens gray matter density and the number of Face- ing factor in the evolution of bigger brains, or
brain outstrips that of any other animal. book friends an individual has. if it was the other way around: Natural selec-
For the past 2 decades, the leading expla- “The social brain hypothesis is widely tion could have favored larger brains for other
nation for why natural selection bestowed accepted and has generated a huge amount reasons, such as greater innovation in food-
such generous largesse on the human nog- of research,” says Robert Seyfarth, a bio- foraging and tool-using skills, which then
gin has been the social brain hypothesis. logical anthropologist at the University made larger social groups possible.
The researcher with whom the idea is most of Pennsylvania. Yet there are competing Richard Byrne, a cognitive neuroscien-
closely associated, psychologist Robin explanations for our big brains, and Seyfarth tist at the University of St Andrews in the
Dunbar of the University of Oxford in the and other researchers are concerned that United Kingdom, argues that great apes
United Kingdom, has argued that brain Dunbar’s formulation may be too simplistic like chimps, gorillas, and humans evolved
size—and particularly the size of the brain’s to account for the complex course of human larger brains “to solve challenging food-
neocortex—most closely correlates with the brain evolution. The social brain hypothe- acquisition problems better than monkeys,”
size of a species’ social group. Keeping track sis “now needs to be balanced against other with whom they competed for resources in
of who is doing what to whom, Dunbar and complementary hypotheses and more fully the wild. His “Machiavellian intelligence”
other researchers argue, requires consider- integrated” with evidence from cognitive hypothesis, formulated in the late 1980s
able processing power, and so bigger groups neuroscience, says Robert Barton, an evo- with St Andrews colleague Andrew Whiten,
demand bigger brains. lutionary anthropologist at Durham Univer- focused on the cognitive challenges of bal-
Numerous studies by Dunbar and oth- sity in the United Kingdom. ancing competition and cooperation within
ers appear to support the link between a spe- Researchers generally agree that our large primate groups, and was a forerunner to the
cies’ group size and neocortex size, especially brains have something to do with how smart social brain hypothesis.
among primates (Science, 7 September 2007, we are and why we were able to take over the These challenges, Byrne says, led to brains
p. 1344). And recently, a number of brain- planet. But if the evolutionary path to a big better equipped to understand cause and