Crazy Controversy on Psychiatric Disorders

So, you can call me morbid or macabre, but I have always been fascinated by serial killers. I’ve seen tons of documentaries on Ted Bundy and David Berkowitz (Son of Sam). Check out my DVR. It’s filled with episodes of Criminal Minds. Why am I so obsessed with sociopaths? For whatever reason, I find their stories horrific and intriguing at the same time. This is why I pounced on an article about schizophrenia, entitled “A decade for psychiatric disorders”* when I came across it in the journal Nature. Because the article was about schizophrenia, I thought it would be all about the disorder and how it is a characteristic of serial killers. It turns out that the media (i.e. where I get all my cultural knowledge) plays up schizophrenia a lot. In the minds of serial killers is where schizophrenia is in its most severe case, and this represents an extremely small percentage of the population. Although this article wasn’t what I had in mind for my cryptic interest, it did introduce me to an interesting controversy in the science world: In the Nature article the author argues that ongoing research is necessary in order to understand and prevent psychiatric disorders. A different author writing about psychiatric disorders argues that disorders like schizophrenia are natural and only viewed as ‘disorders’ because of society stereotypes.

Initially, the Nature article, “A decade for psychiatric disorders”, is about the importance of researching psychiatric disorders, especially schizophrenia. The author of this article argues that psychiatric disorders are not given a high enough precedent in scientific research. Whereas cancer research receives over five hundred million dollars a year in some countries, mental-health related research only receives a few million, and most of that is concentrated on degenerative diseases, like Alzheimer’s. The author argues that progress is needed to be able to identify those at risk earlier in order to prevent or slow the development of the disorder. While schizophrenia is controllable by medication, the drugs address a late stage in the development of the disease. The problem lies in environmental research, because too little research is devoted to environmental factors that can influence psychiatric disorders. The author states a better understanding of effects of schizophrenia are needed as well, like delusions and their persistence. Basically, the author is saying that the time has come for additional research in the development of psychiatric disorders in order to better treat or prevent them.

While the author of the Nature article argues that there is not enough research of psychiatric disorders going on, I found an abundance of articles reporting ongoing biomedical research on disorders like autism and schizophrenia. One article from sciencemag.org called “Two Sides of the Same Coin?” showcases an evolutionary approach to researching psychiatric disorders. A letter in response to the sciencemag.com article contrasts the Nature author’s argument that psychiatric disorders need to be treated and prevented. The author of this opinion letter, Joao Oliveira, believes that neuropsychiatry is dependent upon cultural perspectives and norms that change over time. An example of this is that homosexuality was once considered a ‘disorder’, because the behavior was interpreted as incompatible with reproduction. Oliveira argues that expecting that a devastating condition, such as schizophrenia, should be bred out of the gene pool is ridiculous. In his opinion, schizophrenia can remain in the population given that only a small percentage of the population suffers from it, while the majority exhibits healthy and productive behavior. Psychiatric disorders will also stay in the population as long as the afflicted reproduce before reaching incapacitation. This author’s take is somewhat disturbing, because he argues that schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders do not need to be prevented, so long as those who suffer from it are able to produce offspring to keep the species alive.

As you can see, the differences between the Nature article and the opinion letter are vast. On one hand you have an author arguing how important research into psychiatric disorders is in order to understand and treat those who are afflicted. On the other hand, the author of the opinion letter believes that psychiatric disorders are natural, and are only viewed as disorders because of the culture and society we live in. The Nature article advocating research for psychiatric disorders appears as very scholarly to the reader, and cites various quotations from experts in the field. To me, this makes this article more appealing and believable. The opinion letter does not contain specific quotes from scientists and researchers, even though the author works in the Department of Neuropsychiatry at a university in Brazil. So which side of the controversy am I on?

Overall, I agree with the author of the Nature article. Schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders are serious and debilitating. They should be given precedent in research to understand and prevent them. Although these articles weren’t what I had in mind when I began reading, I now feel like I can appreciate the work and research that goes into understanding psychiatric disorders. I also feel like I have a better understanding of how serious psychiatric disorders can be. They aren’t just part of a television show. Psychiatric disorders can affect many people in harmful ways. These people deserve a chance at living a normal life, which is why psychiatric disorders should be given a higher precedent in scientific research.

* subscription needed to access Nature online