![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 4 of 4. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by John k on June 10, 2001, at 5:53:34
I agree that the current therapies for mental disorders are in many ways woefully inadequate. However, I think it's wrong to say that mental disorders aren't a research priority. Just the other day I saw the global sales statistics for antidepressants and, being a computer nerd, I noted with fascination that the $15 billion antidepressant sales approximately equal global sales of microprocessors! I think that says something about the opportunities that are out there for innovative pharmaceutical companies.
I think we have to keep in mind that the human brain is incredibly complicated, infinitely more so than for example the heart. It's simply not that easy to find good cures for problems with the brain.
Furthermore, I believe that there are many other horrible diseases out there with far worse prognoses than depression. A few examples would be MS, ALS, Cystic Fibrosis, most types of cancers, etc. There are great needs for cures in most parts of the field of medicine.
The radical increases of the budget of the U.S. NIH in recent years is a very important step forward, but so much remains to do on behalf of other rich countries. The public must start to demand much more funding for medical (and other) research. The issue should, of course, primarily be based on humanitarian grounds, but also on the fact that disabilities of all kinds are incredibly expensive for society. In comparison to these costs, the outlays for research--even in the proactive U.S.--are ridiculously low. With so much progress recently made on many interdependent fronts of science and technology, I think the human race today has a unique ability to quickly achieve previously unthinkable improvements in health and happiness.
A few rambling thoughts from John K
Posted by John k on June 10, 2001, at 5:58:55
In reply to Cures for mental disorders, posted by John k on June 10, 2001, at 5:53:34
Oops, I thought the earlier posts of this thread (on PB) would show up in the thread-list. Anyway, this is a follow-up to the post named "PAXIL", posted by dankdiglet 6/8/01.
John
Posted by Cam W. on June 10, 2001, at 9:25:37
In reply to Cures for mental disorders, posted by John k on June 10, 2001, at 5:53:34
John - An analogy to the problem of treating mental disorders of the brain is like working on the engine of your 1952 Fargo, then some wants you to fix their new F1 McLaren (only the brain is more complicated still). We still have not got a grip on the brain's subtle wiring patterns, except in a very gross manner.
We are not sure how this wiring works and we cannot pick out faulty wiring unless it is grossly abnormal. We also aren't sure how individual systems of the brain act separately, much less in unison. These things are being teased out, but the (moral, ethical, humanistic) restrictions the researchers are saddled with do hinder progress. It would be great to take a person (or animal, for that manner) and unravel their living brain in an MRI-like machine and see what happens as you separate component parts; but this is highly unethical and inhumane. Groups like PETA, while having good intentions, also cause restrictions to be placed on brain research (I am not denouncing the groups intentions, but I am against many of their methods).
Using computer models of the brain is also not appropriate because we don't have all the facts and variables to insert in a computer. Even if we did, I doubt that we have a computer powerful enough to integrate these variables into a usable whole. I liken it to predicting the weather. If we had, or even knew of, all of the variables that combine to make the weather, forecasting would probably be much more predictable; the same thing applies to the brain.
Also, in research, there are papers published with faulty premises and even more have given us seeming answers, but have arrived at them using faulty techniques. There will come a day, perhaps not in our lifetimes, when researchers will finally separate the research paper wheat from the chaff, and someone else will correlate that data into an understandable whole.
I like a quote from (I believe) Emerson Pugh, who said, "If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."
I really believe that we are doing the best we can, with the available technologies. I am facinated on with what we do know. There are a lot of clever guys out there working on this problem, but they have to learn to walk (in itself not an easy process) before we can run.
- Cam
Posted by Shar on June 10, 2001, at 15:03:32
In reply to Re: Cures for mental disorders » John k, posted by Cam W. on June 10, 2001, at 9:25:37
Cam - NONE of my response is directed personally toward you. I'm talking about the topic and my opinions that have developed over the years; not at all criticizing you or your beliefs. Shar
> >It would be great to take a person (or animal, for that manner) and unravel their living brain in an MRI-like machine and see what happens as you separate component parts; but this is highly unethical and inhumane. Groups like PETA, while having good intentions, also cause restrictions to be placed on brain research (I am not denouncing the groups intentions, but I am against many of their methods).< <
I'm glad this subject was brought up, because it is rarely even mentioned on PB, PSB; and it certainly applies.
Groups like PETA, SPCA, NEAVS, Humane Society of the US, etc. hardly make a tiny dent in what is done to animals in the name of research. Nasty or nice, the groups aren't well-financed compared to the businesses of medicine, pharmacology, cosmetics, household cleaning products (ie, Proctor and Gamble); all of whom research on or test on animals. Then factor in university research and research by privately funded institutions, and the military--these groups are hardly restricted at all; they enjoy being able to do hideous things to animals supported only by a vague hypothesis.
The animal rights groups have mainly impacted how the animals are housed, size of cages (has to be large enough for animal to stand), exercise/elimination (animals must be taken out of cage x times per day; feces and urine should be removed from cages x times per day), feeding (must have nutritional food on a regular basis), water (must have clean water on a regular basis), dead animals should be removed from cages when discovered, and so on; also, things like using anesthesia during surgeries or local anesthetic if cutting is to occur on a smaller area.
"It would be great to...unravel their living brain in an MRI-like machine and see what happens as you separate component parts." There is really no reason to believe that isn't happening right now. Given enough money (public or private), just about anything one can think up can be done.
When we hear of animal research or testing, it is usually the Reader's Digest version, the kindly researcher who just hates to cause the dogs (or cats or chimps) so much agony, but 'human lives are at stake if we don't find out how long the dog can run on a treadmill in a 100 degree room with the heat rising at certain intervals, without water, and when muscle failure occurs, how long does it take 'it' to die? We'll time it from the start of the first fall. Make a note if it tries to get up again. And, if the results are x for this black lab, hmmm, I wonder if the results will be the same when we do it on that border collie.'
I know my meds were probably tested on animals, and I believe in some cases animal research or testing is one of very few viable options. I do believe the VAST MAJORITY of animal testing (esp. Draize test and LD50) could be eliminated safely. And, we shouldn't be too easily fooled into believing such research is foolproof...to wit: the famous Thalidomide fiasco and deaths in the more recent testing of a hep B vaccine, and all the human trials that fail (cause death or damage) but we don't hear about.
tree-huggin, animal-lovin
Shar
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.