Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

DrugReporter

The Myth of an 'Addict Gene'

By Jeffrey Helm, The Tyee. Posted August 12, 2006.


It's time to stop blaming genetic makeup for our substance abuse -- addiction has other causes.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Ten years ago science was said to be homing in on the "alcoholism gene." Could a gene-based cure for addiction be far away?

Well, yes it could. It's very far away, if even possible at all. Researchers now have identified over a thousand genes linked to alcoholism. The genetics of alcoholism mirrors what has become increasingly apparent to geneticists: life is complicated. The way you act or the quality of your health is likely influenced by many genes interacting with each other along with various environmental factors. The concept that a small number of genes are responsible for disease or behaviour is obsolete.

What that means, in the case of alcoholics or drug addicts, is that even if your parents were addicted, it's unlikely that their genes are the deciding factor that will make you an addict.

But many people still hold the outdated, simplified view that key genes "cause" most disease and addiction. And what we don't understand can hurt us. Biomedical ethicists warn that if public policy doesn't catch up with scientific knowledge, then people at risk of addiction will be stigmatized even more than they are now. Life insurance and employment could be denied and genetic screening could stop people 'at risk' of addiction before they are even born.

Life's nose pokes

Genes are information. How that information is expressed within your body depends on diet, stress and even social interactions, researchers say.

"There are almost no examples where genetics works in exclusion of environment," said Dr. Elizabeth Simpson, a geneticist and professor in the department of medical genetics at UBC. In fact, environmental factors "are important not just in the disease itself, but the course of the disease, the severity of the disease and whether it is actually a significant event in a person's life or not," Simpson said.

Recent research has found a way to look at the influence of environmental factors on drug use in lab rats.

Two lines of rats were bred to have different levels of reaction to apomorphine, a derivative of morphine. One breed doesn't react to the drug very much (Weak Drug Response rats), and the other has a strong reaction (Strong Drug Response rats). When cocaine or alcohol was made freely available to the rats, WDR rats drank more alcohol and used more cocaine than SDR rats.

The scientists then looked at the effect of a stressful life experience on drug usage in the rats; they were put into a new cage and poked in the nose.

After the stressful nose poke, SDR rats increased their consumption of alcohol over a prolonged period, while the WDR rats only increased their drinking for a short time. The SDR rats also used more cocaine after the stressful experience than WDR rats.

The genetics of the rats predicted an outcome that was reversed with one nose-poke. Rats that seemed genetically predisposed to drug use before the stressful event ended up using less afterwards, and rats that used less before ended up using more drugs after. If drug use can change so completely with only one event in a rat's life, it's not hard to imagine how chaotic, stressful lives might lead to humans using more drugs or alcohol.

Tangle of genetic influences

"Multiple genes with small effect is really a scientific discovery of the last ten years, which is very challenging in the way we think about genetics, and it's not the point of view the public knows right now," says Dr. Elizabeth Simpson.

There are thousands of genes that have been linked to addiction, most of them relating to how drugs of abuse work in the brain. Other groups of genes have been linked to traits that make up an "addictive personality," like impulsivity, risk-taking and novelty seeking.

Genetics cannot predict whether someone will develop an addiction; at most genetics will identify risk factors. But genetics can determine what therapies have the greatest chance of working.

"The knowledge of the genetic basis of the disease opens up possibility of treatment, and prevents lots of treatments that don't work," says Dr. Simpson.

There are many different ways that addiction can get wired into the brain. Genetic analysis of a person's genes can pinpoint what is most likely to be contributing to that person's addiction problem. For example, genes for processing an addictive drug could be normal while there are deviations in genes involved in feelings of self-esteem. That would indicate that therapies focusing just on blocking the effect of the drug would not be as effective as therapies focusing on self-esteem.

Using genetic information to get a more holistic look at a person's health is where medicine is heading. But before that becomes possible, the cost of a complete analysis of a person's genes needs to come down in both price and manpower.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Jeffrey Helm, a former neuroscientist, is writing about science and addiction issues for The Tyee this summer. Read his series here.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from DrugReporter! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Misleading Headline
Posted by: dkeithley on Aug 12, 2006 12:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an addict in Recovery, I must admit I read this article with the sole intention of posting a dissenting position, but after reading the article I am inclined to agree in part. I come from a long line of alcoholics and addicts, and I do believe I was born with a predisposition for addictive behaviour (impulsivity, novelty seeking, etc.) I also am a firm believer in environment playing a large role, thus my family life growing up (an addict household) also played a key factor in my path toward full-blown addiction. It comes down to the argument of breeding vs. environment, which most educated people will agree, ends up being a balance of the two. Scientist have also performed PET scans and other testing and studies, which have shown that both at-risk and active addicts have less seratonin, dopamine, and endorphin receptor sites to begin with than "normal" people.

The idea of "designer" babies frightens me. I am a strong supporter of stem-cell research, medical research, and abortion in general, but denying life a chance based on the possibility of disease, either physical or mental, seems a bit too much like playing God. I wouldn't be here today, if a genetic analysis of me as a fetus had shown me to be at risk for addiction, depression, asthma, allergy to Sulfa drugs, etc. Selfish or not, I love my life and wouldn't trade it for anything today. Every trial, tribulation, and heartache I have experienced or put someone else through was worth it for who, what, and where I am today.

The processing and prediction of what a life will become will never, in my humble opinion, become an exact science. If we as humans choose to go down this path, will the government step in and tell us which babies can live and which must die? I, myself, have chosen not to have children. I don't trust myself or my genetics to successfully rear a child, especially in a world such as ours. I do still believe that that is my choice as a human. I fear if this path is continued, we will one day have our choices dictated to us on all too many inalienable rights, as if this weren't already the case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misleading Headline Posted by: Anthonym
What happens to the rats when the stress goes away?
Posted by: aethr on Aug 12, 2006 12:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought it was understood that among non-alcoholic humans increased drinking during periods of stress was only temporary. When the stress was removed the drinking returns to normal. Alcoholics tend to maintain high levels of drinking regardless of the stress. Did anyone try stopping the nose poke on the rats and checking the results?

The title is misleading, at best. If there's a genetic component then there's a genetic component, regardless of the number of genes involved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» He didn't make it up Posted by: YogiBear
Thank you for the less than enlightening article
Posted by: kgs1947 on Aug 12, 2006 4:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, I'm familiar with the genetic predisposition issue and the environmental impact upon people. Duh. Nothing is new in this article to anyone who has been involved as an addict or counselor in addictive behaviors and thinking. The issue that seems to be highlighted in this article has only a tangential relationship to addictions. The issues is how we utilize gentic information about individuals as a society.

We have entered into Orwellian reality a long time ago. We are now paying a dear, and life-threatening price for what science does with information, and with how the public misconstrues "scientific" evidence. Our government more often than not is irresponsible with the information they think they have. Decisions are made and sometimes too rapidly and sometimes too slowly to help people.

Look at what the government did and did not do when the AIDS pandemic hit our country. SILENCE! And, now look what Congress and State legislatures are doing with information about abortion. Scientists can be just as ETHICALLY ignorant as the rest of the population! There is the rub!

Another look can be taken at psychiatrists who deem themselves the "experts" on mental illness when in fact they are dancing around trying to pathologize people instead of exploring with people their lives holistically! Pills versus compassion. Indeed, psychiatrists today don't even use psychoanalysis on themselves. They are a pact of "esperts" who don't even address their own dark shadows.

We're in a mess in this country due to our predisposition to chemical medicine! A country whose experts are in denial about the ramifications of their "traditional" approach to life and living. They don't have a clue to their own dark secrets and they are toting themselves as the "experts" on how to get well. WOW....that's sick.

Thanks for this opportunity to give voice to my own experiences in this area.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A nice excuse
Posted by: colinmeister on Aug 12, 2006 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for a good article. I always thought it was a little easy for someone who is addicted to drugs or alcohol to blame it on their ancestry. If this were really the case, why do people whos parents and other relatives do not drink or take drugs to excess become addicted? There are certainly those who do. There are also people who were so offended by their parents' drunkenness that they are total abstainers.

To me it would seem more likely that those who were brought up in an environment of heavy drinking or drug use will consider that behaviour "Normal", and are therefore more likely to persue such a lifestyle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A nice excuse Posted by: YogiBear
long ways
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 12, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are a long ways from figuring out all the specifics of drugs, genetics, environment, brain wiring, social interactions, food, education, etc. Though the path is long to enlightenment it means only that research must continue to help us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this another anti-science argument?
Posted by: lb on Aug 12, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because there is a possibility of discrimination if we can "predict" genetic risk of disease doesn't mean you should deny the reality of genetic predisposition. Any addict will tell you that discrimination is alive and well, especially from those who believe addiction is the result of weak character or lack of self control. Any person with cancer or AIDS has experienced fear of losing health insurance because of discrimination. Some of those problems could be caused by national healthcare. But do we want to stop research in these areas? What if we could control diseases like diabetes and depression by "turning off" the gene(s) that cause them? We do need to confront the ethical questions raised by our rapidly advancing technology. I think we need to do so with scientific, RATIONAL debate rather than by raising anxiety about loss of control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Life's Nose Pokes
Posted by: picket on Aug 12, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There are almost no examples where genetics works in exclusion of environment". DR E. Simpson, geneticist and professor of medical genetics.
I know extremely hard working young people who have absolutely no one to give a small "hand up". They exhibit drive and unrelenting energy, in an effort to obtain the basic tools to live a decent life. Working long hours, spouse still supportive,young children still happy healthy and active.
For a young family, on the edge, it may take only one more nose poke to start a downward spiral of destruction.

In a society that does not really care for its own, what are those nose pokes? In a society that hands billions to corporate friends, in return for little work, where all the jobs are outsourced, where one realizes that there is not ONE human person that cares ..........where inability to pay a traffic fine results in an arrest warrant.....where we witness a malnourished heroin addict being thrown in jail and made fun of by law enforcement, right on our TV screens, entertainment for laughs....where religious people point fingers but do no even help their own......
Life's Nose Pokes........every man for himself as the boat goes down in this orwellian society. At least in Winston's dark cold life, Big Brother gave him a shot of "oily gin" at lunch break.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Life's Nose Pokes Posted by: aussidawg
Outside,the problem lies.
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 12, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Addiction is a harsh sounding word that we have applied to a condition that is more about relieving the 'pain' of living in this society and a reason for criminal activity and incarceration.
Truth is this. People, no matter what their station on the social ladder, have mental constructs that tell them their life is crap. Now since the seeking of 'Peace' is as integral to the human condition as breatheing,we seek out that 'Peace' in many differing ways. When we come upon that which brings the 'peace', we go back formit in times of stress,because we want 'peace',on all levels of our lives.
What People are addicted to is Peace. What's responsible for creating such a diseased life that humans have to seek out some substance to facillitate this Peace, if our fault.
By allowing power to become centralized,we created the condition for addictions. By centralizing wealth,we set up the conditions. By structuring the economic system so that there will always be a 40% low income,we set up the conditions for addiction. By insuring the broadest application of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is only reserved for the selected few,we set up the conditions. By allowing that every Living Thing can be forced to live with poisoned water and air,we set up the conditions for addiction.
But addiction isn't just a 'substance thing' either. There are addictions to sex, power, position, and social stature. Why is an addiction to say,hemp,whose use tends to bring about a more peaceful being, be worse than the CEO that brutalizes companies to secure their own position of power then lays-off 300,000 workers a week before Christmas. How is that worse than an uncaring Congress that can't see it's way clear to give a person a living enough minimum wage to pay for a tank full of gas to get to the low paying job. Or the politician or Party that's so addicted to power that elections get tampered with to control the outcome so there is the 'appearence of choice'.
All the other addictions I've outlined don't get talked about but they have far worse consequences for us as a People.
The addictions to substances,of any kind, are merely just our way of being able to tolerate the intolerence of their brand of Tyranny. They should be thankful we have them. If we had to endure their crap living in their version of 'straight', They would all be burnt in their beds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yea! Jeffrey7 for President Posted by: psychochurch
» RE: Outside,the problem lies. WRONG Posted by: crescentdave
» RE: Outside,the problem lies. WRONG Posted by: psychochurch
» I agree with Mr. Jeffery7 Posted by: wbblack
» RE: I agree with Mr. Jeffery7 Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Another good read Posted by: jeffrey7
Take home message: Avoid bar fights you are at-risk for addiction.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 12, 2006 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After the stressful nose poke, SDR rats increased their consumption of alcohol over a prolonged period, while the WDR rats only increased their drinking for a short time. The SDR rats also used more cocaine after the stressful experience than WDR rats.

Frequent bar room brawls may leave you one broken nose away from a life of addiction.

And for heaven's sake, keep your cage clean.

Who was this article written for? Who is out there saying that in most cases genetics dictate--rather than heavily influence--outcomes? I though this was an awfully fluffy article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why not legalize hemp like it happened in North Dakota and fight the FUCKING DEA ?!?!?!
Posted by: NDnative on Aug 12, 2006 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hemp doesn't do any damage no matter how much you smoke it unlike marijuana. Grow hemp like a good weed and the war on drugs is won.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Nuther Round, please!"
Posted by: Roverton on Aug 12, 2006 1:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okey doey. Thanks for explaining addiction to us.

Some folks are addicted to their intellectualism. Others to their piety. Whatever they spent a fortune on studying in college - becomes what the rest of the entire world MUST revolve around.

I've personally lost years of my life to Cable TV. One Soprano's at a time. I am powerless against my need for the Food Channel.

There I will sit.

It's a sickness. Crap-Nosis for sure. Well, at least I'm beginning to address the problem now.

Thank God I'm free of addiction now!

I don't know about you, but I'm a real Grinch in the morning before my first coffee.

So anyhow, back to checking the rest of my emails to see if I got any IM's. Hey look! The new model PDA from the one I bought last week, is on the shelves!

Starbuck's has coffee AND wireless internet? Wow, that's an E-Speedball!

Ohh, Zombie Kill III is out, I'd better hurry up and start getting better on Zombie Kill's I and II !!

I'd walk a mile for a Camel. Any further, and I need to take a cab because my left side begins to tingle.

I have to be busy, or I don't know what to do with myself. Maybe I'll paint the house again today. No time for a life. Too busy being busy.

I don't even have time for an addiction.

Choose yer poison, pardner!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Nuther Round, please!" Posted by: Roverton
» Cheers Posted by: YogiBear
Genetic Predisposition is Always a Factor
Posted by: Anthonym on Aug 12, 2006 2:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This piece reminds me of a conversation I had with a young woman several years ago who was certain there was a gene that "caused" anorexia nervosa. This reasoning was quite common during the early stages of the genome project (when stories in the popular media suggested genetic treatments for every malady from schizophrenia to post-nasal drip. These could be found, it seemed, by locating a "corresponding" gene, as if it was a single switch on an large electrical panel). I asked this woman why such a gene would, statistically, express itself so disproportionately among white, middle-class, adolescent American females and virtually in no other group. She thought about this for a while and determined that, while many people may hold the same gene for anorexia nervosa, environmental (social and economic) factors may cause the symptoms to be expressed, more often, in a more narrow group of people. So we determined together that the combination of genetic predispostition and environmental factors lead to the condition of anorexia nervosa, just as it perhaps did other conditions such as alcoholism. I noted that in parts of the world previously unexposed to commericial media, a correlation between the introduction of television and print advertising and an increase in eating disorder behaviors in young women could be verified. I suggested then that genetic factors might not so easily be limited to one gene or a set of identifiable genes that could be labled "anorexia nervosa" genes (surely they might have other functions). Identification of a disease (or of anything else) in western culture is a proscriptive and subjective activity, as made plain by the advance of pharmaceuticals for which new/old maladies are constantly being identified and re/named. It is natural for western thinkers to think of genetic characteristics as being singularly indentifiable and easily catagorized. We tend to imagine that for every condition, there is a corresponding antidote. I offered that deductions made in contemporary psychology about certain personality types being more prone to specific types of abberant behavior (along with socio-economic factors) might be more analagous than the "on/off" switch presented in lay media, and that "genetic predisposition," while still probable, was likely not the result of a single gene or set of genes dedicated to a "purpose" such as alcoholism or an eating disorder. A case in point: many native Americans share genetic factors that predispose them to alcoholism at much higher rates than people of other races. These genetic factors might also determine other things like food sensitivities or a predisposition for diseases like diabetes, certain physical characteristics, or psychiatric disorders such as agoraphobia, as random examples. These effects might be exacerbated by certain economic or social conditions (but never caused by them entirely, as human genetics cannot be eliminated as a factor in anything that affects a human being, if the logic is taken to its extreme--you are not genetically predisposed to be hit by a bus, but you are genetically predisposed to what will happen to your mortal body in such an event!). The range of genetic effects could be very small or large and not restricted to a specific gene or set of genes. Likewise, the role of socio-economic or environmental factors might range from zero to largely (but never wholly) influential (schizophrenia might be expressed, say, in many or all environments and conditions, while panic disorder might, for example, require other environmental and developmental factors to be expressed). At the end of our discussion, we determined that anorexia nervosa, while genetically influenced, was brought to expression more often in certain people in certain environmental conditions. Nature and nurture, it appears, are always at play in addictions and psychological disorders. --Michael Dean Anthony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Genetic Obfuscation.
Posted by: Weaver on Aug 12, 2006 6:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the genetic line first hit popular headlines, I've been against it on ethical grounds alone, and no, I'm not a fundamentalist christian.

By introducing the concept of genetic engineering as a viable way in which to rid the world of it's full spectrum of ills, we immediately deny ourselves the basic right of being responsible for our personal existence.

"I didn't mean to gun down that family of six. The genetic precious made me do it".

With such complex issues as schitzophrenia, we need to forget about taking the easy-way-out, 'consumer-packaged' option, just for once, and take a good look round at how we interrelate, with an environmental circumstance that we are all an integral part of rather than separate entities, as Descartes has encouraged us to assume, and understand that if we were to accept a mode of existence that is far more pleasant than the one we are currently not enjoying, we would eradicate the multitude of stress factors from our existence that predispose to all those unpleasant aspects that are everybody else's fault.

Sorry for all the long sentences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Genetic Obfuscation. Posted by: Bibs
Questions still out there
Posted by: daa4 on Aug 12, 2006 6:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the scientific points made in the article. However, there are still questions looking for answers with addiction that maybe linked with genes. For instance, why are people addicted to one substance, e.g. nicotine in cigarettes and not another substance like alcohol. Or why are some people immune to the affects of opioids but are "addicted" (I say this increadily loosely) to marijuana. Without answers, the arguement defaults back to someone's genetic makeup.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Questions still out there Posted by: VisionQuest
Not an Easy Question To Answer
Posted by: Bab5nutz on Aug 13, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not an easy question to answer. Alcoholics can have children who loathe the stuff. While other people who never drink can have children who turn out to be alcoholics.
My mother came from a family of alcoholics. And it was not pretty. Her parents would go out, and leave the children alone in the house, locked in their bedroom. And this was with at least one of them still in nappies.
And then there was the fights - especially the Christmas fights. At Christmas, the parents would get drunk, fight, and throw empty booze bottles at each other. On at least one occasion, my grandmother cracked my grandfather over the head with a wine bottle, knocking him out.
My mother has a couple of drinks four to six times a year - she hardly touches the stuff. As for her siblings - they have all had serious problems of one sort of another, alcoholism among them.
My mother has not had an alcohol. She hates the effect it has on people, and hates drugs even more.
Whether it was a toss of the genetic dice [and in the end, that's what it comes down to -a throw of the dice. And you are never going to get exactly the same result twice - unless it is identical twins], my mother's personality and a detemination not to be like her parents - or a combination of the two, I don't know.
Maybe it is a question that will never be fully answered. And perhaps it should not be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When I was in college ...
Posted by: Caro on Aug 13, 2006 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... back in the stone age, the big debate was over whether human behavior was ruled by nature (genes) or nurture (environment).

Turns out that both play a part in behavior, but neither rules. There are influences, but no determining factors. That's not news to anyone who has kept up with even the non-technical literature over the past 40 years.

So what is the purpose of this article?

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When I was in college ... Posted by: crescentdave
It's Too Simple a Question
Posted by: glorybe on Aug 13, 2006 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously it is true that targe numbers of genes effect behaviors such as addiction. However that doesn't imply that we can't learn to predict the outcome of combinations of genes as they influence behavior. And we might be better off to test for things such as manic depression as a predictor of drug or alcohol abuse rather than trying to directly study which genes do what. Then when we get beyond those hurdles we will have to deal with the fact that many people try numerous illegal drugs out and have no trouble at all in not using those druge but then come across a substance that seems like God created it just for them. There has to be some sort of biological difference that causes one person to seek crack or heroin while another seeks out pot. Perhaps our defects really are that narrow and that we will soon be able to really predict over longer periods of time. Then if we agree that we have an accurate predictor we will have to deal with changing the attitude of the public so that these people are treated just as if they are having any other medical issue

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nature vs. nurture - the oldest question in biology
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 13, 2006 1:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The concept of a 'gene' is faily new and has been rapidly evolving in scientific circles; genes produce proteins but have many other complex roles as well, many of which are poorly understood. While there is always talk about the 'gene for alcoholism', the 'gene for obesity', 'the gene for intelligence', this is mostly unsupported nonsense. A gene for Huntington's disease is not nonsense, because the mechanism of action is understood. We know very, very little about the genetic factors that influence the human brain, however.

Even if you are born with all the 'good genes', if you are starved as a child and your education is neglected you won't be able to develop - if Michael Jordan had spent his teenage years with Playstation 2 instead of with a basketball, we'd have never heard of him - no matter how good his 'basketball genes' were. This article does a good job of pointing that fact out.

Drug addiction is a social and a physical disease - the best cures are social involvement. Most of the drug addicts I've met are beseiged by emotional problems that they attempt to bury under a screen of drugs and alcohol. Tobacco is the most addictive drug in common use, however, and many people's lives are shortened as a result of their tobacco use. Cannabis is a milder drug then either alcohol or tobacco (look at the death counts from alcohol ingestion), but it is subject to the same rules of abuse. We don't imprison alcoholics or assume that anyone who has a drink is a criminal, do we?

Once drug prohibition is ended, we will be able to focus on addiction as a medical and a social problem. Healthy happy people with fulfilling lives tend not to be drug addicts - it is as simple as that. While many people do have emotional issues as result of all the various traumas that exist in our society, drugs are not the answer - and that includes all the legal pharmaceuticals as well: Prozac, Paxil, Wellbutrin, Ritalin, Oxycontin, etc. These pharma companies and their investment banks are no better then Columbian cocaine cartels.

It is high time for a sane drug policy in the US - legalize drugs for personal consumption and include honest education programs about the dangers. Part of any such campaign will be acknowledgement of the basic harmlessness of cannabis (pot); it is certainly no worse than alcohol, and not nearly as dangerous as tobacco or the legal amphetamines marketed by doctors and pharmacists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: RIGHT ON! Posted by: Cathyc
SCIENCE IS FOR SINNERS
Posted by: LMNOP on Aug 13, 2006 4:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Biomedical ethicists warn that if public policy doesn't catch up with scientific knowledge, then people at risk of addiction will be stigmatized even more than they are now."

Isn't that the point if you're a religious conservative? Stigmatizing sinners? This is not an unforeseen complication or an overlooked consequence of a plan designed to achieve some other purpose. Public policy, they think, *should* stigmatize addicts because Gawd wants it that way, being a loving Gawd and all.

Expect much more stupidity and superstition to follow. Science is for liberals and sinners.

To these Luddites, the things in the world are understood in simplistic categories as good or bad. People are either one of us or one of them. Addicts are bad (read 'sinners') and, as part of 'them', are to be marginalized and reviled in imitation of Gawd's tough love for sinners).

Science is not believable, they think, if it contradicts political or religious dogma such as in the cases of global warming and stem cell research. Science must never be used to give a natural explanation to anything that has been called sin or has been explained in the Bible. It doesn't matter that science has repeatedly delivered benefit to mankind (medicine, electronics, space travel, etc.)

In fact, science is just plain evil because man shouldn't be meddling into Gawd's ways in the first place - unless it's to keep Terry Schiavo alive on life support or to create in vitro embryos to fertilize barren woman. Then, it's not playing Gawd - it's obeying Gawd. But if you want to unhook all of that life support technology or dispose of those left over, manmade embryos, *then*, at that moment, you're playing Gawd.

Oh, I forgot, when man painstakingly developed a new vaccine to eliminate polio, it was Gawd that was thanked for the blessing. See how convenient that is? Pretty easy gig for someone with so much power and goodness, just watching and accepting all of the praise, but never helping or answering.

The church isn't going to stop meddling in our lives until somebody makes them stop. And it has no need for science or reasonable public policy. This is not an anomaly: it's an ideology that is getting stronger. Expect much more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering
Posted by: wbblack on Aug 14, 2006 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who are interested in finding out something about the state of genetic theory should read this article by Barry Commoner. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm = The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If God had wanted us to have...
Posted by: jtp15 on Aug 14, 2006 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe, we should just turn off the genes responsible for discourse or debate.

If God was a geneticist God either did a poor job or a good one. I suppose it depends on your point of view.

jtp15

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rain(bow) on their parade?
Posted by: c1 on Aug 15, 2006 7:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess this puts an end to the old "I was born gay" argument, eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a load of #@%%$*&^!@@ Drug Warrior crap!!!
Posted by: aahpat on Aug 17, 2006 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Drug War Reporter is now publishing pro-drug war garbage. I read crap like this and wonder why I bother trying to fight against the drug war. Its already an uphill battle. Then Drug War Reporter goes to work for the government, piling it on for the drug warriors by publishing this shit.

Nature vs. nurture is a phony moralistic either or argument. Nurturing augments nature and visa versa. The either-or argument of behavior vs. genetics is a straw man argument posed by drug warriors to deny the science and humanity of the genetics issue. If addiction is in any way seen as part of the human condition then, for them, it refutes their black and white morals and behavior choices dogma.

People born with asthma or sickle cell anemia will be glad to hear that they need only choose to deny their symptoms and they will be morally cured of their GENETIC BASED DISEASE. People with blue eyes need only convince themselves that genetics had nothing to do with it and they will have whatever color eyes they choose to have.

Drug warriors deny any fact that detracts from their moral contention that people choose to use drugs, period.

The fact is that the genetics of addiction is a part of the human condition. Genetics is a factor in addiction. a physiological factor beyond personal choice. Not the only factor. Yet addiction is treated entirely as a crime of choice by society and government.

This is simple stuff.

The government drug war campaign is targeting Americans for prosecution based on these genetic distinctions.

Helm does not deny that the genetics issue exists he simply sets up a denial of its humanity. Behavior and environment are the deciding factors for Helm.

Children, with bodies not mature enough to resist peer pressure and personal genetic issues that raise their potential for abuse, are not subject only to the moral choice of use vs not using. They are given easy access to drugs, thanks to the failed drug war, and piled on with peer pressure and individual genetic factors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pathetic excuse for just say no over science
Posted by: aahpat on Aug 17, 2006 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is a rationalization for 'just say no' being given greater weight in public policy making than the weight that is given to science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Denying genetic issues is a drug warrior behavior
Posted by: aahpat on Aug 17, 2006 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets please not enable the drug warriors by adopting their anti science rhetoric.

I see genetics as the answer for many of the questions related to deep seated behaviors. Not an excuse but rather an explanation of the nuance of human behavior. Once we get past the black and white either or moral absolutism of the drug warriors.

There is good historical reason to assume that our gene pool has long been impacted by intoxicants. It is common knowledge that genes are changed by external chemical exposures. Especially long term chemical exposures.

With the older natural intoxicants there are communities around the world that have had a culture of involvement with particular intoxicants. Communities where intoxicant use and production have been proudly passed from generation to generation. Alcohol, tobacco and opium all have communities centuries long associations with them. It is inconceivable to think that generations of a community and/or family could ingest a substance and not have it influence the genes of that family and community. Especially powerfully addictive substances.

This explains intoxication affinities not aberrant criminal behaviors. It means simply that intoxicant use is a part of the human condition. Use and addiction are natural. In and of themselves not criminal behaviors. The criminal behavior is persecuting human beings for the acquisition of these substances.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Genetics debunk the morally absolute drug warrior
Posted by: aahpat on Aug 17, 2006 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If drug use and addiction are perceived by society as a public health medical condition and normal part of the human condition related to genetics there is no longer an absolute moral purpose to prohibition and drug war.

The genetic considerations force recognition of humanity in the otherwise zero tolerance issue of prohibition.

A physical malady such as a genetic condition requires empathy for the person with the condition. Zero tolerance does not permit empathy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

error!
Posted by: insulaparadigm on Jan 4, 2007 4:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
+++++++++++++++ this is long time ago but wouldn't a wdr rat need to consume more to get the same effect as a sdr rat anyways? The link is broken and there is no references.

am I overtired and missing something obvious?

I'm not arguing one extreme over another - those who think their behavior based addictions (comparing playing a lot of video games or watching a lot of tv etc) versus chemical based addictions (consuming alchohol morphine carriers etc)
are sorely missing the point. Yes there is a spectrum but unless you are OCD or borderline you won't feel the same levels of trauma or ERROR! symptoms etc if you miss
your rewarding activity as an addict does for their chemical fix. Furthermore overgeneralizing your subjective sense of motivation to experiences you haven't felt (and that's good!) is foolish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]