on the road…

Posted on Wednesday 12 October 2011

The public health burden of mental illness is without question, but Tom Insel and friends have turned it into a "brand." It begins Insel’s every speech and is in the introduction to many of the journal articles of a subset of our biological researchers. It’s a particularly hot issue in Australia right now because of the government’s planned investment in Dr. McGorry’s program for early intervention in Schizophrenia. There are several issues involved. First, there’s the question of medicating the identified cases. That’s the one I’ve focused on. In Australia itself, there’s another big question because this program was apparently funded at the expense of other, ongoing, effective mental health programs. Dr. Insel has been a strong supporter of the Australian initiative as a breakthrough, and it’s tempting to speculate that Insel’s presence in Australia is to bolster Drs. McGorry and Hickie who are taking some heat on their home turf right now…
Focus more on mental health: US expert
ninemsn – sydney
by Belinda Tasker
Oct 7, 2011

Scientists and governments need to put as much effort into treating mental illnesses as they do cancer and heart disease, an international mental health expert says. Dr Thomas Insel, who is visiting Australia for a series of lectures, says mental disorders were often not recognised as major sources of disability and mortality compared to diseases like cancer. "Most people would not believe that more people kill themselves than are killed by others," Dr Insel told AAP. "And that mostly has to do with serious mental illnesses like depression, bipolar disorder, to some extent PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), schizophrenia and a few others. "We need to really bump up the science in lots of ways and put the kind of energy into the science of mental illness that we put into the science of cancer and heart disease." Dr Insel, who is director of the National Institute of Mental Health in the United States, said mental disorders were the leading source of medical disability in developed countries like Australia. People with mental illnesses also had a life expectancy of just 56 years.

He said major steps had been made in understanding the causes of mental illnesses thanks to developments in genetics and neuroscience. As a result, scientists had shone new light on different ways of diagnosing mental disorders and developing better treatments. Dr Insel said he believed important genetic discoveries like "biomarkers" for diseases such as schizophrenia would help remove some of the stigmas still attached to mental illness.

And he praised Australian researchers for their groundbreaking work in mental illness. "I do get the sense in Australia there’s a growing recognition of the importance of this area and there are now investments that are really enlightened and much more than we are seeing in other areas, particularly in the US where there has been less interest in trying to invest in research into mental illness relative to cancer or infectious disease," he said. Dr Insel was invited to Australia to deliver lectures to the Mental Health Research Institute at the Melbourne Brain Centre and the University of Sydney.
I don’t personally follow the way the debate in Australia is developing. I doubt that many question the broad direction of Dr. McGorry’s research and proposed program. Most of us think that the condition we call Schizophrenia starts before the onset of overt psychosis and I expect that there’s also a consensus that a strong biologic/genetic loading is in the picture. I, for one, am glad they’ve taken on the task of running down these long held suspicions and trying to turn them into something that helps the patients. The criticisms have to do with the use of antipsychotic medications and the allocation of resources, not the basic directions. Yet Drs. McGorry and Hickie respond as if they’re being attacked by unenlightened people who lack their vision. That’s what leads one to be suspicious that Insel has been invited as a political ally to support them in their perceived fight against their enemies. And there’s more to support that suspicion. Insel has problems of his own.
Changing the mental health blame game
the sydney morning herald

by Mark Metherell
October 12, 2011

If the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, were alive today he would be a neuroscientist because of the technology now available to study the workings of the brain. The "blame and shame" era of linking mental illness to early life events is fading as medical science identifies biological disorders in the brain as triggers, says leading mental health scientist Tom Insel. Dr Insel, who heads the National Institute of Mental Health in the US, said scientific breakthroughs connecting brain activity with illnesses such as depression were transforming thinking about how to treat such disorders. "I think we have come through an era of blame and shame which this new approach hopefully will get us away from. I am not sure it was helpful to anyone," said Dr Insel, who is visiting Australia to look at mental health services.

If the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, were alive today he would be a neuroscientist because of the technology now available to study the workings of the brain, he said. Australian programs pioneered by Professor Pat McGorry were in the vanguard in the changing focus in mental health, Dr Insel said. These approaches were aimed at earlier identification of brain disorders signalling risk of psychosis and using holistic therapies including social and employment supports to combat social isolation. Therapies to beat these conditions did not necessarily have to rely on drugs, but could use targeted cognitive interventions. Dr Insel’s institute was funding research using video games that focus on memory and decision-making skills that seem to be problem areas for people at risk of schizophrenia.

He said the term "mental illness" might no longer be helpful in describing such conditions. "These syndromes we call mental disorders are really just neural developmental disorders. When we begin to think of them in that way it does change our focus." Increasingly, he said, neurology was providing breakthroughs in the understanding of psychiatry and bringing closer together two disciplines "separated by a common organ". He said it should be possible to identify children’s mental health risk factors and take therapeutic action earlier, similar to the way it was now possible to identify risk factors for cardiovascular disease and some types of cancer.

An example of the way language could change the way we thought about brain disorders was attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]. "We now know children with this problem have a profound delay in cortical maturation of about 2½ years. "This is truly a disorder of cortical development and to call this ADHD would be like calling a myocardial infarction [a heart attack] a chest-pain disorder. "It really does not do justice to the underlying biology that we are beginning to learn."
In Dr. Insel’s recent speeches, he’s focused on three areas in the world of psychiatry – genetic biomarkers of psychiatric disorders [personalized medicine], neuroimaging, and early detection and intervention with Dr. McGorry’s program as his prime example. In this second speech, Dr. Insel returns to the arguments of his predecessors from the 1980s – down with psychoanalysis and related matters, long live neuroscience [though "blame and shame" is something of a new twist]. He gives three examples: "brain activity with illnesses such as depression," "earlier identification of brain disorders signalling risk of psychosis," and "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder." No one I know has argued that the latter two are "mind" disorders. But I’m not sure that "scientific breakthroughs connecting brain activity with illnesses such as depression were transforming thinking about how to treat such disorders" was a very good example to choose just now. That so-called transformation in treatment hasn’t gotten very good press recently. The antidepressants have been massively oversold, driven by commercial interests and riddled with deceit. That news is out all over town. So, like Dr. McGorry, Tom Insel seems to be glossing over the actual criticisms and foiling with fantastic enemies – in this case, the long dead Dr. Freud. "I think we have come through an era of blame and shame which this new approach hopefully will get us away from. I am not sure it was helpful to anyone." As a rule, comments like this roll off my back, but I found this one unusually divisive and unnecessary.

Back to the point, I’m all in favor of looking into the early detection of Schizophrenia and a carefully controlled search for genetic biomarkers in mental illness [neuroimaging? an interesting new telescope awaiting a Galileo]. But I think Dr. Insel is in Australia partly on his quest for something to keep his own dreams alive, dreams of coming breakthroughs in neuroscience, rather than because of a studied review of Dr. McGorry’s specific data or programs. "[the] Australian programs pioneered by Professor Pat McGorry were in the vanguard in the changing focus in mental health." I guess I’m accusing Dr. Insel of being more invested in a "vanguard in the changing focus in mental health" than in his job – creating an environment for creative and critical research.

And then there’s, "…the term ‘mental illness’ might no longer be helpful in describing such conditions. These syndromes we call mental disorders are really just neural developmental disorders." Is Tom Insel the Director of the National Mental Health Institute? Or is he on a committee to turn all of psychiatry into his hoped-for "clinical neuroscience"? Does he really think that he can get away with this new version of the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental disorders – this time a "just neural developmental disorders" theory? At this point in our history, that statement is scientifically indefensible. Beyond that, it’s politically unwise in the face of the track record of the second generation antidepressants and antipsychotics and the widespread unholy union between some of his colleagues and the pharmaceutical industry. Tom Insel on the road is sounding more like an traveling tent evangelist these days than a Director of a National Mental Health Institute…
  1.  
    October 13, 2011 | 9:57 AM
     

    Apart from the fact that Australia is a cool place to visit, and one should jump at the chance to have the trip covered as a business expense, there is something else about Australia to note in the Insel context, and that is it is culturally and politically about 30 years behind North America and England. This is understandable, given its distance from just about anywhere. So, it’s not too surprising that Australians may be lured into thinking what Insel (German for “island” BTW) wants them to believe. That psych drugs are still king and Elvis is alive.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.