join the cry…

Posted on Friday 25 July 2014


Chasing the genetics holy grail neglects current patient need
Psychology Today
by Allen J. Frances, M.D.
July 24, 2014

I am a great supporter of mental health research, but worry that it has lost its sense of proportion and is chasing the wrong priorities. The really glamorous stuff consumes almost all of the enormous NIMH budget and now has behind it the huge addition of a $650 million dollar private donation aimed at solving the genetics of mental illness. Neuroscience is an extremely easy sell to Congress and rich philanthropists because it promises so much – that we are on the brink of achieving fundamental breakthroughs in understanding how our genes and brains work [and sometimes don’t work]. But such overpromising ignores the painful lessons of history. The neuroscience and genetic revolutions have been astounding in their technical virtuosity and fascinating in their findings- but to date have not helped a single patient. We have learned a great deal in basic science, but nothing at all that translates to better clinical care.

 

But there is a cruel paradox when it comes to mental disorders. While we chase the receding holy grail of future basic science breakthrough, we are shamefully neglecting the needs of patients who are suffering right now. It is probably on average worse being a patient with severe mental illness in the US now than it was 150 years ago. It is certainly much worse being a patient with severe mental illness in the US as compared to most European countries. Access to community care and decent housing is deteriorating; hundreds of thousands of psychiatric patients are homeless or in prison; there is little system in the mental health system; and almost all research is strictly biological.

I think the welcome infusion of $650 million dollars would have been much better spent to achieve current tangible results [by funding research and model programs to improve the dreary lives of our patients], rather than betting everything on the future long shot that big bucks can dramatically speed up what will doubtless be decades of painstaking and frustrating genetics research. The neglect of the severely mentally ill is a blight on our society that genetics research will not solve. Its OK to shoot for the stars, but not when we are failing in our day to day responsibility. Less glamour, more compassion.

more compassion.
As a young man in love with science, medicine was a perfect choice. All the sciences were represented: mathematics, chemistry, physics, engineering, social science, etc. It was a cornucopia that felt like it was just made for a dabbler like me – always something new, endless unanswered questions. I was pretty far along in things before it dawned on me really that medicine may have been a science playground, but what it really was had to do with taking care of sick people. While that may seem patently obvious, it was a realization that profoundly revised my subsequent directions. I never got over the joys of science, but it became a tool rather than an end unto itself.

When I read about the $ 650 M commitment to the Stanley Center [$650M gift to Broad seeks to propel psychiatric research], my reaction mirrored Dr. Frances’. I think he’s even more honest than I might have been when he says, "The neuroscience and genetic revolutions have been astounding in their technical virtuosity and fascinating in their findings- but to date have not helped a single patient. We have learned a great deal in basic science, but nothing at all that translates to better clinical care." I might have been too timid to put it quite that strongly, but I sure thought it as soon as I read it. It’s Mr. Stanley’s money and he can choose to do with it whatever he wants to do. He didn’t ask me or Dr. Frances. But if he had…

I guess people think that neuroscience research is like the Manhattan Project, or NASA, or DARPA. If we just throw money and talent at it, it will yield up its secrets. Those were projects where we knew where we were going and a lot about how to get there. The infusions of brainpower and treasure insured that the details would be ironed out and we sped towards the goal. Neuroscience research, particularly genetic neuroscience research, is a horse of a different color. It’s exploratory, a trip into the unknown. We don’t really even know the questions to ask or what we’d do with the answers if we had them. And with much mental illness, we don’t even know if the problems have anything to do with neuroscience, in spite of hearing little else for decades. With Steve Hyman in charge of the Stanley Center and Tom Insel in charge of the NIMH, regrettably, that’s not likely to change.

And this is no country for old men. We badly need more younger voices to join the cry…
  1.  
    July 25, 2014 | 3:45 PM
     

    Very much agree with you Mickey and Allen on this, but I would be really interested to see one of your take-it-apart analyses Mickey on the recently published study “Biological insights from 108 schizophrenia-associated genetic loci” –
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7510/full/nature13595.html – as so many people across the twittersphere and beyond danced at its publication and it was so eagerly swallowed by the press. Sadly, for the non-scientist it might well have been encrypted – perhaps it was!

  2.  
    James O'Brien, M.D.
    July 31, 2014 | 1:29 PM
     

    Actuarial, not diagnostic. If science were taught properly, 7th graders would know the difference.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.