In Brief
- New findings suggest that experiences can contribute to mental illness by adding or removing “epigenetic” marks on chromosomes. These tags are particular chemicals that can influence gene activity without changing the information encoded in the genes.
- Studies in mice demonstrate a role for long-lasting epigenetic modifications in such disorders as addiction and depression.
- Epigenetic changes can also affect maternal behaviors in ways that reproduce the same behaviors in their offspring, even though the changes are not passed down through the germ line.
- Researchers hope the new findings will lead to better treatments, although the path to those treatments is not yet obvious.
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
Matt is a history teacher. his twin brother, greg, is a drug addict. (Their names have been changed to protect their anonymity.) Growing up in the Boston area, both boys did well in high school: they were strong students in the classroom and decent athletes on the field, and they got along with their peers. Like many young people, the brothers snuck the occasional beer or cigarette and experimented with marijuana. Then, in college, they tried cocaine. For Greg, the experience derailed his life.
At first, he was able to function normally—attending classes and maintaining connections with friends. But soon the drug became all-important. Greg dropped out of school and took on a series of menial jobs in retail and fast-food joints. He rarely held a position for more than a month or two, generally getting fired for missing too much work or for arguing with customers and co-workers. His behavior became increasingly erratic—sometimes violent—and he was arrested repeatedly for stealing to support his habit. Multiple efforts at treatment failed, and by the time the courts sent Greg, then 33 years old, to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation, he was destitute and homeless: disowned by his family and a prisoner of his addiction.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentRE: Biologism & Geneticism vs. Behaviorism: How Epigenetics has distinguished the 2 neo-Darwinist pseudoscience pursuits in our Modern (developmental) Biology and Biomedicine -- Unequivocally!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought the above excellent article has indeed helped clear the air of confusion and corruption in our currently developmental biology and psychiatry today and beyond: Biologism & Geneticism vs. Behaviorism, since the 1970s; at a time when the 2 arising neo-Darwinist pseudoscientific worldviews in biology -- ie, anthropomorphism and reductionism in "evolutionary biology" or neo-Darwinism par excellence of the 20th century past -- have (had) become the domineering views in the high academic or theoretical biology of the days to come; as those that have been first established in the world-renowned Harvard ant expert or myrmecologist EO Wilson's 1975 book "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" and the equally-renowned Oxford neo-Darwinist or ethology-trained Richard Dawkins' 1976 book "The Selfish Gene"!
More specifically, the subsequent neo-Darwinists continued attempts to confuse and corrupt Psychiatry and Psychology today, to which I have had all strongly opposed and refuted (since 2010) here: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/depression/content/article/10168/1575333 "The Evolutionary Calculus of Depression -- RE: Let's not dictate Psychiatry by neo-Darwinism -- Evolutionary geneticism vs. Clinical diagnosis, alleviation, of Depression (distresses mental, spiritual, or otherwise)!?" (PsychiatricTimesUSA; June 3, 2010).
Best wishes, Mong 11/20/11usct11:23a; practical science-philosophy critic; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (iUniverse; 2006 -- http://bookstore.iuniverse.com/Products/SKU-000034974/GODS-GENES-CONSCIENCE.aspx ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006 -- http://www2.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778 ).
RE: Biologism & Geneticism vs. Behaviorism: How Epigenetics has distinguished the 2 neo-Darwinist pseudoscience pursuits in our Modern (developmental) Biology and Biomedicine -- Unequivocally!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought the above excellent article has indeed helped clear the air of confusion and corruption in our currently developmental biology and psychiatry today and beyond: Biologism & Geneticism vs. Behaviorism, since the 1970s; at a time when the 2 arising neo-Darwinist pseudoscientific worldviews in biology -- ie, anthropomorphism and reductionism in "evolutionary biology" or neo-Darwinism par excellence of the 20th century past -- have (had) become the domineering views in the high academic or theoretical biology of the days to come; as those that have been first established in the world-renowned Harvard ant expert or myrmecologist EO Wilson's 1975 book "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" and the equally-renowned Oxford neo-Darwinist or ethology-trained Richard Dawkins' 1976 book "The Selfish Gene"!
More specifically, the subsequent neo-Darwinists continued attempts to confuse and corrupt Psychiatry and Psychology today, to which I have had all strongly opposed and refuted (since 2010) here: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/depression/content/article/10168/1575333 "The Evolutionary Calculus of Depression -- RE: Let's not dictate Psychiatry by neo-Darwinism -- Evolutionary geneticism vs. Clinical diagnosis, alleviation, of Depression (distresses mental, spiritual, or otherwise)!?" (PsychiatricTimesUSA; June 3, 2010).
Best wishes, Mong 11/20/11usct11:27a; practical science-philosophy critic; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (iUniverse; 2006 -- http://bookstore.iuniverse.com/Products/SKU-000034974/GODS-GENES-CONSCIENCE.aspx ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006 -- http://www2.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778 ).
Well, I prefer to see this as yet more evidence that the environment is the deciding factor. The boys experience could not have been identical getting to college age; the experience made the difference and yes, epis are the key. Although before we called them eip they were still in existence working exactly like they do now. We just called them inherited characteristics. i think it is more evidence of how fragile we are and how we depend upon a calm non stressful environment to reach full potential.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with your comment though I am also interested in the use of "random" in the article. Perhaps we are seeing some sort of quantum effect here with the twins. A superposition resolved differently in the two "identical" twins. Variance might br a more accurate term in place of mutation in many cases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf nature and nuture comes together in some way in human nerve to create mental illness, how could you explain why alcohol abuse or substance abuse come to impact the nature of one who is not genetically predisposed to substance-induced mental illness. It is very common in many research analysis that withdrawal from both alcohol and substance use can be very difficult, devastitating and tormenting to abusers and family members. A man or a woman who drink excessively or who is drug induced and who uses substance indiscriminately will still break the guiding rules of withdrawal whenever drugs or bottles of beer are flashed in his or her face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we cannot explain why this craving lingers execessively in the life of users, how then can we explain what goes on in the life and nature of a sexually induced drug addicts who is rushed to an emergency room only to gets better when he sees a very beautiful physician. I am wondering what kind of diagnosis could we call this kind of mental illness since it is not documented in the diagnostic manual of American pschiatric Association (DSM-1V).
Sequel to nature and nurture and mental illness, what diagnostic criteria should we use when an addict becomes better whenever he sees drugs or an abuser of alcohol feels more elated whenever he sees bottles of liqor or a womanizers (what I call female psychosis) on a sick bed gets better or heavenly whenever he sees only a female physician or believes he can only be well if he talks only to a female doctor. If you have no answer and if the DSM-1V lacks provision for this kind of diagnosis, I have an answer myself that needs scientific and neurological evaluation, which if candidly and logical evaluated will finds its way into the American Dignositic and statistical manual.
When someone is addicted the cellules are affected and you can culture to addicted cells to see the changes and try to change the cell with medicaments. But if we find out a genetic addiction then we can use epigenetic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this