New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

...Yet Antidepressants Offer No Cure

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Do antidepressants “cure” depression? No, says Joanna Moncrieff, a psychiatrist at University College London—no more so than insulin “cures” diabetes or alcohol “cures” social anxiety.

Moncrieff, who has published several critical studies of psychiatric drugs in leading medical journals, advocates a “drug-centered” rather than “disease-centered” model for understanding psychoactive medication. “Instead of relieving a hypothetical biochemical abnormality,” she says, antidepressants themselves cause “abnormal brain states,” which may coincidentally relieve psychiatric symptoms.

As for curing depression, Moncrieff notes that “there are no known drug-induced effects consisting of long-term elevation of mood,” nor is there is any evidence that medication corrects a “chemical imbalance,” as both pharmaceutical advertising and physicians often claim. These results may explain why, despite much greater use of antidepressants in recent years, there is “little evidence outside of controlled drug studies that long- or short-term outcomes for depression are changing.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Indeed, Moncrieff adds, some studies show that depressive episodes are more frequent and last longer among antidepressant users than nonusers. A drug-centered approach to treating psychiatric conditions, she says, would look at each medication's specific alleviating effects—some act as stimulants or as sedatives, whereas some blunt emotions—rather than labeling any as an “antidepressant” when no drug has been proved to deliver long-term mood elevation.

SA Mind Vol 17 Issue 4This article was published with the title “...Yet Antidepressants Offer No Cure” in SA Mind Vol. 17 No. 4 (), p. 8
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0806-8b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe