Cancer Drugs May Also Treat Alcoholism

A study in the journal Cell shows that some fruit flies are genetically disposed to dislike drinking alcohol. And some anticancer drugs mimic the effect--which points to the possibility of those drugs treating alcoholism. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

As we recover from the holiday weekend, there’s some intoxicating news on curbing the effects of alcohol. In the May 29th issue of Cell, scientists report discovering a gene that controls fruit flies’ sensitivity to ethanol. And if that just sounds like tipsytalk, the finding suggests that a couple of current anticancer drugs might find use in treating alcoholism.

Some flies, like some people, just can’t hold their drink. One sip and they’re tripping over their own wings. So the scientists set out to search for the fly genes involved in alcohol sensitivity. And they turned up a gene they call happyhour. Flies with a normal version of this gene are liquor light-weights, while happyhour mutants can drink their fly friends under the table.

In the normal flies, happyhour blocks a hormone called EGF. And the scientists found that two anticancer drugs, which also inhibit EGF, make boozing flies more woozy—a feeling that’s as unpleasant for flies as it is for people. Rats, too, will take a nip and say enough when they’re on these drugs.

Robbing booze of its buzz is one way to attack alcoholism. Which means that, at least genetically speaking, it’s good to have a little happyhour.

—Karen Hopkin

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe