They're not going to believe it. Still thanks for the small validation.

One of the most destructive scientific trends in the development of modern (Western) psychiatry has been the paradigm of sociobiology, which takes complex cultural/social issues and reduces them to genetics. We, including our scientists, have always had a penchant for shortcuts, quick fixes and simple explanations, and this invariably leads us down the wrong path.

If I had obeyed my doctor, I would now be a complete, drugged out basket-case, going from one psychotropic cocktail to another. Against my doctor's advice and conventional psychiatric "wisdom" I said no, enough is enough. I went off the meds and made some pretty radical changes to my lifestyle and environment, and guess what - I've never felt better in my entire life.

The lesson: I am not only a biological creature, a genetic being. I'm a product of my many cultural/environmental factors. Current treatments seem to completely bypass these factors in their insistence that it's my genetic hardwiring or brain chemistry that needs fixing.

Some things that greatly improved my state of mood and mind: strict nutrition (I haven't eaten junk food in over two years), vitamins, 30 minutes per day of exercise and loving, supportive relationships.

What angers me most is the influence of modern psychiatry on our children, who unlike me, do not have adult faculties to question authority and make decisions for self. I just finished watching the Frontline documentary: "The Medicated Child" - and it made me furious. Especially this one shrink in the doc who casually admitted that drug therapy amounted to little more than "experimentation" - after which he proceeds to increase the dosage, introduce new meds at the first sign that a drug isn't working. We seem to get more enraged about the treatment of lab animals than we do lab children being experimented on.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's very clear to me that there is a strong "nature" component which defines certain susceptibility. Maybe this "nature" is already a combination of genetics and early life events. And while malleable, it's still there. I think it's wise to be skeptical of any finding identifying a single gene responsible for likeliness of depression, but it's unwise to deny the role of "nature".

"strikes a serious blow to genetic/brain chemistry advocates in the land"

Look, I understand the reasons you have problems with the current state of things with the large focus on mental illness as a physical illness and the treatment modalities that follow from that, but to argue that genes and brain chemistry have no role to play is taking it too far.

First of all, if it occurs in the mind, it occurs in the brain--any psychological problem should therefore be reflected in the brain chemistry of the affected person. This isn't to say that correcting brain chemistry is the only or even the best way to go about treating depression. The tools we have now for playing with brain chemistry are crude and have side effects, so if something else works better or even just as well (as most reputable therapies do for many people) then of course medication shouldn't be the frontline treatment. This is true especially given that we really don't know what the hell is going on in the biology/chemistry of depression.

Unfortunately drug companies are big and powerful and have focused the conversation on brain chemistry entirely, but even if it needs to be a smaller part of the conversation than it is now, it still needs to be a part.

Second, are you honestly telling me that you think there is NO genetic basis for ANY depression? It is, of course, entirely plausible for a trait to be present due to brain chemistry that is entirely the result of environmental/psychological factors, and I think in many cases this is true. However, not everyone who has a rough time of things ends up with serious intractable mental illness. There is clearly some individual variation going on, and combined with the fact that there are cases of mental illness running in families, I don't think it is too unreasonable to suggest that there may be some genetic variations that predispose one to experiencing depression.

Sasha,

Your point is well taken. I think biological reductionism is all too prevalent in current scientific thinking. That's not to say the nature side of the human equation is wrong or to be neglected in favour of environmental factors. The problem with reductionism (of which I include nurture varieties) is it creates a false dualism, pitting nature vs. nurture. There is no dualism. In my educated and experienced opinion, both nature and nurture are intertwined and fused together in a dialectical way, inseparable.

The other issue that occurs to me is the already murky nature of mental illness, for which there is not a single objective diagnostic tool to test, in the way there are such tools for physical ailments. This makes genetic reductionism in psychiatry all the more suspect and deserving of scrutiny.

The search for a supposed depression gene presupposes we really know what depression is and what causes it and where it it is located in the mind/body. It presupposes further that we can isolate illness in a single gene. We can't, and such thinking is done in the interests of scientific expediency, which ends up benefiting big pharma.

Good post. But mental illness does run in families, and it isn't all bad parenting repeated unto the seventh generation, either. Oliver Wendell Holmes would have sterilized most of my family (his infamous quote "three generations of imbeciles is enough").

I agree that the pharma companies have often been immoral, vicious, and greedy, pushing ineffective drugs at vast cost, that have dangerous side effects. BUT: sometimes a half-assed med is better than someone killing themself or retreating into psychosis or having to be physically locked up.

There are two benefits to the patient and/or the family from a focus on the genetic causes of mental illness: 1) a lessening of blame (as the parent of two severely mentally ill children, I anguish, wondering if anything in my upbringing of them "caused" their illness, despite their conditions being the same ones that recur generation after generation in my family, regardless of parenting styles) and 2) a medical legitimising of the conditions, which makes it harder for insurance companies to deny coverage for their treatment.

I bitterly regret that I allowed my kid's doctors to medicate him with the appalling drugs they gave him, but the truth is, no environmental changes, special education, parental love, church prayers, special nutrition or anything else were able to help him as much as the loathsome meds that make him fat and spacier. I wish there were better drugs, but I am glad he is not psychotic and suicidal and homicidal, that he is able to live at home with a family that loves him. As opposed to being dead or locked up.

That it "isn't unreasonable to suggest there may be some genetic variations that predispose one to experiencing depression" is not proof that such a genetic predisposition exists. We are speaking about scientific evidence here. This study suggests there is no relationship between this one serotonin gene and depression. If this study found an association between the gene and depression the interviewed psychiatrists would have been hailing the study as a landmark one. Instead, they are suggesting more genetic research needs to be completed. It is plausible that depression has nothing to do with genetics, and the individual variability seen between depressed people is completely non-genetic. The study found that stressful life events are associated with increased rates of depression - this is the most consistent evidence in depression research. Perhaps we should research this further to gain a deeper understanding of how stressful life events contribute to depression.

are you trying to make me blind with this font?

Nope. times new roman is about as standard as fonts get.

There was to be magic. If we only knew the genetic basis for depression new medications would be developed and depression would be eradicated.

The problem with believing in magic is when the magic doesn't come. In the interim people continue to struggle to get any services and supports let alone those that are responsive to their individual needs and are effective. Sadly, what we have been left with is a consumer population which has been encouraged to believe that we are fundamentally (genetically) broken and a society which increasingly believes the same.

If you have a workin brain with the capability of having feelings, yes you too could get depressed. Is this not every human ? Demons and psychopaths don't get depressed right? (they just get angry)? Demons hidden amongst us humans would be a good DNA discovery.

This gene is associated, however, with placebo response in both depression and anxiety. Just think, people homozygote for the long variant are more likely to respond to placebo treatment. What does this say about what we think the term "mental illness" actually means?

To be honest at first I did feel some relief at hearing that my problems with depression were a matter of screwy brain chemistry. It took all ownership away from me which was nice, but, ultimately all it did was keep me trapped. If I had screwed up brain chemistry, then the goal was to find the right med to treat my screwed up brain chemistry. Like so many, one med lead to a cocktail of meds, increasing one, decreasing another, add one, take one way, add two more, etc. But, it did not lead me out of depression, it kept me there.

As long as I was encouraged to believe I couldn't help it, I lived up to that expectation.

I remember David Healy (Let Them Eat Prozac), more than 10 years ago, questioning the existence of a link between depression and serotonin. Does anyone remember exactly what he said and how (or does) that fit into this finding?

Show me the part where Philip or any other reasonable person claims that the paucity of scientific evidence supporting genetic causation is proof that no genetic causation could possibly exist. This study, so far as it's valid, "strikes a serious blow to genetic / brain chemistry advocates" because for years those people have been claiming that there is good solid scientific research PROVING that genetics is a causative factor in the manifestation of "mental illness."

It's entirely possible that there is a genetic component. It's completely reasonable to suggest that there *may* be some genetic predisposition. It's totally in order to do a lot more research about this question (though it would be nice if it were conducted by people a little more objective than Caspi, who's work seems to me to be less about scientific inquiry and more about mustering support for the ideology that genetics is behind "mental illness" and antisocial violence).

But to claim that we have plenty of real, solid, validated scientific PROOF is - pardon my bluntness - either ignorant or a willful lie.

I think that Philip makes an excellent point about the genetic hype diverting attention from other factors that are much more validated and also are actually actionable. (Genetics caused my problems? Good to know - I'll put in an order for all new alleles.)

Retriever, I dig your site, especially the pictures. I'm sure you appreciate that focusing on alleged genetic causes for children's problems is by design at the expense of considering interpersonal / interfamilial factors, which in many families is a huge benefit for the parents but a soul-crushing mind-f***ing disaster for the child.

So true, Lisa. That's the problem in general with psychiatric labelling. Teach people to be defective and that's what they'll become. I'm really glad you saw your way free.

I'm sorry. You are wrong.



I am a clone of my mother. We have the same height, same weight, same face, same head shape.
Same mental strengths. Same weaknesses.



We also have depression.



None of my siblings have depression.
None of my siblings share my mothers weight, height, strengths/weaknesses either.



My depression has very little to do with what is or is not going on in my life. My mother has been depressed when she should have been happiest.



While I can accept that in some - many - types of depressive disorders, lifestyle and development play a big role... sometimes it is also true that there is just something wrong with the genes you have, and you are prone to feel terrible a lot of the time for no good reason. Hey, stranger things have happened. Weird variants of genes happen all the time.

Bless you, Philip Dawdy... and all the other folks who have been persistent in offering the quality of information that you do.

Sorry NoOne, you are wrong (see the absolute in the statement)

You have no proof. Please show me the gene or series of genes that cause this passed on genetic depression.

To follow your argument and logic I could say with certainty "it's all behavioral mirroring" without a shred of proof.

I would not discount the possibility; but to blindly treat the unknown with powerful damaging and mind altering chemicals appears absurd, pointless, and cruel to be quite honest.

"she should have been happiest", NoOne.

Can you logic yourself into feeling good?
A working machine doesn't feel good or bad, its gears just spin to do the work its commanded to do.

Humans are not machines. Not chemical machines.

Ones feelings/emotions come from ones vices and virtues performed.

"If I may pat myself--and many readers--on the back for a moment..." Instead of patting on the back, do some research: Depression is heritable. Where's the journalism here? We don't know a lot in psychiatry, but we know that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11007705
[and note to the conspiracy theorists: none of these folks work for the drug companies. They're trying to figure out illnesses that cause disability and death, not sell Seroquel or poison kids.]

Philip Dawdy responds: where is your absolute replicated proof that it's inherited and that inheritance comes through genes and shared biology? i'll be waiting..for centuries, emil.

Paul's brief comment about the gene for placebo response is profound, and ought to be where the genetic psychiatry scientisits might want to throw their efforts. While the genetic evidence for depression indicates, at best, that genetics might provide a greater susceptibility to depression, the idea of genetic susceptibility to placebo effect has a lot of merit, and is consistent with a range of findings. This includes: it is known that people vary in their levels of susceptibility to hypnotism. Professional hypnotists know this. Just youtube "hypnotist comedian" or something like that, and watch professional hypnotists screen through dozens of general audience members and select the more-hypnotizable people. Researchers studying hypnotism for issues such as pain relief have valid, reliable instruments to measure hypnotizability. Along with this evidence, there is not yet evidence regarding why hypnotizability varies. Maybe it varies genetically. And maybe some of the people who get a lot of boost out of antidepressants are those who get persuaded, in a manner similar to hypnotism, by the lab coat, the ritual, etc., of taking antidepressants.

Most of us might agree that there is probably some degree of "nature" and some degree of "nurture" in depression. The problem with the view from Weissman's quote, and others' views, is that it portrays the view that once we can pin down the "nature" side, the story is done: take meds if you are depressed. Unfortunately, the evidence is very shaky on the "nature" side of the issue.

Meanwhile, on the "nurture" side, there is very strong evidence. As noted, the vast range of evidence relating difficult circumstances with subsequent depression. Also, there is evidence, more in-depth, that notes that those who have experienced the adverse events AND who have negative cognitions about life in general as a result of these experiences are the ones who end up depressed, not those who experience negative life events but carry on without getting depressed. Also, the evidence that more neg events leads to greater likelihood of ending up depressed - the neg experiences begin to add up and convince a person that life is rough and the person has little control over it. Also the evidence that cognitions in depressed people (bad things always happen to me; i have little influence over things in my life; etc.) differ distinctly from cognitions in non-depressed people. Also the evidence that "learned helplessness," a term for the cognitive outlook of depression, can be instilled in animals by having them experience bad events (getting shocked) with no chance of escape. Also the vast range of evidence, including from clinical practice everyday, that these depressive cognitions can be changed, and that improvmeent in mood follows this well-delineated therapeutic effort. Also the evidence from Susan Nolen-Hoeksema that ruminating on negative events is associated with depression, that women tend to ruminate more than men, accounting for the greater rate of depression in women than men. Also the evidence that you can enroll college freshmen, and instruct them to ruminate on negative events, and by this end up making them more dperessed, compared to a "control" group not ruminating on megative envents, thus showing that the suspected role of rumination can be experimentally induced. Plus the evidence that people who improve from cognitive-behavioral therapy have changes in brain functioning, when imaged with the various brain activity imaging technologies. Plus the great range of research demonstrating that psychologists understand all of this cogntive-behavioral "nurture"/experiential theory of depression to such a degree that they can PREVENT depression - such as the work by Seligman and colleagues in which they train school kids in the helpful thinking strategies that are the cure for depression, and these kids end up having lower rates of depression compared to control groups of kids. You can google-scholar "nolen-hoeksuma rumination", "seligman depression prevention", or any of these other topics to discover the vast array of decent resaerch supporting the "nurture" side of this "nature/nurture" debate. Or you can trust Myrna Weissman, who has been on the payroll of Big Pharma for years and years, when she tells you that she is sure depression is genetic, but they simply have not YET found the genes or the evidence.

Francesca, thank you. Me too. I am very grateful that there were people in my life who refused to accept my chronic mental illness label.

Belatedly, thanks, UnderTheThresher. (spam filters on a different computer meant that I didn't follow comments for over a week) And I do agree with you about how it sucks for the kids when the intrafamilial hell is glossed over in an overfocus on the genetic or (supposedly) pharmacologically remediable. It's cheaper for an HMO to give a generic pill than to help a family and its individuals untangle the social and emotional barbed wire that some have wrapped around each other. Good therapy is expensive.

And it's easier for drug companies to promote $500 a month pills if the view wins out that therapy and changing situations are less effective treatment than better livin thru chemistry . Not least, by under-emphasizing family, drug companies draw attention away from the fact that in a family with a cluster of sufferers, the monthly bill for those supposed magic bullets can come close to 4000 or more per household at times....How many ill people do we know who are helped by just one pill, and who are the only one in their family who need such help, after all?

I worked in my youth with abused and neglected kids, some mentally ill, most just brutalized by addicted or vicious parents. My own family of origin pretty horrific at times. But my spouse and I were shattered by the degree to which when, as loving tho very imperfect parents, we were so often blamed for our kid's torments. Once the social workers, shrinks, teachers, etc. had spent time with the family, they could tell that we were not the source of the problem. But it added enormously to our misery to know that every time we went in to an evaluation or meeting or desperate to an ER with the kid trying to hurt himself that the first assumption was always that bad parenting was to blame.

I tend to agree with others here that bad childrearing habits can get passed on, and may be some of what produces similar emotional angst in family members (as much as any supposed genetic link). To some extent, once aware, one can consciously do differently with some. Nevertheless, it's hard for parents raised by narcissistic, vicious and neglectful parents or depressed, manic or psychotic ones to easily be calm, affectionate, non-anxious presences in the lives of their own kids, no matter how much loved and wanted those kids may be. My spouse and I often feel like medieval sailors, sailing off uncharted regions of the map marked "there be dragons" but somehow keeping the ship afloat without flogging or starving the crew.

retriever,
"the social and emotional barbed wire that some have wrapped around each other" Such an awesome turn of phrase. I love it.

It's so odd that those who really are abusive get pills and often a free pass while others like yourself and your wife are scrutinized. I do believe, based on my experience in human services, that it's often because abusers get nasty, threaten and fight back. I've seen it happen.

A lot of my colleagues came from homes as dysfunctional as yours and mine and backed down in the face of triggering threats. One colleague didn't remove a child who was actually feral from severe neglect because the father/grandfather (incest) would have killed the worker had he done so. No one doubted this, no one blamed the worker for his inaction in a rural area where everyone knows where everyone lives. There's no question the guy would have killed him.

I was quite unable to meet the challenge of parenthood so I elected to stop the abuse by not having children. It was a difficult decision, but a clear one. I cover it up by saying I didn't want kids. On one level I didn't because I knew what a horror show it would have been for everyone.

But deep in my heart it's a different story. I know it was the right decision, that I would have been a terrible, abusive parent from the stress. I'm always glad when I hear of people turning things around. I salute you.

Very insightful, retriever. This self awareness will take you far. I know it's hard to overcome the legacy we are given by our own family and perhaps many previous generations of dysfunction. Sad really but that doesn't mean pills are the answer, that's for sure. I think it is possible to reframe the modus operandi we may have been given by others before us and to become better people.