The Political Economy of Drugs

Of all the affairs of the nation, one would think that public health should be divorced from the distorting interference of politics. Alas, this is not the case as former Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine makes clear in her recent article "The Truth About the Drug Companies". The article focuses more on the nasty bussiness practices which pharmaceutical companies engage, but its relevence to psychiatry is all to clear. If these companies will do anything to make a buck , then it is no wonder why they are capable of passing bad drugs onto consumers without blinking an eye.

What They Don't Publish

Many advocates for psychopharmocological solutions to mental health problems point to numerous studies that purport the safety of the drugs. It is true that many studies exist that claim that main psychopharmaceutical drugs used today are safe. But there are three glaring problems with accepting the outcome of these studies as fact. The first, is that most of these studies are paid for by the manufacturers of the drugs, one way or another. Most publicly available studies are done either by the manufacturer's staff scientists, by scientists at academic institutions that receive financial support from pharmaceutical industry, or by the National Institute for Mental Health, which is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. This situation is obviously a conflict of interest. The second problem with accepting these studies is the fact that not all of the studies done by the manufacturer are released to the public. Only the clinical trials that show positive results are published, while those that show negative results are kept hidden in the drug companies' files. The third is the very nature of science. What has been "proven" today, may be disproven tomorrow. Remember the 1950's? LSD was proven to be safe and therapeutic. Amphetamines (speed) were proven safe and effective in controlling one's weight, and lifting mood. The early tranquilizer were proven to be non-addictive and useful for anxiety, depression and sleeplessness. All of these "proven" facts were overturned by later science, and the same thing may happen for the popular drugs of today. Science is a tool only as good as those who wield it, and no matter who wields it, science is not infallible.

Science Has Missed Half The Brain

A cover article in the April 2004 edition of Scientific American explains how "science has missed half the brain." Researchers have long known that the brain contains two types of cells, neurons and glia. In the brain gilal cells outnumber nerve cells 9 to 1, however scientists have always held them to be relatively insignificant. They theorized that they were realitivly inactive support cells for the nerves. Recently, however, researchers have discovered that gilal cells indeed do play a large role in how the brain works and new technologies have allowed scientists to see just how important these cells are to brain function. The study of glial cells is an exciting new frontier of neuroscience, and may hold the key to understanding brain function and dysfunction. Scientists predict that perhaps the causes of M.S. could be derieved from this study, and it is interesting to ponder that fact that the scientists who studied Albert Einstien's brain found an average number of nerve cells, but a great deal more glial cells than normal. Fasinating! But wait! Weren't we told that scientists understood the brain. And that because they understood the brain, they could create treatments for brain disorders like depresssion, anxiety and schizophrenia ? All of the psychoactive drugs now used to treat mental disorders are designed to target the neurons. SSRI's target the neurotransmitter serotonin. Anti-Psychotics target production of the neurotransmitter dopamine. What if the true cause of schizophrenia is found in the glial cells? What if depression has nothing to do with neurotransmission? Just a case in point that science is a work in progress. If researchers can't fully understand how the brain works, they should not reccomend how to fix it. I could not find a free link to this article but you can check out the abstract here.