Genetic explanations of 'mental illness' maintain prejudice

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/pride-and-prejudice/

Unfortunate because genetic factors are anywhere from significant to almost entirely responsible for mental/neurological conditions, depending on the condition. You can't claim that mental illness isn't at least partly genetic, no matter how good it would be for publicity; it simply wouldn't be true.

I like Ben Goldacre's articles, and of course he does not say that "Genetic explanations of 'mental illness' maintain prejudice".

This is an example of how "understanding the question is 90% of understanding the answer" - if we knew why we were researching the genetics of ADHD (or autism, or anything else), we would know an awful lot about ADHD (or autism, or anything else). Genetic research has a lot to offer - the terrible reporting of it is another issue - and will continue.

Their somewhat useless conclusions always boggled me as well. My wife works in the scientific community and she kind of explained it to me. If scientist after researching comes to a conclusion that states that their research could benefit and possibly cure something they are more likely to get extra money for more research.

I would like to see genetics eventually help to identify kids on the spectrum earlier (since early treatment is essential for low functioners) and to prevent misdiagnosis of people with mental illnesses and neurological issues. Is he on the spectrum or is he not talking due to some other reason, for instance.

I would hate for people to misuse genetic screens or researchers to focus on that rather than on treatments and improving existing services. You shouldn't be screening for something treatable or screening because public school services are of poor quality.

I am in a support group for parents of kids on the spectrum, and some of those failing to buy into the genetic explanations spend lots of time and money on useless, even dangerous, alternative remedies. (I have heard of giving laxatives to a child who violated his GFCF diet in order to cleanse his system, for instance. Other parents have made up their own diets without consulting medical professionals. Others use various herbal treatments without relying on medical information.)

For some reason, it seems to be encoded in the DNA of our society that mental/neurological illnesses are viewed as "demonic possession" or something similar. Many of the things that parents of autistic kids try for "cures" are similar in nature to taking the kid for an exorcism. People don't seem to understand that these things have genetic roots, and think that it's something the person did to "let in the demon". Look around at autism being portrayed and talked about as if it was an alien entity possessing kids. I sometimes wonder how far we've really come from witch burning.

16%?!

8%?!

Statistically insignificant numbers! Why even discuss it?

When 84% of the population can't be accounted for by the hypothesis, the study hasn't proved anything at all.

I'll wait for better news.

Wow... laxatives? Okay, that's just ridiculous. They only work on the large intestine anyway--where the vast majority of absorption has already been completed. Even if the child had celiac disease, they wouldn't be helpful; it's the small intestine where celiac disease causes problems. And guess what--most laxatives work by irritating the intestine deliberately. The stupidity of some people...

Statistically significant refers to the likelihood that the findings are real and not chance - and these findings are, statistically, highly significant. They are not very significant clinically. They were reported very badly ("ADHD is genetic!" rather than "Some ADHD has a genetic contribution").

The particular genetic locii identified are also highly significant biologically, because they are implicated in a number of other conditions and their relation to neurological and biological functions may lead to useful therapy. It also raised some good debate about what it would mean if ADHD was shown to have a biological cause, as will almost definitely happen with some forms of autism.

What I have difficulty in understanding is the opposite expectation - that genetic explanation will reduce the stigma.

I think that is so obvious that we stigmatize more someone when we think that his problems are intrinsic to his self (the case of genetic problems) than when we think that the problems are caused by external factors (look to all social discussions about issues like "class", "race", etc.) that I wonder about what the people who think that "these findings will help overcome the stigma" are smoking.

Or better - perhaps genetic explanation could reduce the stigma, not of the people with the condition, but of their parents, because "environmental" explanations are usually very stigmatizing TO PARENTS (remember the old "refrigerator mother" theory of autism, or the "bad parenting" theory of ADHD...).

Ah, but actually, it supports the theory. Probably a lot of the time, those genes are inherited from the parents. Maybe people with those genes are more likely to be the sort of parents who make their kids ADHD. Hence, they pass on the genes to their children and they give the kids ADHD.