Prozac, Ritalin, Cognitive Enhancement, and the power of a snappy title

Let it be known that Sci, like many a young, bright-eyed little scientist, tries to keep up on her reading. TRIES is the operative word, but every week Sci gets the Tables of Contents for all the major journals in her field (and all the major ones in her subdisciple) emailed straight to her for her perusal. She scans the title lists, searching for things that are cool in her field, cool to blog, or that might indicate a scoopage of her work (hey, it happens).
And it was in one of these perusals that I came across this article. And this article is on a subject that needs to be blogged. But this article also says a lot about the "selling" of a scientific paper to a high-ranking journal. Biological Psychiatry, the journal in which this paper was published, has a pretty decent impact factor (8.67), and in Sci's field, is considered to be a pretty hot publication venue.
But before I go into that, let's take a look at this paper: Steiner et al. "Fluoxetine potentiates methylphenidate-induced gene regulation in addiction-related brain regions: Concerns for use of cognitive enhancers?" Biological Psychiatry, 2010.
cognitive enhancer1.jpg
Sci would like to start by noting that doing an image search for "cognitive enhancer" yields some surprisingly boring results. I was really hoping for something like this:
cognitive enhance2.jpg
Oh well.

Continue Reading »

16 responses so far

Some more questions on Ritalin

Sep 16 2009 Published by under Neuroscience

Sci got this comment to her Ritalin post the other day:

It sounds like you are suggesting that cocaine taken in the same form as Ritalin -- as low-dose, slow release pills -- would produce the same effects as the ADHD medication does. But, clearly, the FDA has seen fit to outlaw cocaine and place its seal of approval on doctor-prescribed Ritalin. Not that I think the FDA is infallible or anything, but did they really make the mistake of controlling one substance and permitting another that are essentially equivalents? Benzoylmethylecgonine and methylphenidate are clearly not the same chemical compounds, but if they act in synonymous ways on the brain, shouldn't they be treated equally under the law?
And what about the all-touted maxim that patients who have not been prescribed Ritalin should not take it but those who have been shouldn't miss a dose? Is there really such a neurological difference between those with ADHD and those who haven't been diagnosed with it, or is it just a matter of how much rapport you establish with your psychiatrist? (I am not trying to patronize; I legitimately want to know!)
Similarly, are their patients for whom controlled doses of cocaine would yield medical benefits equal to or exceeding those of Ritalin? Or are there manifold side effects that discourage the use of cocaine as an ADHD/ concentration medication in spite of its similarities to Ritalin?
Personally, I'm skeptical of many of the diagnoses of ADHD that I see and of the politician-worthy campaigns that I hear that deny the efficacy of Ritalin for patients who have not been diagnosed with ADHD. It seems to me that for a disorder whose diagnosis is so imprecise and objective, it's a convenient coincidence that most takers of Ritalin who have been diagnosed with ADHD (regardless of whether or not the diagnosis is accurate) show marked improvement in concentration...

As you can see, it's long and has a lot of questions. And some of them are very good ones. But I knew that answering it within the comment thread was going to be long, and also I needed to use lots of links. So congrats, cerebration! You're getting your very own post!!!
Here we go.

Continue Reading »

9 responses so far

Opponent-Process Theory: Welcome to the dark side

May 25 2009 Published by under Addiction, Neuroscience

You people. You people and your REQUESTS. Requests to do things like blog more about opponent-process theory. Well. Sci hears you. She obeys. At least this time. And for all your drug addiction experts out there asking me to read Koob, I can assure you that I have read a LOT of Koob in my time. For those of you not necessarily familiar with the drug abuse lit, George Koob is considered one of the greatest minds in current drug abuse research, and has done a lot to conform the motivationally-focused opponent-process theory to the model of drug addiction that exists today. Guy even has a wikipedia entry! That's how you know you've hit the big time. And so, Sci continues her discussion of opponent-process theory in this second installment, with many thanks to Koob and his co-author, Le Moal.
Remember this?
OP Theory1.png
You'll need it.

Continue Reading »

11 responses so far

Things I like to Blog About: Addiction and the Opponent Process Theory

May 20 2009 Published by under Addiction, Neuroscience

Perhaps I should put a special category up for "things I like to blog about". Or maybe just 'basics'.
Sci's been a little out of her bloggin' groove lately, feelin' her stuff is not up to snuff. But with THIS, Sci will get her groove back. And she will get it back with pictures. Pictures that are drawn in powerpoint so they don't make your eyes bleed. I care.

So what is the opponent-process theory? The opponent-process theory (hereafter called the OP Theory) is one of the current theories we are using to understand addiction. Because, to be honest, we don't really understand it. Oh sure, we know about initial rewarding effects, we know about withdrawal, we know about tolerance. But do we really KNOW what it is that makes people walk away from their families and homes and jobs and sell themselves for their next hit? A next hit that, oftentimes, they HATE and need at the same time? ...nope. Still working on that.

But one of the theories out there to explain drug addiction and how it may work is the OP Theory.

Continue Reading »

25 responses so far