The Psych Student

The case of Prof. David Nutt is important to all areas of science, as it asks some crucial questions about the socieity in which we live:  Is working with the government becoming CV stain? Will it ruin your reputation? Can anyone take you seriously after working with a government agency, or should you at least be looked at with some suspicion?

Bad times. The sacking of David Nutt over his accurate, verifiable ranking of dangerous drugs by Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes murky the role of scientific advisors in government systems where politics are more often all that matters. The ability for scientists to speak openly and honestly is under attack. David Nutt has done so before, and then it helped improved the lives of many in the UK dealing with depression. Perhaps he thought that may have bought him some credit. But political memory is short.

“An increasing number of psychiatrists followed the practice of evidence-based methods. They preferred truth – however inconvenient – to dearly held fantasies. Nice – the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence – now advises doctors to prescribe antidepressants only for severely depressed patients, while mildly, moderately and severely depressed patients should receive psychotherapy.” – Dorothy Rowe

Science has always had the bad end of its relationship with politics. In the 17th century Galileo was forced to renounce his work which suggested the sun as opposed to the earth, was at the center of things. In 1925 a high school teacher in Dayton, Tenn., named John Scopes was persecuted by religious fundementalists and the state alike for daring to teach evolution in a science class. This is the tradition the Home Secretary now follows by putting political careerism and pandering ahead of a careful consideration of fact and clear evidence.

"Free Goth Baby Belladonna" by Pink Sherbet Photography

If depression is a disorder, then doing away with it should improve people’s lives. But what if doing away with it actually had a ruinous effect?

Scientists Paul Andrew and Anderson Thomson, Jr. have research that suggests depression is a trait that the species, and individuals, would not do so well without.

I’m interested in this as it points to something I think needs addressing in our culture where constant happiness is often seen as the gold standard of wellbeing. Sometimes we just need to be depressed.

Obviously a constant state of depression isn’t healthy. That statement doesn’t seem to warrant much debate. But what about those that are taking the Monty Python song “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” a bit too literally? Couldn’t it be true that an ostensibly happy outlook is also an extreme situation that could signify a disorder? Read the rest of this entry »