Ph.D. Octopus

Politics, media, music, capitalism, scholarship, and ephemera since 2010

Psychiatric Scandals

with 3 comments

By Nemo

Whatever happened to the couch?

If you haven’t already read Marcia Angell’s two review essays on the state of psychiatry in the New York Review of Books, I urge you to do so now. They are absolutely devastating. Angell, the former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, provides so much evidence of systematic corruption at the heart of the profession that it might just give you a newfound respect for the Church of Scientology. (Okay, maybe not.)

Others have documented the growing number of seemingly common forms of behavior that psychiatrists describe as mental illness, the increasing prevalence of drugs over talk therapy as a preferred method of treatment, and the vast sums of cash that pharmaceutical companies spend marketing their wares. Angell ties these phenomena together. She also raises serious questions about the quality of research that justifies the prescription of anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications.

This is partly a story of a discipline attempting to attain “scientific” status.  During the 1970s, psychiatry faced challenges from an array of skeptics who questioned the reliability of its methods. The response among disciplinary leaders, Angell documents, was to do everything possible to “clinicalize” the field. Psychiatrists moved away from models that stressed childhood development toward ones that emphasized the biological roots of mental illness (what distinguished researcher Leon Eisenberg calls the field’s late twentieth century turn from a state of “brainlessness” to “mindlessness”).  Since mental illness were due to chemical imbalances in the brain rather than unresolved unconscious conflicts, medication would be crucial to treating them. By relying more heavily on prescribing drugs than it had in the past, psychiatry seemed to be establishing its expert authority on par with other medical sciences.

Sometimes a cigar is just a sign that you need some selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

As psychiatry’s mid-century romance with Freudian theories of childhood development turned to a focus on “chemical imbalances” in the brain, drug companies stepped in to take advantage. The more illnesses discovered, the more drugs that could be manufactured to treat them. The more pills available for new disorders, the less money insurers would have to spend on costly therapy sessions. Psychiatrists, pharmaceutical companies, and insurers all seemed to benefit from this arrangement.

But what about the patients? The most shocking revelations contained in Angell’s piece are that virtually no peer-reviewed research supports the view that anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications provide any more effectiveness in treating these conditions than placebos. In fact, some studies suggest these drugs might actually have a negative impact on normal brain functioning. There’s also no evidence whatsoever that mental illnesses are caused by chemical imbalances. This is the case even though large numbers of people, including more and more children, are popping happy pills. What is one to make of all this?

It’s worth noting that leaders in other academic disciplines attempted to make their work more scientific in the 1960s and 1970s. Some historians, for example, argued that the rise of computers would overturn many of the field’s conventions. Rigorous quantitative analysis, they prognosticated, would provide the key to unlock all mysteries. History would finally attain the authority of science.

I think most historians would agree that while some of the methods developed by “cliometricians” deepened our understanding of the past, it was probably for the best that the discipline never abandoned its commitment to the close readings of primary sources. Without attention to the experience of actual people, statistics, by themselves, could give a distorted picture of the past. Fortunately, historians were able to make decisions on the state of their field for themselves: they never faced the temptations of a public looking to them to provide panaceas and an industry willing to sponsor them.

Over prescribed drugs with long term side effects are bad... Mkay.

One of the main culprits in psychiatry’s apparent failings appears to be lack of transparency. Drug companies are under no obligation to publish negative research results. And so they usually don’t. While pharmaceutical companies promote their products to doctors in many fields, it turns out that psychiatrists receive more courting than all of the others. Arguably, Angell notes, this might have something to do with the subjective nature of much psychological assessment—it seems harder to gauge a decline in anxiety (and what exactly caused that decline) than the remission of cancer cells.  The connections between top research psychiatrists and the drug industry are also extremely close, raising legitimate concerns about conflicts of interest.

The issues raised in Angell’s articles reminded me of some of the questions that I’ve come across in my own research on the history of academic freedom in the United States. Traditionally, professors have justified academic freedom’s special privileges on the ground that they require professional autonomy to discover new knowledge and promote the common good. Without the autonomy academic freedom provides, they insist that outside interests such as large corporations, churches, and labor unions would corrupt research.

During the late 1960s, however, many radicals questioned whether colleges and universities that had become so enmeshed with the state—particularly through research for the War in Vietnam (engaging in weapons development, studying counter-insurgency, manufacturing computers that could launch military attacks), could ever serve as centers of impartial reflection. They demanded, sometimes successfully, that campuses stop conducting classified research. At the very least, activists raised the point that scholars needed to pay close attention to the implications of their work and the role that patronage might play in defining its parameters.

Reading Angell’s piece, it seems that many of the issues that bedeviled campus military research in the 1960s applies to work in psychiatric medicine today (as well as other fields heavily subsidized by corporate money such as bio-technology). Considering the cash-strapped situation of many universities, it’s understandable that some institutions would let standards of openness and independence slip in the hopes of generating income and prestige. Understandable, but probably counter-productive.  Corporate research, when conducted without the openness that characterizes traditional scholarship, threatens to undermine the very mission of creating useful knowledge that the university is supposed to promote. This certainly seems to the case with the over-prescription of psychiatric medications. As corruption of this nature gains more attention, the public will be even less likely to support research initiatives than they are today (which, ironically, would force even more solicitations from private industry).

All of which to say, it’s enough to make one reach for the nearest bottle of Prozac.


Written by Julian Nemeth

July 6, 2011 at 20:23

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Great post. I read the Angell articles, and much of what she discusses is quite troubling, particularly the pernicious influence of the drug companies. I found the tales of how the drugs were developed particularly disturbing and unscientific. I am a bit skeptical of some of her claims to their absolute ineffectiveness, though. She cites various studies that seem to indicate that “real” psychiatric drugs are no more effective than placebos in fighting depression. These studies, however, all seem to be based on 6-8 week trials. Anyone who has suffered from depression knows that drugs typically take 3-4 weeks just to begin working at all, and significant improvement often only occurs after a few months.

    I certainly believe that psychiatric drugs are over-prescribed, the science behind them can be quite shaky, and, especially in the case of the depression, they should not be administered without psychotherapy to compliment them. I also agree that exercise and therapy might often be as effective as medication. And again, I agree that the drug companies have an overly pernicious effect in the field of psychiatry, even more so than in other areas of medicine.

    Nonetheless, I still believe in the drugs’ effectiveness. I will have a follow-up post on this issue soon.


    July 6, 2011 at 23:36

    • Thanks for the comments!

      I agree with pretty much everything that you’re saying here. I have little doubt these drugs are over-prescribed. Besides the evidence provided in these articles, I’ve also seen it among my own friends. I’ve known several people that have suffered from mild anxiety issues–probably brought on by the stresses of graduate school–who went to see a therapist. Drugs were recommended pretty much as soon as they walked into the door. Something seems wrong with reflexively prescribing medications that impact your neurotransmitters.

      I hope that many of Angell’s claims can be disproved. I don’t think anyone wants to believe that the intellectual corruption runs that deep. If you find studies that show that anti-depressants have a much stronger effect on depression than placebos over longer periods of time (i.e. more than %85 effectiveness, and ideally, using placebos that mimic side effects), I would love to see them. Of course, it would be easier to get a fair assessment of these issues if drug companies were obligated to publish all their peer reviewed studies–and not just get to cherry pick the ones with positive results.

      Even if the drugs do have some impact, I hope that articles like Angell’s help move psychiatry beyond the “mindlessness” paradigm described by Eisenberg. I found the history of the “chemical imbalance” idea contained in the pieces quite startling.

      Looking forward to your post.


      July 7, 2011 at 10:28

  2. […] Books between Dr. Marcia Angell and her interlocutors on the effectiveness of psychiatric drugs. As Julian previously observed, Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School’s Department of Social Medicine and […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: