Brave New World versus Island — Utopian and Dystopian Views on Psychopharmacology

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is a famous dystopia, frequently called upon in public discussions about new biotechnology. It is less well known that 30 years later Huxley also wrote a utopian novel, called Island. This paper will discuss both novels focussing especially on the role of psychopharmacological substances. If we see fiction as a way of imagining what the world could look like, then what can we learn from Huxley’s novels about psychopharmacology and how does that relate to the discussion in the ethical and philosophical literature on this subject? The paper argues that in the current ethical discussion the dystopian vision on psychopharmacology is dominant, but that a comparison between Brave New World and Island shows that a more utopian view is possible as well. This is illustrated by a discussion of the issue of psychopharmacology and authenticity. The second part of the paper draws some further conclusions for the ethical debate on psychopharmacology and human enhancement, by comparing the novels not only with each other, but also with our present reality. It is claimed that the debate should not get stuck in an opposition of dystopian and utopian views, but should address important issues that demand attention in our real world: those of evaluation and governance of enhancing psychopharmacological substances in democratic, pluralistic societies

The self in prejudice

Abstract: The self as a psychological construct, and the self in relation to the other has been discussed in psychological and sociological literature for decades, but not much attention has been given to the psychological development of the self in relation to the social construction of prejudice. The primary aim of this article is to explore the self in prejudice and thus the psychological processes involved in the development of self within the social context. Consequently, the aim is to explore the self in the construction and expression of prejudice from both a social and psychological approach, and to explain selfhood influences at the individual, group and community levels. I use the conceptual framework of Kohut’s self psychology as a lens to present the development of the self and thus the idea of the development of the self in relation to the other. In such exploration of self in prejudice, I present some of my ideas which include prejudice as an outcome of self-definition in the context of the other, as well as linking self in prejudice and group dynamics to attachment theory and the notion of “selfgroup’ in terms of overidentification with the in-group. While the social and the psychological in terms of the development of the self cannot be separated, I have therefore attempted to merge at some point the two bodies of thought in relation to the self in prejudice

Facts, values, and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): an update on the controversies

The Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute, is holding a series of 5 workshops to examine the controversies surrounding the use of medication to treat emotional and behavioral disturbances in children. These workshops bring together clinicians, researchers, scholars, and advocates with diverse perspectives and from diverse fields. Our first commentary in CAPMH, which grew out of our first workshop, explained our method and explored the controversies in general. This commentary, which grows out of our second workshop, explains why informed people can disagree about ADHD diagnosis and treatment. Based on what workshop participants said and our understanding of the literature, we make 8 points. (1) The ADHD label is based on the interpretation of a heterogeneous set of symptoms that cause impairment. (2) Because symptoms and impairments are dimensional, there is an inevitable "zone of ambiguity," which reasonable people will interpret differently. (3) Many other variables, from different systems and tools of diagnosis to different parenting styles and expectations, also help explain why behaviors associated with ADHD can be interpreted differently. (4) Because people hold competing views about the proper goals of psychiatry and parenting, some people will be more, and others less, concerned about treating children in the zone of ambiguity. (5) To recognize that nature has written no bright line between impaired and unimpaired children, and that it is the responsibility of humans to choose who should receive a diagnosis, does not diminish the significance of ADHD. (6) Once ADHD is diagnosed, the facts surrounding the most effective treatment are complicated and incomplete; contrary to some popular wisdom, behavioral treatments, alone or in combination with low doses of medication, can be effective in the long-term reduction of core ADHD symptoms and at improving many aspects of overall functioning. (7) Especially when a child occupies the zone of ambiguity, different people will emphasize different values embedded in the pharmacological and behavioral approaches. (8) Truly informed decision-making requires that parents (and to the extent they are able, children) have some sense of the complicated and incomplete facts regarding the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD

Medicalization of eating and feeding

A variety of developments over the past century have produced the conditions in which eating and feeding are transformed from practices embedded in social or cultural relations into explicit medical practices. The rise of medical science, expansion of the pharmaceutical and food industries, escalating concern over diet‐related diseases and conditions, and growing anxiety over infant and childhood development have contributed to a process of medicalization. Medicalization is a sociological concept that analyses the expansion of medical terminology, interventions, or practitioners into areas of the life that were previously considered outside the medical sphere. For instance, under‐eating has previously been defined using theological language, as an act of fasting demonstrating a saintly character. Such practices are now understood through medical terms of anorexia nervosa, malnutrition, or general diagnoses such as “eating disorders not otherwise specified.” Individuals engaged in under‐ or over‐eating practices are increasingly defined by medical concepts (anorexia nervosa and obesity) and treated in medical spaces (hospitals, clinics, or rehabilitation centres) through medical interventions (pharmaceuticals, surgery, psychotherapy, or dietary regimens). Likewise, infant feeding (breast or formula) is understood as a practice that requires monitoring and instruction from medical practitioners. Further, eating in general is progressively invested with medical significance. Foods and diets are touted as possessing a therapeutic or health enhancing capacity that indicates an individual’s or population’s present and future health. Due to the high regard for, and influence of, medical science in the West, medicalization studies primarily focus on Western contexts. Medicalization does have an impact on non‐Western societies and the developing world, however its influence emanates from Western biomedicine, industries, and policies. There is important work to be done in examining the process of medicalization in non‐Western contexts, however this article is limited to the Western context ( Hunt, 1999). To analyse the medicalization of eating and feeding it is important to first sketch the theoretical and historical background of medicalization as a sociological concept. The relationship between eating and medicine is extensive. In order to focus the discussion, three examples are used – under‐eating, over‐ eating and infant feeding. This background focuses the analysis of the forces driving the medicalization of eating and feeding. Finally, in elaborating the influences and consequences of the medicalization of eating and feeding, some of the central ethical implications are identified and discusse

A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology

As synthetic biology develops into a promising science and engineering field, we need to have clear ideas and priorities regarding its safety, security, ethical and public dialogue implications. Based on an extensive literature search, interviews with scientists, social scientists, a 4 week long public e-forum, and consultation with several stakeholders from science, industry and civil society organisations, we compiled a list of priority topics regarding societal issues of synthetic biology for the years ahead. The points presented here are intended to encourage all stakeholders to engage in the prioritisation of these issues and to participate in a continuous dialogue, with the ultimate goal of providing a basis for a multi-stakeholder governance in synthetic biology. Here we show possible ways to solve the challenges to synthetic biology in the field of safety, security, ethics and the science–public interface

Controversies concerning the diagnosis and treatment of bipolar disorder in children

This commentary grows out of an interdisciplinary workshop focused on controversies surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of bipolar disorder (BP) in children. Although debate about the occurrence and frequency of BP in children is more than 50 years old, it increased in the mid 1990s when researchers adapted the DSM account of bipolar symptoms to diagnose children. We offer a brief history of the debate from the mid 90s through the present, ending with current efforts to distinguish between a small number of children whose behaviors closely fit DSM criteria for BP, and a significantly larger number of children who have been receiving a BP diagnosis but whose behaviors do not closely fit those criteria. We agree with one emerging approach, which gives part or all of that larger number of children a new diagnosis called Severe Mood Dysregulation or Temper Dysregulation Disorder with Dysphoria

Memory enhancing drugs and Alzheimer’s Disease: Enhancing the self or preventing the loss of it?

In this paper we analyse some ethical and philosophical questions related to the development of memory enhancing drugs (MEDs) and anti-dementia drugs. The world of memory enhancement is coloured by utopian thinking and by the desire for quicker, sharper, and more reliable memories. Dementia is characterized by decline, fragility, vulnerability, a loss of the most important cognitive functions and even a loss of self. While MEDs are being developed for self-improvement, in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) the self is being lost. Despite this it is precisely those patients with AD and other forms of dementia that provide the subjects for scientific research on memory improvement. Biomedical research in the field of MEDs and anti-dementia drugs appears to provide a strong impetus for rethinking what we mean by ‘memory’, ‘enhancement’, ‘therapy’, and ‘self’. We conclude (1) that the enhancement of memory is still in its infancy, (2) that current MEDs and anti-dementia drugs are at best partially and minimally effective under specific conditions, (3) that ‘memory᾿and ‘enhancement᾿are ambiguous terms, (4) that there is no clear-cut distinction between enhancement and therapy, and (5) that the research into MEDs and anti-dementia drugs encourages a reductionistic view of the human mind and of the self