Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Marc Lewis
Abstract
The harm done by addicts to themselves and those around them has riveted public attention in
recent years. It has become essential to discard outdated perceptions of addiction and replace
them with coherent models based on scientific principles. Toward this end, doctors, psychiatrists,
medical researchers and treatment providers have come to define addiction as a brain disease.
Specifically, addiction is characterized by changes in brain systems that mediate the experience
and anticipation of reward, systems responsible for perception and memory, and higher-order
executive systems underlying cognitive control. The disease model stipulates that these changes
are caused by exposure to drugs of abuse, and they are difficult if not impossible to reverse.
By looking at changes in the function and structure of the nervous system, the disease model
helps explain why it is so difficult to achieve abstinence through the exercise of willpower. It
makes sense of individual differences in vulnerability to addiction, based on dispositional factors
and environmental stressors. The disease model provides a knowledge base and research agenda
for developing pharmaceuticals that can be useful for reducing craving and easing withdrawal
symptoms. And it has countered the perception that addicts are morally deficient or self-
indulgent, arguably reducing the stress and isolation they and their families experience.
Given these achievements, it isn’t surprising that the disease model of addiction is accepted—in
fact nearly unchallenged—by the medical community, the psychiatric community, research
funding bodies, and governments themselves, as reflected by a mountain of articles and posts by
the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the
American Medical Association (AMA), and the American Society of Addiction Medicine
(ASAM). Yet there are reasons to question the validity of the disease perspective. First, this
perspective clashes with the experience of many former addicts, who do not feel they were ever
sick or have now been cured. Second, the strongest endorsements of the disease model come
from the rehab industry and Big Pharma, both of which profit from the belief that addicts need
long-term medical treatment. Rather, most alcoholics and addicts recover [1], and most of those
do so without treatment of any kind [2–4], a finding that is difficult to reconcile with the idea
that addiction is a chronic disease. Finally, investigators who approach addiction as a disease are
far more likely to get their work funded, thus minimizing the volume and impact of discrepant
findings.
For these and other reasons, the disease model of addiction has been heatedly challenged, and
alternative models have been proposed in its place. Addiction may be viewed as a choice rather
than a pathology. While few people imagine that addiction is a good choice, it is sometimes
considered rational in the short run—as when the pleasure or relief derived from drugs
temporarily outweighs the alternatives [5, 6]. Addiction may be a natural response to
environmental or economic conditions beyond the addict’s control, including poverty and social
alienation [6, 7]. Addiction can be viewed as a form of self-medication that works against
psychological suffering. Trauma—whether physical, psychological, or sexual—is often
considered the root cause of long-term anxiety and depression; and post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) is highly correlated with substance use [8–10]. A framework that encompasses all these
approaches views addiction as a product of cognitive and emotional development, predisposed
by constitutional factors but consolidated through learning over childhood and adolescence [10].
These alternatives to the disease model of addiction may be compelling, but they lack one
important ingredient. They have little or nothing to say about the brain. (There are notable
exceptions [11–13], which, although valuable, provide only global neural arguments, without
attention to key structures or processes. Maia Szalavitz [10] is the only author I’m aware of who
backs a learning account of addiction with detailed neuroscientific explanation.) In this era of
scientific acceleration, brain science has become a gold standard for conclusive explanations of
human phenomena. Without detailed neurobiological analysis, alternatives to the disease model
may lack the scientific traction they need. My book, The Biology of Desire [14], was intended to
fill in the neural level of analysis in a developmental-learning model of addiction, integrate that
level of explanation with experiential accounts of addiction and recovery, and demonstrate that
the disease model has outlived both its credibility and its usefulness. In the following sections, I
summarize these arguments and connect them to the larger debate on how to understand and
combat addiction. I end by showing that the ethos of the disease model makes it difficult to
reconcile with a developmental-learning orientation.
Go to:
References
1. Lopez-Quintero C, Hasin DS, Cobos JPDL, Pines A, Wang S, Grant BF, Blanco C.
Probability and predictors of remission from life-time nicotine, alcohol, cannabis or cocaine
dependence: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on alcohol and related
conditions. Addiction. 2011;106:657–669. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03194.x. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
2. Dawson DA, Grant BF, Stinson FS, Chou PS. Maturing out of alcohol dependence: the impact
of transitional life events. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2006;67:195–203. doi:
10.15288/jsa.2006.67.195.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
3. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 2006. National epidemiologic
survey on alcohol and related conditions. Alcohol: Research & Health 29:2
4. Heyman GM. Quitting drugs: quantitative and qualitative features. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology. 2013;9:29–59. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143041. [PubMed] [Cross
Ref]
5. Heyman GM. Addiction: a disorder of choice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2009.
6. Hart C. High price: a neuroscientist’s journey of self-discovery that challenges everything you
know about drugs and society. New York: HarperCollins; 2013.
7. Alexander B. The globalization os addiction: a study in poverty of the spirit. Oxford: Oxford
University Press; 2008.
8. Brady KT, Sinha R. Co-occurring mental and substance use disorders: the neurobiological
effects of chronic stress. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2005 [PubMed]
9. Al’Absi M. Stress in Adiction: biological and psychological mechanisms. Amsterdam:
Academic Press; 2006.
10. Szalavitz, Maia. Unbroken brain: a revolutionary new way of understanding addiction. New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
11. Maté G. In the realm of hungry ghosts. Toronto: Vintage Canada; 2008.
12. Levy, Neil. 2013. Addiction is not a brain disease (and it matters). Frontiers in
Psychiatry 4:24. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00024. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Hall W, Carter A, Forlini C. The brain disease model of addiction: is it supported by the
evidence and has it delivered on its promises? The Lancet Psychiatry. 2015 [PubMed]
14. Lewis, Marc. 2015. The biology of desire: why addiction is not a disease. New York:
PublicAffairs.
15. Robinson TE, Berridge KC. The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: an incentive-
sensitization view. Addiction. 2000;95:91–117. [PubMed]
16. Kalivas PW, Stewart J. Dopamine transmission in the initiation and expression of drug- and
stress-induced sensitization of motor activity. Brain Research Reviews. 1991 [PubMed]
17. Kalivas PW, Alesdatter JE. Involvement of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor stimulation in the
ventral tegmental area and amygdala in behavioral sensitization to cocaine. The Journal of
Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 1993;267:486–495. [PubMed]
18. Volkow ND, Koob GF, Thomas McLellan A. Neurobiologic advances from the brain disease
model of addiction. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;374:363–371. doi:
10.1056/NEJMra1511480.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
19. Berridge KC, Robinson TE. What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward
learning, or incentive salience? Brain Research Reviews. 1998 [PubMed]
20. Robinson TE, Berridge KC. Addiction. Annual Review of Psychology. 2003;54:25–53. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145237. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
21. Tindell AJ, Berridge KC, Zhang J, Peciña S, Wayne Aldridge J. Ventral pallidal neurons
code incentive motivation: amplification by mesolimbic sensitization and
amphetamine. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2005;22:2617–2634. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-
9568.2005.04411.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
22. Everitt, Barry J, and Trevor W. Robbins. 2013. From the ventral to the dorsal striatum:
devolving views of their roles in drug addiction. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 37.
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.02.010. Elsevier Ltd: 1946–1954. [PubMed]
23. Goldstein RZ, Volkow ND. Drug addiction and its underlying neurobiological basis:
neuroimaging evidence for the involvement of the frontal cortex. The American Journal of
Psychiatry. 2002;159:1642–1652. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.10.1642. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
24. Goldstein RZ, Volkow ND. Dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in addiction: neuroimaging
findings and clinical implications. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 2011;12:652–669. doi:
10.1038/nrn3119.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
25. Volkow ND, Fowler JS. Addiction, a disease of compulsion and drive: involvement of the
orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex. 2000;10:318–325. doi:
10.1093/cercor/10.3.318. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
26. Greenough WT, Black JE, Wallace CS. Experience and brain development. Child
Development. 1987;58:539–559. doi: 10.2307/1130197. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
27. Doidge N. The brain that changes itself. Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of
brain science.London: Penguin; 2007.
28. Edelman G. The mindful brain: cortical organization and the group-selective theory of higher
brain function. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1978.
29. Blakemore S-J, Choudhury S. Development of the adolescent brain: implications for
executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied
Disciplines. 2006;47:296–312. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01611.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
30. Kober H, Mende-siedlecki P, Kross EF, Weber J, Mischel W, Hart CL, Ochsner KN.
Prefrontal-striatal pathway underlies cognitive regulation of craving. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2010;107:14811–14816. doi:
10.1073/pnas.1007779107. [PMC free article][PubMed] [Cross Ref]
31. Mischel W, Ebbesen EB, Zeiss AR. Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of
gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1972;21:204–218. doi:
10.1037/h0032198. [PubMed][Cross Ref]
32. Marsch LA, Bickel WK. Toward a behavioral economic understanding of drug dependence:
delay discounting processes. Addiction. 2001 [PubMed]
33. McClure SM, Laibson DI, Loewenstein GF, Cohen JD. Separate neural systems value
immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science. 2004;306:503–507. doi:
10.1126/science.1100907. [PubMed][Cross Ref]
34. Bjork JM, Momenan R, Hommer DW. Delay discounting correlates with proportional lateral
frontal cortex volumes. Biological Psychiatry. 2009;65:710–713. doi:
10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.023. [PubMed][Cross Ref]
35. Foddy B, Savulescu J. A liberal account of addiction. Philosophy, Psychiatry, &
Psychology. 2010;17:1–22. doi: 10.1353/ppp.0.0282. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
36. Brewer JA, Potenza MN. The neurobiology and genetics of impulse control disorders:
relationships to drug addictions. Biochemical Pharmacology. 2008;75:63–75. doi:
10.1016/j.bcp.2007.06.043.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
37. Fisher HE, Aron A, Mashek D, Li H, Brown LL. Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic
attraction, and attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2002;31:413–419. doi:
10.1023/A:1019888024255. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
38. Burkett JP, Young LJ. The behavioral, anatomical and pharmacological parallels between
social attachment, love and addiction. Psychopharmacology. 2012 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
39. Toates F. How sexual desire works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
40. Salamone JD, Correa M, Farrar A, Mingote SM. Effort-related functions of nucleus
accumbens dopamine and associated forebrain circuits. Psychopharmacology. 2007 [PubMed]
41. Assadi SM, Yucel M, Pantelis C. Dopamine modulates neural networks involved in effort-
based decision-making. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2009 [PubMed]
42. Steinbeis, N., J. Haushofer, E. Fehr, and T. Singer. 2014. Development of behavioral control
and associated vmPFC-DLPFC connectivity explains Children’s increased resistance to
temptation in intertemporal choice. Cerebral Cortex: 32–42.
doi:10.1093/cercor/bhu167. [PubMed]
43. Hershfield HE, Goldstein DG, Sharpe WF, Fox J, Yeykelis L, Carstensen LL, Bailenson JN.
Increasing saving behavior through age-progressed renderings of the future self. Journal of
Marketing Research. 2011;48:S23–S37. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.48.SPL.S23. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
44. Figner B, Knoch D, Johnson EJ, Krosch AR, Lisanby SH, Fehr E, Weber EU. Lateral
prefrontal cortex and self-control in intertemporal choice. Nature Neuroscience. 2010;13:538–
539. doi: 10.1038/nn.2516.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
45. Wiers RW, Bartholow BD, van den Wildenberg E, Thush C, Engels RCME, Sher KJ,
Grenard J, Ames SL, Stacy AW. Automatic and controlled processes and the development of
addictive behaviors in adolescents: a review and a model. Pharmacology Biochemistry and
Behavior. 2007 [PubMed]
46. Tian X, Huber DE. Playing “duck duck goose” with neurons: change detection through
connectivity reduction. Psychological Science. 2013;24:819–827. doi:
10.1177/0956797612459765. [PubMed][Cross Ref]
47. Low, Lawrence K., and Hwai-Jong Cheng. 2006. Axon pruning: an essential step underlying
the developmental plasticity of neuronal connections. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 361:1531–1544.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1883. [PMC free article][PubMed]
48. Connolly, Colm G., Ryan P. Bell, John J. Foxe, and Hugh Garavan. 2013. Dissociated grey
matter changes with prolonged addiction and extended abstinence in cocaine users. PLoS ONE:
8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059645. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
49. Morales AM, Lee B, Hellemann G, O’Neill J, London ED. Gray-matter volume in
methamphetamine dependence: cigarette smoking and changes with abstinence from
methamphetamine. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2012;125:230–238. doi:
10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.02.017. [PMC free article] [PubMed][Cross Ref]
50. Flanagan O. The shame of addiction. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2013;4:1–11. doi:
10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00120. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
51. Doidge N. The brain’s way of healing. London: Viking; 2015.
52. Li P, Legault J, Litcofsky KA. Neuroplasticity as a function of second language learning:
anatomical changes in the human brain. Cortex. 2014 [PubMed]
53. Lewis, Marc D. 1997. Personality self-organization: cascading constraints on cognition-
emotion interaction. Dynamics and Interdeterminism in Developmental and Social
Processes 193–216.
54. Lewis, Marc D. 2010. Desire, dopamine, and conceptual development. Child Development at
the Intersection of Emotion and Cognition: 175–199. doi:10.1037/12059-010.
55. Lewis MD, Todd RM. The self-regulating brain: cortical-subcortical feedback and the
development of intelligent action. Cognitive Development. 2007;22:406–430. doi:
10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.004.[Cross Ref]
56. Ainslie G. Breakdown of will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
57. Cicchetti, Dante, and Donald J. Cohen. 2006. Developmental psychopathology, Vol 3: Risk,
disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed.). In Developmental psychopathology, Vol 2: Developmental
neuroscience, xvi, 944.
58. Pickard H, Ahmed SH, Foddy B. Introduction: alternative models of addiction. Lausanne:
Frontiers Media; 2015.
59. Alexander BK, Coambs RB, Hadaway PF. The effect of housing and gender on morphine
self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacology. 1978;58:175–179. doi:
10.1007/BF00426903. [PubMed][Cross Ref]
60. Pickard H, Ahmed SH, Foddy B. Alternative models of addiction. Frontiers in
Psychiatry. 2015[PMC free article] [PubMed]
61. CA NCA, Joseph JPP, McCleery P, Nelson CA., 3rd Use of event-related potentials in the
study of typical and atypical development. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry. 2008;47:1252–1261. doi: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e318185a6d8. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]