Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Public Understandings of Addiction: Where do Neurobiological Explanations Fit?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Developments in the field of neuroscience, according to its proponents, offer the prospect of an enhanced understanding and treatment of addicted persons. Consequently, its advocates consider that improving public understanding of addiction neuroscience is a desirable aim. Those critical of neuroscientific approaches, however, charge that it is a totalising, reductive perspective–one that ignores other known causes in favour of neurobiological explanations. Sociologist Nikolas Rose has argued that neuroscience, and its associated technologies, are coming to dominate cultural models to the extent that 'we' increasingly understand ourselves as 'neurochemical selves'. Drawing on 55 qualitative interviews conducted with members of the Australian public residing in the Greater Brisbane area, we challenge both the 'expectational discourses' of neuroscientists and the criticisms of its detractors. Members of the public accepted multiple perspectives on the causes of addiction, including some elements of neurobiological explanations. Their discussions of addiction drew upon a broad range of philosophical, sociological, anthropological, psychological and neurobiological vocabularies, suggesting that they synthesised newer technical understandings, such as that offered by neuroscience, with older ones. Holding conceptual models that acknowledge the complexity of addiction aetiology into which new information is incorporated suggests that the impact of neuroscientific discourse in directing the public's beliefs about addiction is likely to be more limited than proponents or opponents of neuroscience expect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ‘Schoolies’ is a term used in Australia to describe end of high school celebrations that often involve alcohol and binge drinking.

References

  1. Robbins, T., R. Cardinal, P. DiCiano, P. Halligan, K. Hellemans, J. Lee, and B. Everitt. 2006. Neuroscience of drugs and addiction. In Drugs and the future: Brain science, addiction and society, ed. D. Nutt, T. Robbins, G. Stimson, M. Ince, and A. Jackson, 11–87. Burlington: Academic Press, Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bell, J., K. Reed, R. Ashcroft, J. Witton, and J. Strang. 2012. Treating opioid dependence with opioids: Exploring the ethics. In Addiction neuroethics: The ethics of addiction neuroscience research and treatment, ed. A. Carter, W. Hall, and J. Iles, 57–74. London: Academic Press, Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Volkow, K., and T. Li. 2005. Drugs and alcohol: Treating and preventing abuse, addiction and their medical consequences. Pharmacology and Therapeutics 108: 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dackis, C., and C. O'Brien. 2005. Neurobiology of addiction: Treatment and public policy ramifications. Nature Neuroscience 8(11): 1431–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. The Academy of Medical Sciences. 2008. Brain science, addiction and drugs, ed. G. Horn. Academy of Medical Sciences.

  6. Volkow, N., and T.-K. Li. 2004. Drug addiction: The neurobiology of behaviour gone awry. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 5(December): 963–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Levy, N. 2012. Autonomy, responsibility and the oscillation of preference. In Addiction neuroethics: The ethics of addiction neuroscience research and treatment, ed. A. Carter, W. Hall, and J. Illes, 139–151. London: Academic Press, Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Wild, T., J. Wolfe, and E. Hyshka. 2012. Consent and coercion in addiction treatment. In Addiction neuroethics: The ethics of addiction neuroscience research and treatment, ed. A. Carter, W. Hall, and J. Illes, 153–174. New York: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Brosnan, C. 2011. The sociology of neuroethics: Expectational discourses and the rise of a new discipline. Sociology Compass 5(4): 287–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lebowitz, A., and W-k Ahn. 2012. Combining biomedical accounts of mental disorders with treatability information to reduce mental illness stigma. Psychiatric Services. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201100265.

  11. Leshner, A. 1997. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science 278(5335): 45–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carter, A., and W.D. Hall. 2012. Addiction neuroethics: The promises and perils of neuroscience research on addiction. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dingel, M., K. Karkazis, and B. Koenig. 2011. Framing nicotine addiction as a “disease of the brain”: Social and ethical consequences. Social Science Quarterly 92(5): 1363–1388.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kalant, H. 2009. What neurobiology cannot tell us about addiction. Addiction 105: 780–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hyman, S.E. 2007. The neurobiology of addiction: Implications for voluntary control of behavior. The American Journal of Bioethics 7: 8–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Reiner, P.B. 2011. The rise of neuroessentialism. In The Oxford handbook of neuroethics, ed. J. Illes and B. Sahakian, 161–176. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rose, N. 2007. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Buchman, D., E. Borgelt, L. Whiteley, and J. Illes. 2012. Neurobiological narratives: Experiences of mood disorder through the lens of neuroimaging. Sociology of Health & Illness. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01478.x.

  19. Cohn, S. 2010. Picturing the brain inside, revealing the illness outside: A comparison of the different meanings attributed to brain scans by scientists and patients. In Technologized images, technologized bodies, ed. J. Edwards, P. Harvey, and P. Wade. New York: Bergahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dumit, J. 2003. Is it me or my brain? depression and neuroscientific facts. The Journal of Medical Humanities 24(12): 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Martin, E. 2007. Bipolar expeditions: Mania and depression in American culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Angermeyer, M., A. Holzinger, M. Carta, and G. Schomerus. 2011. Biogenetic explanations and public acceptance of mental illness: A systematic review of population studies. The British Journal of Psychiatry 199: 367–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pescosolido, B., J. Martin, J. Long, T. Medina, J. Phelan, and B. Link. 2010. “A disease like any other?” a decade of change in public reactions to schizophrenia, depression, and alcohol dependence. The American Journal of Psychiatry 167(11): 1321–1330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Broer, C., and M. Heerings. 2012. Neurobiology in public and private discourse: The case of adults with ADHD. Sociology of Health & Illness. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01477.x.

  25. Borry, P., P. Schotsmans, and K. Dierickx. 2005. The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics 19(1): 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Slaby, J., and S. Choudhury. 2012. Proposal for a critical neuroscience. In Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience, eds. S. Choudhury, and J. Slaby. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

  27. Gillick, M. 1985. Common-sense models of health and disease. The New England Journal of Medicine 313: 700–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Caron, L., K. Karkazis, T. Raffin, G. Swan, and B. Koenig. 2005. Nicotine addiction through a neurogenomic prism: Ethics, public health, and smoking. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 7(2): 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lam, D., P. Salkovskis, and H. Warwick. 2005. An experimental investigation of the impact of biological versus psychological explanations of the cause of ‘mental illness’. Journal of Mental Health 14(5): 453–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. QSR International Pty Ltd. 2010. nVivo 9.

  31. IBM. 2011. SPSS.

  32. Cameron, D. 2007. Language: Biobabble. Critical Quarterly 49(4): 124–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Alexander, B. 2008. The globalisation of addiction: A study in poverty of the spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Netherland, J. 2011. “We haven’t sliced open anyone’s brain yet”: Neuroscience, embodiment and the governance of addiction. In Sociological reflections on the neurosciences, eds. M. Pickersgill, and I. Van Keulan, 153–177. Advances in Medical Sociology. Online: Emerald Publishing Group Limited.

  35. Latour, B. 2008. A cautious prometheus? a few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to Peter Sloterdijk). Paper presented at the Networks of Design: Proceedings of the 2008 Annual International Conference of the Design History Society, Boca Raton, September 3–6.

  36. Levi-Strauss, C. 1968. The savage mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bell, S., A. Carter, R. Mathews, C. Gartner, J. Lucke, and W. Hall. in press. Views of addiction neuroscientists and clinicians on the clinical impact of a ‘brain disease model of addiction’. Neuroethics.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the staff at Roy Morgan research who recruited and interviewed participants for this research along with the participants themselves for offering their time to take part in interviews. We are also grateful to Dan Buchman who provided critical feedback on the draft manuscript and Sarah Yeates for her editorial assistance. This research was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Australia Fellowship (Grant ID: 569 738) to Professor Wayne Hall.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carla Meurk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meurk, C., Carter, A., Hall, W. et al. Public Understandings of Addiction: Where do Neurobiological Explanations Fit?. Neuroethics 7, 51–62 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-013-9180-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-013-9180-1

Keywords

Navigation