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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
‘Schoolies’ is a term used in Australia to describe end of high school celebrations that often involve alcohol and binge drinking.
References
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.
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.
Volkow, K., and T. Li. 2005. Drugs and alcohol: Treating and preventing abuse, addiction and their medical consequences. Pharmacology and Therapeutics 108: 3–17.
Dackis, C., and C. O'Brien. 2005. Neurobiology of addiction: Treatment and public policy ramifications. Nature Neuroscience 8(11): 1431–1436.
The Academy of Medical Sciences. 2008. Brain science, addiction and drugs, ed. G. Horn. Academy of Medical Sciences.
Volkow, N., and T.-K. Li. 2004. Drug addiction: The neurobiology of behaviour gone awry. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 5(December): 963–970.
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.
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.
Brosnan, C. 2011. The sociology of neuroethics: Expectational discourses and the rise of a new discipline. Sociology Compass 5(4): 287–297.
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.
Leshner, A. 1997. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science 278(5335): 45–47.
Carter, A., and W.D. Hall. 2012. Addiction neuroethics: The promises and perils of neuroscience research on addiction. London: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Kalant, H. 2009. What neurobiology cannot tell us about addiction. Addiction 105: 780–789.
Hyman, S.E. 2007. The neurobiology of addiction: Implications for voluntary control of behavior. The American Journal of Bioethics 7: 8–11.
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.
Rose, N. 2007. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
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.
Dumit, J. 2003. Is it me or my brain? depression and neuroscientific facts. The Journal of Medical Humanities 24(12): 35–46.
Martin, E. 2007. Bipolar expeditions: Mania and depression in American culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Borry, P., P. Schotsmans, and K. Dierickx. 2005. The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics 19(1): 49–71.
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.
Gillick, M. 1985. Common-sense models of health and disease. The New England Journal of Medicine 313: 700–703.
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.
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.
QSR International Pty Ltd. 2010. nVivo 9.
IBM. 2011. SPSS.
Cameron, D. 2007. Language: Biobabble. Critical Quarterly 49(4): 124–129.
Alexander, B. 2008. The globalisation of addiction: A study in poverty of the spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1968. The savage mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
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.
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-013-9180-1