Skip to main content
Log in

Neurocentrism and Name-Calling: Let’s Agree to Agree. Reply to Satel & Lilienfeld

Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The Original Article was published on 17 November 2016

Abstract

Although these authors sometimes resort to medical terminology, we strongly agree that addiction is not a disease and that the Brain Disease Model of Addiction (BDMA) captures only one part of the story and distorts the big picture. Yet Satel and Lilienfeld continue to conflate a neurobiological model (such as mine) with a disease model. They also complain that my modeling of addiction reveals a hidden “neurocentric” bias, despite my integration of multiple levels of analysis, exactly as they recommend.

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

Bibliography

  1. Satel, Sally L., and Scott O. Lilienfeld. 2017. If addiction is not best conceptualized a brain disease, then what kind of disease is it? Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9287-2.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lewis, Marc D. 2015. The biology of desire. Why addiction is not a disease. New York: Public Affairs.

  3. Lewis, Marc. 2017. Addiction and the brain: Development, not disease. Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4.

  4. Lewis, Marc D. 2011. Memoirs of an addicted brain. Brunswick: Scribe.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Henden, Edmund, and Olav Gjelsvik. 2017. What is wrong with the brains of addicts? Neuroethics 10. Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9285-4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Lewis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lewis, M. Neurocentrism and Name-Calling: Let’s Agree to Agree. Reply to Satel & Lilienfeld. Neuroethics 10, 25–27 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9325-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-017-9325-8

Keywords

Navigation