Addiction research points to genetic predisposition
Jessica Smith
The Center for Law Science and Technology at the Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law and the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics hosted a seminar on April 10 called, “Hooked: Legal and Ethical Implications of Recent Advances in Alcohol and Drug Addiction Research” to explore current issues and trends in drug addiction research and treatment and how they relate to the justice system.Experts in the fields of science, law, and ethics from around the country presented on topics ranging from the genetic predisposition to addiction, to the ethical use of to medications to treat chemical dependency in prison populations.
Research presented showed strong evidence of some individual’s genetic vulnerability to addiction to certain types of substances, revealed through new genetic mapping technology, twin studies, and increasingly accurate brain imaging machines.
One of the areas these advances in pinpointing genetic predisposition to addiction are proving most beneficial is in the development of more effective prevention programs.
Understanding the link between genes and addiction is also helping in the rehabilitation of former drug addicts, both in the development of new medications and in maximizing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic techniques.
The experts at the conference seemed to agree that the most effective means of recovery was a combination of prescription drug therapy, like Naltrexone for example, combined with some form of psychotherapy.
Even in light of forthcoming evidence showing a genetic link to addiction, and the efforts of some neuroscientists to paint drug addiction as a “brain disease” the fact of the matter remains that, predisposed or not, the law can still punish people for their actions.
As Steven Morse, J.D., Ph.D and professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School said, “Brains and genes don’t commit crimes, people commit crimes.
“We don’t hold brains and genes responsible for crimes, we hold people responsible for crimes. We don’t punish brains and genes, we punish people for doing wrong.”
“Seeking and using substances, even if it is a sign of a disease, is an action. It is an intentional bodily movement of purpose, it’s not like spiking a fever if you have an infection,” added Morse.
“Causes are not excuses, even causes that are out of your control,” he added.
“If causes were excuses, no one would be responsible for anything.”
Dr. Sally Satel gave a presentation titled, “Addiction as ‘Brain Disease’- Science or Slogan.”
Satel advocated for a broader definition of addiction than one which was purely medical, so as not to diminish the capacity of an individual to take action and responsibility in their recovery.
“I worry about the hyper-medicalized portrayal of addiction when we make forced analogies to conventional brain diseases, like multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, or bipolar disorder,” said Satel.
“When some [people] hear chronic and relapsing brain disease they take it very literally and they tend to think that this means there is no voluntary component in addiction, that the person has no control, and that they are doomed to relapse for the rest of their life.
“And there is a little more to it than that,” she added.
Satel spoke of the many former addicts she has encountered who have stopped using because of a epiphanous moment they have had in their lives that convinced them to turn things around.
She acknowledged that this of course would not be the case for everyone, but the fact that it had been the source of recovery for many, was significant because it undermines the argument for addiction as a true disease.
