

A $650M Donation for Psychiatric Research - gjuggler
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/science/650-million-psychiatric-research.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

======
tokenadult
Behavior genetics research on schizophrenia has been going on since I was
born, in other words since long before most Hacker News participants were
born. The crucial issue in the research, mentioned in the article kindly
submitted here, is that any one gene only has a small effect on risk for
schizophrenia. "Dr. Lander cautioned that each variant accounts for only a
tiny portion of the risk of developing schizophrenia. 'It shouldn’t be used
for a risk predictor,' he said." Behavior geneticists, such as those I know
locally,[1] and the pioneer of behavior genetic research on schizophrenia[2]
hope that large-scale genomic studies of the kind that are now possible will
help tease out how gene differences between one individual and another
interact with environmental influences to increase or decrease risk for
schizophrenia, which should lead eventually to better treatments and better
prevention strategies, through deeper fundamental understanding of the
disease. It is plain that environmental factors matter too, because sometimes
identical ("monozygotic") twins are discordant for schizophrenia.[3] This
research path will be slow and frustrating, precisely because it is well known
already that no one gene has strong effect, and no particular gene acts
without interaction with the environment, but this kind of fundamental
research is indeed necessary to refine the diathesis-stress model[4] of the
development of schizophrenia.

[1]
[http://www.psych.umn.edu/research/areas/pib/](http://www.psych.umn.edu/research/areas/pib/)

[2]
[http://www.psych.umn.edu/people/facultyprofile.php?UID=gotte...](http://www.psych.umn.edu/people/facultyprofile.php?UID=gotte003)

[3]
[http://www.virginia.edu/uvanewsmakers/newsmakers/spiro.html](http://www.virginia.edu/uvanewsmakers/newsmakers/spiro.html)

[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01564274#page-1](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01564274#page-1)

[4]
[http://college.cengage.com/psychology/bernstein/psychology/6...](http://college.cengage.com/psychology/bernstein/psychology/6e/students/web_tutorials/chapter15/schizo/schizop5.html)

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632355/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632355/)

AFTER EDIT: I'm still learning the rules about informed, thoughtful discussion
here after 2073 days of participation as a registered user on Hacker News, so
I'd be glad to understand what someone considered objectionable about this
comment. I was just surfing by this comment to add a link emailed to me by
Irving Gottesman, the prominent schizophrenia researcher who was mentioned in
the acknowledgements of the book _A Beautiful Mind._ That link discusses the
study in the journal _Nature_ published today.

[http://www.schizophreniaforum.org/new/detail.asp?id=2068](http://www.schizophreniaforum.org/new/detail.asp?id=2068)

------
skosuri
This is a huge donation for the Broad and probably equals all their previous
fundraising. I think a lot will ask if it's too much to one institute or too
little to solve the problem, but overall I'm very excited. Biology is changing
very fast right now, and it's probably the right time for a big new push.
Psychiatric disease and brain research is the next big frontier and private
funding like this allows places to take risks they otherwise couldn't on
grants. The Broad Institute is the best genomics institute by far, albeit a
little light on the clinical side. The money will not be wasted on anything
hokey. All that said though, there is a large chance that it still won't be
enough to solve a very tough set of problems.

~~~
mjt0229
I really appreciate that the Broad keeps a lot of attention on basic (or at
least, pre-clinical) research. That kind of work is critical to making big
discoveries but it's harder to defend for funding in a world where we want to
put drugs on shelves. I still want to see drugs on shelves, but starting at
the clinic isn't the best way to make discoveries that lead to real
therapeutics.

~~~
Malarkey73
I don't think for psychiatric research we should start with the presumption
the end goal is necessarily "drugs on the shelf".

it might or might not be a good goal for some conditions.

~~~
mjt0229
That's fair. I was responding to the critique of the Broad is being not very
clinical, and that was a figure of speech.

------
yogabzzz
I'm happy that they're putting money into developing better diagnostic methods
for mental disorders, because, frankly, the existing tools are terrible.

After 9 years of misdiagnoses by several different doctors, earlier this year
one astute doctor was able to uncover that I had bipolar 2 and not unipolar
depression or SAD. I had mixed feelings about it (ironic) but I was put on the
correct medications and they have made a world of difference. In fact, I read
that it can often take close to a decade, on average, to diagnose types of
bipolar properly, because doctors and patients simply don't communicate well.
Any tools that shorten that time gap would benefit individuals and society as
a whole.

~~~
mathattack
I think there is a lot of basic research to be done. I hope this research
amounts to real advances!

~~~
prestadige
Strangely enough it may be that our attempts to create artificial people
(AGIs) will permit us to understand what mental disorders are all about.

~~~
JackFr
Strangely enough it may be ____________ will permit us to understand what
mental disorders are all about.

( ) Hypnotism ( ) Psychoactive drugs ( ) Functional programming ( ) Meditation
( ) Phrenology

~~~
prestadige
None of your examples entail building a mind. Also there's a kind of irony in
my example, since as a branch of computer science it is independently funded
and seemingly unrelated to mental health.

~~~
JackFr
But you're guilty of assuming your conclusion.

You have a model of the brain. You do not have a model of the mind. You assume
that by simulating a brain with significant details, a simulated mind will
emerge. I find that's a big pill to swallow.

~~~
prestadige
Nah, I don't assume it. Hence 'may' and 'attempts'. But the explanation is
simple enough. If you can discover what it takes to code a mind then you're
also going to learn some of the systemic faults that minds, qua minds, can
develop. Of course, I could be wrong about this. It _could_ be that mental
diseases are all purely down to hardware issues (brain health). But it seems
like a bad bet. For example: addiction, or at least specific types of
addiction, depend on people's culture and choices.

------
hliyan
I was initially worried when the headline said "psychiatric" research, but was
pleasantly surprised when I read the article and found out that what they
really meant was neuro-biology and its genetic origins, not study of patient
behavior. The "top-down" approach has failed psychiatry (or more accurately,
psychology) for half a century. I'm glad to see the bottom-up approach (i.e.
starting with genes and cells and then working your way up to
thoughts/feelings/behaviors) taking the lead.

~~~
mentalhealth
It's at least worth noting that it's only within the last decade that such an
approach has become viable -- we're still entirely unable to establish any
relationship between genetics and psychiatric illness via theory, so massive,
inexpensive genetic analysis was a prerequisite to this sort of study (which
still relies on correct _diagnosis_ in order to find genetic correlates).

------
davidf18
It is a wonderful donation, but _I do wish_ that philanthropists would spend
money on lobbying congress and The President to increase science budgets by
the billions of dollars per year. Money could also be donated to those running
in congress who are favorable to increasing the science budget of NIH, NSF.

~~~
JackFr
Why do you prefer that model?

In fact, I would say your model has it backwards -- as a philanthropist,
rather than devote my money to a cause, I should coerce/influence politicians
with money, so as to compel through force of law other peoples money to flow
to that cause.

~~~
Fomite
One could argue that increased government funding for science is more likely
to fund basic science and other "non-sexy" but still important and likely to
pay dividends research.

~~~
jghn
In theory (and hopefully) but all of the non-sexy stuff ends up as political
wedge issues. And when that happens we have people like Palin decrying
research on fruit flies in Paris, France.

~~~
Fomite
Honestly, at this point, "Science" is a wedge issue.

------
JackFr
This article is a enlightening counterpart to the 'emerging neuroscience'
chorus, who would have us believe that a full model of consciousness and the
brain is just around the corner. That those trying treat schizophrenia _haven
't a clue_ what causes the onset, and why certain drugs are effective tells me
that we really are at the stage of the absolutely primitive models of brain
activity.

~~~
daughart
Anyone who says a full model of the brain is right around the corner is either
a fool or a charlatan. The BRAIN initiative was a first start to _develop the
technologies_ needed to take the measurements that would underly potentially
explanatory brain models.

In Conneconomics
([http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/001214](http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/001214)) we try
to estimate the cost and time needed to map the connectome alone (only one
component of a holistic brain model).

------
throwaway2256
I'm glad to see more money spent on these issues, hopefully we will have some
breakthroughs soon.

While the current medications surely do help a lot of people, I've watched
really smart friends devolve into zombies while on some of them. People I've
known for 15 years who are definately not the same people they were when they
started. They themselves don't notice the change, of course, because it
happens slowly.

We really need better options with less severe personality change side-
effects.

------
jmnicholson
An interesting article on the U.S. Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness
Program was published today. Wonder if this money is being well spent!
[https://thewinnower.com/papers/a-critical-examination-of-
the...](https://thewinnower.com/papers/a-critical-examination-of-the-u-s-army-
s-comprehensive-soldier-fitness-program)

------
stefek99
Very good episode on psychiatric research:
[http://www.londonreal.tv/episodes/rick-doblin-mdma-
therapy](http://www.londonreal.tv/episodes/rick-doblin-mdma-therapy)

(and raising money, and all stuff in between)

------
jflowers45
I applaud any efforts being made in the mental illness space. It's difficult
because it can't be "seen" and anything we can do to make diagnosis as
objective as possible would be great.

------
bogrollben
ok, ok I'll take the bait...

That's crazy!

------
dublinben
This is a great donation, that seems to be going to exactly the right place.
However, it's a little unfortunate that Mr. Stanley only started donating to
this cause after a member of his own family was affected.

~~~
HNJohnC
I'm fairly certain you'd find that the vast majority of donations to _any_
cause are from people who are personally affected in some way.

~~~
mjt0229
Agreed. And in this case, I think it's significant that the family member
affected has controlled his illness long ago. The point of this donation is to
help other people for whom such control is not yet possible.

