The Myth of an 'Addict Gene'

E-llusion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
5,975
Location
ALASKA
Ten years ago science was said to be homing in on the "alcoholism gene." Could a gene-based cure for addiction be far away?

Well, yes it could. It's very far away, if even possible at all. Researchers now have identified over a thousand genes linked to alcoholism. The genetics of alcoholism mirrors what has become increasingly apparent to geneticists: life is complicated. The way you act or the quality of your health is likely influenced by many genes interacting with each other along with various environmental factors. The concept that a small number of genes are responsible for disease or behaviour is obsolete.

What that means, in the case of alcoholics or drug addicts, is that even if your parents were addicted, it's unlikely that their genes are the deciding factor that will make you an addict.

But many people still hold the outdated, simplified view that key genes "cause" most disease and addiction. And what we don't understand can hurt us. Biomedical ethicists warn that if public policy doesn't catch up with scientific knowledge, then people at risk of addiction will be stigmatized even more than they are now. Life insurance and employment could be denied and genetic screening could stop people 'at risk' of addiction before they are even born.

Life's nose pokes

Genes are information. How that information is expressed within your body depends on diet, stress and even social interactions, researchers say.

"There are almost no examples where genetics works in exclusion of environment," said Dr. Elizabeth Simpson, a geneticist and professor in the department of medical genetics at UBC. In fact, environmental factors "are important not just in the disease itself, but the course of the disease, the severity of the disease and whether it is actually a significant event in a person's life or not," Simpson said.

Recent research has found a way to look at the influence of environmental factors on drug use in lab rats.

Two lines of rats were bred to have different levels of reaction to apomorphine, a derivative of morphine. One breed doesn't react to the drug very much (Weak Drug Response rats), and the other has a strong reaction (Strong Drug Response rats). When cocaine or alcohol was made freely available to the rats, WDR rats drank more alcohol and used more cocaine than SDR rats.

The scientists then looked at the effect of a stressful life experience on drug usage in the rats; they were put into a new cage and poked in the nose.

After the stressful nose poke, SDR rats increased their consumption of alcohol over a prolonged period, while the WDR rats only increased their drinking for a short time. The SDR rats also used more cocaine after the stressful experience than WDR rats.

The genetics of the rats predicted an outcome that was reversed with one nose-poke. Rats that seemed genetically predisposed to drug use before the stressful event ended up using less afterwards, and rats that used less before ended up using more drugs after. If drug use can change so completely with only one event in a rat's life, it's not hard to imagine how chaotic, stressful lives might lead to humans using more drugs or alcohol.

Tangle of genetic influences

"Multiple genes with small effect is really a scientific discovery of the last ten years, which is very challenging in the way we think about genetics, and it's not the point of view the public knows right now," says Dr. Elizabeth Simpson.

There are thousands of genes that have been linked to addiction, most of them relating to how drugs of abuse work in the brain. Other groups of genes have been linked to traits that make up an "addictive personality," like impulsivity, risk-taking and novelty seeking.

Genetics cannot predict whether someone will develop an addiction; at most genetics will identify risk factors. But genetics can determine what therapies have the greatest chance of working.

"The knowledge of the genetic basis of the disease opens up possibility of treatment, and prevents lots of treatments that don't work," says Dr. Simpson.

There are many different ways that addiction can get wired into the brain. Genetic analysis of a person's genes can pinpoint what is most likely to be contributing to that person's addiction problem. For example, genes for processing an addictive drug could be normal while there are deviations in genes involved in feelings of self-esteem. That would indicate that therapies focusing just on blocking the effect of the drug would not be as effective as therapies focusing on self-esteem.

Using genetic information to get a more holistic look at a person's health is where medicine is heading. But before that becomes possible, the cost of a complete analysis of a person's genes needs to come down in both price and manpower.

Ten years ago, scientists were just starting to figure out how to analyze the genes (or genome) of a person, the Human Genome Project was pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the effort. Ten years from now it is likely to cost a few hundred dollars and a couple days of work.

"Your baby is born, and should you want it, you have their genome sequenced for a thousand dollars," predicts Dr. Simpson. "What's hard about that thousand dollar genome is, what does that information actually mean?"

The gene screen

Addiction cannot be predicted through genetics alone, but researchers are still trying to identify people at risk of developing addiction. This means that genetic tests for risk factors in addiction are likely to appear somewhere down the road. The danger in such a test is that the genetic information will be viewed as a reliable predictor of a person's lifestyle and capabilities, when it isn't. Misinterpretation of genetic information resulting in discrimination is already happening.

In 2002, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company in the United States secretly tested its employees for a genetic variation thought to be responsible for carpal tunnel syndrome. The variation did not accurately predict carpal tunnel syndrome and the company paid out $2.2 million in a settlement.

In 2003, a young German woman was denied employment as a teacher because of a family history of Huntington's disease. The examining physician said that the woman was fit to do the job but there was a 'higher risk' of future absenteeism. If the woman did have Huntington's disease, which was not known, then the symptoms would only be likely to gradually appear after 20 to 30 years of teaching.

In 2004, a research team studying genetic discrimination in Canada published a report in the medical journal Lancet stating that people in Canada have also been denied life insurance because of a family history of Huntington's disease. Positive genetic diagnosis of the disease has also caused problems at work for people when employers knew the results of the genetic testing. These cases have lead bioethicists to question the practices of the insurance industry and call for a halt in the use genetic information for both employers and insurance companies.

Even though Huntington's is one of the rare genetic diseases that is based solely on genetics and not environmental factors, it illustrates what could happen to other conditions, like addiction, if they are viewed as being strongly genetically based.

Currently in Canada there are no laws prohibiting genetic discrimination. Insurance companies are free to demand genetic testing and use the results to deny coverage.

'Good' and 'bad' genes

With genetic testing also comes the ability to screen out undesirable genetic traits from the population.

Dr. Tom Koch, a bioethicist and professor at both University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University in Canada, is concerned that if a genetic test for addiction were developed, children with genetic risk factors for addiction would be weeded out because only fetuses or embryos free of "deviant" genes would be brought to term.

Dr. Koch proposed that screening out unwanted genes is essentially the same as deciding that the world is better off without those genes. So is the world better off without people with a biological susceptibility towards becoming addicted?

If the answer is yes, Dr. Koch points out that people like Dylan Thomas, William S Burroughs, and Miles Davis might not have existed and brought their art and music into the world. All were artists who struggled with substance abuse.

The Assisted Human Reproduction Act, signed in 2004, is the legislation that monitors genetic screening of embryos and fetuses. The law created a government agency to monitor and regulate the use of all genetic reproduction technology in Canada. Even though the legislation has been praised for being very comprehensive and socially accountable, disability rights proponents have called for tighter regulation of genetic screening.

The concerns of disability rights supporters are the same as those outlined by Dr. Koch: that weeding out "deviant" genes would also weed out and devalue the contributions of valuable people that have a disability, or a greater risk of developing an addiction.

By labeling people as "at risk" of addiction based solely on genetics, Dr. Koch says, "you would stigmatize those that were allowed to be born, on the basis of genetics that is not their fault, and which may or may not be problematic in the way they live."

Jeffrey Helm, a former neuroscientist, is writing about science and addiction issues for The Tyee this summer. Read his series here.

------------------------------------------------

The Myth of an 'Addict Gene'
By Jeffrey Helm, The Tyee. Posted August 12, 2006.

It's time to stop blaming genetic makeup for our substance abuse -- addiction has other causes.

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/40135/
 
I'm sure this comes as a crushing blow to all the addicts waiting for a miracle cure to their disease. Can't say I'm too suprised though.
 
Wow, this article is great! Unlike many science articles in the popular press, it does not oversimplify and say gene=addiction but paints a more up-to-date and nuanced picture of what's going on in the field.
 
^ yes, but it also alludes to possible future use. There will probably be a 'genetic panel', so to speak, that is labelled 'at risk' for addiction and likely several other things , such as schizophrenia, major depression etc..

This, like other, branches of science, can be used either negatively or positively. Depends on human intervention. That is the scarey part for me, based on historical records.
 
theres thousands of genes because plant use and therefor intoxicant use is an evolutionary adaptation
 
Cool, I'm glad.

One less excuse for those who lack the control to use drugs responsibly. One more reason for them to look inward, which is one of the biggest steps towards overcoming addiction.
 
I'm an opiate addict. I'm currently on MMT. My mam smokes cig's, my dad drinks every night and has done apparently since before he met my mother.

One of my half brother's (The one I call my brother, the other 2 I and the rest of my family never see) has also been a heroin/crack and other things addict.

So yes genes are involved, but I'm glad this study says that it's not just the genes!

On http://www.opiates.org/ they say that opiate addiction is a physical disease which I completly disagree with!

I think it's some form of O.C.D. that develops as you continue to use opiates/opioids, which of course change certain things in your brain, but in no way do I see it as a disease. Just as I don't see alcoholism as a disease! :\
 
When cocaine or alcohol was made freely available to the rats, WDR rats drank more alcohol and used more cocaine than SDR rats.

I just had this mental image of rats with little straws and vanity mirriors.


I think it's some form of O.C.D. that develops as you continue to use opiates/opioids


This has actually been an opinion of mine concerning addictions; that they represent a particular fixation not unlike OCD. Im no psychologist but these are both self-reinforcing habit-based behaviors which are obssessive in nature and thus inhibit self-examination.
 
drugs are put on this earth for consumption...be it humans or any other mammal/reptile/organism inhabiting this living rock we call home.

but i think we're playing with fire when chemistry and synthesis opened the door for enhancing and combining the inherant mind altering compounds with technology (cocaine and heroin come to mind in the early days)...now we have designer drugs that are made in a lab sans any organic chemicals/derivatives.

smoke some weed...awesome
pop some psylocibin mushrooms...far out
ingest some ayahuasca...hold on tight
snort some cocaine...gimme more more more more
shoot some heroin...gimme more more more more
take some ecstasy...more more more don't let me stop rolling plz!
smoke some glass...more more more more can't crash now!!!


does anybody see a trend? only opium and alcohol are the only naturally occuring, organically processed drugs that i can think which would end up becoming a detrimental habit. lsd is naturally occurring ergot which we later figured out how to make...

we were given the intelligence to be stewards to this planet and all it's wonders. mind altering substances are meant for shamanistic purposes...they are respected and considered sacred, NOT RECREATIONAL!!!!

get the point?
 
^Another "only do natural drugs, they're safer/less addictive!" person huh?

The stuff that gets you the most high when you take opium is morphine.

Heroin is diacetylmorphine. When you take diamorphine (That's what it's called for short!) your body breaks it back down into morphine. So it's just morphine but more fat soluble so you get more of the good stuff in your brain!

Regarding coke, that's not synthetic either, it's already in coca leaves, it's just extracted!

Patrick Bateman you have alot to learn! 8)
 
The scientists then looked at the effect of a stressful life experience on drug usage in the rats; they were put into a new cage and poked in the nose.

I want to work in one of these labs . . . .
 
Two lines of rats were bred to have different levels of reaction to apomorphine, a derivative of morphine. One breed doesn't react to the drug very much (Weak Drug Response rats), and the other has a strong reaction (Strong Drug Response rats). When cocaine or alcohol was made freely available to the rats, WDR rats drank more alcohol and used more cocaine than SDR rats.

The scientists then looked at the effect of a stressful life experience on drug usage in the rats; they were put into a new cage and poked in the nose.

After the stressful nose poke, SDR rats increased their consumption of alcohol over a prolonged period, while the WDR rats only increased their drinking for a short time. The SDR rats also used more cocaine after the stressful experience than WDR rats.

Before I quit useing, I could see a relationship here.... I am of the weak drug response type, it takes more of a drug for me to feal it than my friends. So just normally I need more cocaine or more alcohol on any given nite than most people. As far as the stress is concerend. I went through several stressfull times in my life while useing coke. I found that after I was completely stressed I would continue to use coke, but found out that my stress far out weighed the drug so I wouldn't us very much after being very stressed....Or, the combination of stress and exccesive drug us was too much to handle so i quit the drugs so i could deal with the stress.
 
really interesting, ive been told my whole life that i am heavily predisposed to drug/alcohol addiction based on my genes.

public policy doesn't catch up with scientific knowledge

its funny how all through history, even in modernized times, that public policy is NEVER caught up with scientific knowledge.
 
in many countries they have tried to keep policy up to date with science.. unfortunately for us americans our politicians seem to have an aversion to science :(
 
Patrick Bateman said:

OK, first of all without chemistry and synthesis your ass wouldn't be here right now, you differently wouldn't be smoke prime weed, or drinking alcohol.

LSD is not found in ergot, otherwise, we wouldn't have to have cooks make it for the general public, just take a small sample of ergot and place it on a suitable substrate and you would be tripping for many a years. Yes it can be used to make LSD, but itself doesn't contain LSD.

Just because its natural doesnt make it safe, take for consideration the various poisons found in plants and animals.

Also your last line, doesnt really have much to back it up, almost every culture that had drugs, used them recreational and sometimes spirituality.
 
Read "The Dependent Gene" by David S. Moore!

Gaz_hmmmm said:
I'm an opiate addict. I'm currently on MMT. My mam smokes cig's, my dad drinks every night and has done apparently since before he met my mother.

One of my half brother's (The one I call my brother, the other 2 I and the rest of my family never see) has also been a heroin/crack and other things addict.

So yes genes are involved, but I'm glad this study says that it's not just the genes!

To say that genes are involved here is like saying oxygen is involved. In fact, that oxygen is involved is probably along stronger lines of argument than the genetics-only perspective.

WITHOUT QUESTION, behavior and phenotypes (read: apparent traits) are the byproduct of interactions between genes and environment (and mind/culture--this is more complicated and may be more accurately a buffer, so let's just keep with genes/environment for now).

Genes do nothing without environment. DNA merely manufactures proteins. Many people think that genes are like the blueprint that causes human development, but this is a fallacy. Even though most would say that obviously, the environment is playing a role in development, this is not enough. Because certain environmental factors can effectively turn gene coding "on" and "off" we cannot say that genes "cause" any sort of outcome, nor do they offer a guideline for ranges of developmental possibilities.

This is a subtle distinction, I've been studying it this semester at university in a senior seminar with a brilliant professor who makes it easier for us to understand this stuff. That said, it's quite a stretch from the normal conception of how development works, because it's so subtle.

Like, they had that book about how white people are smarter than black people. This is one major misconception that the public has. Heritability estimates like those used to draw the conclusions presented in "The Bell Curve" simply show the amount of variance "accounted for" by genes in a CONSTANT environment. Because real world situations preclude any such environmental homogeneity, the estimates are useless in determining things like propensity towards alcoholism or things of this nature. In fact, the only truly useful application of heritability studies goes to work in horticulture, where we can to a much greater extent control the environment (let's hope this makes its way into the ever-impressive ganja refinement field :P )

I would STRONGLY recommend the book "The Dependent Gene" for anyone who wants a better understanding of the confusing world of psychobiological development. David Moore does an excellent job of describing in an entertaining and captivating (for a science book, anyway) way the situation as it truly is.

WE ARE THE BYPRODUCTS OF A DYNAMIC INTERACTION BETWEEN GENES AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTS. THE ENVIRONMENT IS EVERYTHING!!! THE GENE NEVER EXISTS "OUTSIDE" ENVIRONMENTS, SO IT IS COMPLETE FALLACY TO SUGGEST THAT GENES CAN "DETERMINE" OUTCOMES!

Sorry for yelling, it's just that this sort of misconception is doing for the public's understanding of development the same type of injustice some organized religions have done (are doing!) to our persuit of a more complete set of beliefs about the world we are a part of.

Gaz_hmmmm said:
On http://www.opiates.org/ they say that opiate addiction is a physical disease which I completly disagree with!

I think it's some form of O.C.D. that develops as you continue to use opiates/opioids, which of course change certain things in your brain, but in no way do I see it as a disease. Just as I don't see alcoholism as a disease! :\

Good for you, it's definitely not a physical disease. There is an element of choice in every aspect of life. I was just watching a documentary, "Word Wars" about pro-Scrabble players. One guy simply got up in the middle of the tournament and left the arena because he drew a nearly identical rack after giving up his turn to get new letters.

Hehe, be careful in assigning some disorder you might find in the DSM or any other medical information. OCD *IS* a disease. It can be treated, and it's certainly one of the less, shall we say, restrictive or involuntary of the mental disorders, and yet, it is a disease. When we say that drug addiction is a form of OCD, not only are we venturing into dangerous territory assigning arbitrary labels to things so as to simplify the meaning of what we're confused about, but we perpetuate the very cycle that has led to people thinking downright silly things like obesity caused by genes.

Subtle stuff here, and it makes a world of difference as we move forward in fixing these little bugs in our brains ;)
 
THE WOOD said:
really interesting, ive been told my whole life that i am heavily predisposed to drug/alcohol addiction based on my genes.



its funny how all through history, even in modernized times, that public policy is NEVER caught up with scientific knowledge.


If you were to consider the first statement, you can see why it's not always in the best interest of the public for policy to follow quickly on the tails of scientific "knowledge."

If we took the first sentence as an example, and suppose that public policies were put into place after they found the "alcoholism gene" that might have removed responsibility from alcoholics and people who commit alcohol related crimes, we can see why it's not in our best interests to always jump on the "scientific" bandwagon.

Then again, yea, we could really use some rational thinkers in positions of power, people who aren't mainly concerned with maintaining the status quo, so Wood, I totally see your point. I just wanted to show how, because science is based on RULING OUT possibilities rather than proving things *positively*, we must be cautious in following "breakthroughs", simply for the sake of survival!
 
Lovely stuff - it's nice to see some examination of the complex relationship between genes, the environment and behaviour.

I have read another book on this subject - "Nature via nurture: genes, experience and what makes us human" Matt Ridley - also worth a look
 
LSD is not found in ergot

You need to do a little research before making a blanket statement like that. Because I believe that is quite correct. Although I believe it can also now be synthesized completely in the lab. It was originally extracted from ergot or rye bread mold. I remember reading that in highschool in the early 70's. It was a popular topic:)
 
Top