Evolutionary perspective and medical research

[Mark Buchanan]

This interview of an evolutionary biologist shows how important it is to know evolution to do practical research.

http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/episodes/2012/04/25/happy-pills-not-so-happy/

Matt Galloway (the interviewer) seemed quite out of his depth on this issue.

Mark

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:28:35 -0700 (PDT), Mark Buchanan
<marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>This interview of an evolutionary biologist shows how important it is to know evolution to do practical research.
>
>http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/episodes/2012/04/25/happy-pills-not-so-happy/

.

>Matt Galloway (the interviewer) seemed quite out of his depth on this issue.

I found the interview was VERY interesting and informative.

Listening to Matt's questions and then the long painful pauses while the
McGill biologist tried to figure out how to frame an answer that somehow
tied into the question was not so pleasant.

Obviously the labour union at the CBC is much too powerful.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[prawnster]

On Apr 25, 3:28 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This interview of an evolutionary biologist shows how important it is to know evolution to do practical research.
>

Are you joking? Other than asserting that serotonin was created by
evolution, whatever that means, this interview provides no evidence
that understanding evolution is important to doing practical
research. The man being interviewed could have just as easily stated
that it's not a good idea to manipulate depressed people's serotonin
levels because it leads to decreased longevity, and left his personal
metaphysics out of the discussion. It would be just as strange and
pointless had he warned against manipulating serotonin levels because
God don't make no junk.

His basic point is that people on antidepressants have lower
longevity, and thus, whether depressed folks should be popping these
serotonin-altering pills is questionable. I agree with him
completely. And I don't believe in evolution. And I understood his
every syllable. He was just playing a word-substitution game: you
could substitute "designed" for his every utterance of "evolved" and
the interview would be just as intelligible and informative.

I have a better analysis than this august fellow. People are
depressed for good reason: usually they're losers or, best case
scenario, they're going through a crapsandwich time in their lives.
Trying to treat a spiritual malady with drugs is never a good idea.
People who have problems can do their best to actually solve their
problems or they can pop a pill that makes them not care that they
have problems -- or they can drink booze or smoke dope. Inherent
losers have it tougher, but they can choose to believe their lives are
important to God and that they, through faith, will one day inherit
eternal life in perfect bodies in a perfect environment such that
their years of suffering on Earth will fade to vanishing by comparison
-- or they can pop a pill that, statistically, doesn't even work.

It's so special when Darwinists and Christians agree on something,
isn't it?

[jillery]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:58:15 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 25, 3:28 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This interview of an evolutionary biologist shows how important it is to know evolution to do practical research.
>>
>
>Are you joking? Other than asserting that serotonin was created by
>evolution, whatever that means, this interview provides no evidence
>that understanding evolution is important to doing practical
>research. The man being interviewed could have just as easily stated
>that it's not a good idea to manipulate depressed people's serotonin
>levels because it leads to decreased longevity, and left his personal
>metaphysics out of the discussion. It would be just as strange and
>pointless had he warned against manipulating serotonin levels because
>God don't make no junk.
>
>His basic point is that people on antidepressants have lower
>longevity, and thus, whether depressed folks should be popping these
>serotonin-altering pills is questionable. I agree with him
>completely. And I don't believe in evolution. And I understood his
>every syllable. He was just playing a word-substitution game: you
>could substitute "designed" for his every utterance of "evolved" and
>the interview would be just as intelligible and informative.

Actually, his basic point is more than that; it's the reason why
people on antidepressants have lower longevity.

Paul Andrews uses evolution to hypothesize that if depression was an
evolved adaptation, as opposed to a pathological condition, then
disturbing its symptoms would cause more harm than good.

Those who believe "Goddidit" often make the claim that disease is
God's punishment for disobeying Him, or the work of evil spirits. I
don't see these hypotheses being especially useful here.

>I have a better analysis than this august fellow. People are
>depressed for good reason: usually they're losers or, best case
>scenario, they're going through a crapsandwich time in their lives.
>Trying to treat a spiritual malady with drugs is never a good idea.
>People who have problems can do their best to actually solve their
>problems or they can pop a pill that makes them not care that they
>have problems -- or they can drink booze or smoke dope. Inherent
>losers have it tougher, but they can choose to believe their lives are
>important to God and that they, through faith, will one day inherit
>eternal life in perfect bodies in a perfect environment such that
>their years of suffering on Earth will fade to vanishing by comparison
>-- or they can pop a pill that, statistically, doesn't even work.
>
>It's so special when Darwinists and Christians agree on something,
>isn't it?

Do you enjoy showing yourself lacking comprehension?

[Mark Buchanan]

It is painful to listen to. Normally Galloway is well informed and does great at interviews. You get the feeling that he conducted this interview the same way as he would interview a politician - try to find the hidden agenda.

This interview should have been done on a science program like Quirks and Quarks. There is an interesting paper in the RNCSE's latest publication related to how to communicate scientific knowledge:

http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/35/116

Mark

[wiki trix]

On Apr 25, 6:28 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This interview of an evolutionary biologist shows how important it is to know evolution to do practical research.
>

> http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/episodes/2012/04/25/happy-pills-not-so...

>
> Matt Galloway (the interviewer) seemed quite out of his depth on this issue.

At 3:10 in that video, Matt Galloway asked: "Could these be classed as
side effects or are you suggesting that these are much more egregious
than just a side effect?"

Matt Galloway must be a fool. You have to wonder if Matt understands
the meaning of "side effect". Of course, a side effect, whether
beneficial or adverse, is any effect that is secondary to the intended
effect. The definition of "side effect" has nothing to do with being
egregious or non-egregious. However, side effects can indeed be
horrible. For example, severe birth defects were due to thalidomide,
prescribed to help with morning sickness during the mother's
pregnancy. Matt seems to think "side effect" just means a trivial
inconvenience associated with a medical treatment. In reality,
thalidomide was a huge tragedy. Perhaps Matt just learned the word
"egregious", and was trying to work it into the conversation somehow.

In any case, I enjoyed the interview, even if it was rather shallow,
and found it interesting how antidepressants, for the most part,
target serotonin and/or serotonin receptors in one way or another, and
of course, serotonin has a role to play in many unrelated biological
functions, so of course there will be many side effect risks to weigh
against any potential benefit. From my own past experience, I can say
that for me at least, the several antidepressants that I tried in the
past were all absolutely ineffective. I just hope that I did not do
any harm by taking them.

One pet peeve I have is that the general public seems to, in my
opinion, to have an unreasonably elevated confidence in the
effectiveness and safety of pharmaceutical psychiatric treatment in
general. And come to think of it, that is not just the
pharmaceuticals. I suspect that counseling and whatever modern
variation on psychoanalysis that may continue to be practiced today is
also non-effective. As a matter of public health policy, I would like
to see more information on exhaustive studies that try to determine
the effectiveness of any treatment for any and all psychological
disorders. I suspect that a huge amount of time and money is being
wasted on wishful thinking and bogus snake oil.

[UC]

On Apr 26, 12:40 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:03:02 PM UTC-4, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:28:35 -0700 (PDT), Mark Buchanan
> > <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >This interview of an evolutionary biologist shows how important it is to know evolution to do practical research.
>

> > >http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/episodes/2012/04/25/happy-pills-not-so...

>
> >  .
>
> > >Matt Galloway (the interviewer) seemed quite out of his depth on this issue.
>
> > I found the interview was VERY interesting and informative.
>
> > Listening to Matt's questions and then the long painful pauses while the
> > McGill biologist tried to figure out how to frame an answer that somehow
> > tied into the question was not so pleasant.
>
> > Obviously the labour union at the CBC is much too powerful.
>
> > --
> >   Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> >    I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
>
> It is painful to listen to. Normally Galloway is well informed and does great at interviews. You get the feeling that he conducted this interview the same way as he would interview a politician - try to find the hidden agenda.
>
> This interview should have been done on a science program like Quirks and Quarks. There is an interesting paper in the RNCSE's latest publication related to how to communicate scientific knowledge:
>
> http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/35/116
>
> Mark

I listened to this and have the following opinion:

Since the medications intended for the relief of depression are rather
crude and have systemic distribution, they have wide-ranging effects.
But this is true of almost every medication. Only surgery has limited
effects. The fact is that these medications are not particularly
effective, and THAT should be pointed out. Evolution has nothing to do
with it.

I don't think he distinguishes between "Should depression be
considered pathological
and be treated as a diseased state at all" and "are anti-depressants
the right way to treat depression".

An interesting book: Survival of the Sickest.

http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Sickest-Surprising-Connections-Longevity/dp/product-description/0060889667

It shows how some 'diseases' are actually adaptations.

[wiki trix]

On Apr 26, 2:58 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 3:28 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This interview of an evolutionary biologist shows how important it is to know evolution to do practical research.
>
> Are you joking?  Other than asserting that serotonin was created by
> evolution, whatever that means, this interview provides no evidence
> that understanding evolution is important to doing practical
> research.  The man being interviewed could have just as easily stated
> that it's not a good idea to manipulate depressed people's serotonin
> levels because it leads to decreased longevity, and left his personal
> metaphysics out of the discussion.  It would be just as strange and
> pointless had he warned against manipulating serotonin levels because
> God don't make no junk.

I do not often agree with you. But this time I have to. The origins of
serotonin have nothing to do with its usage in multiple unrelated
biological systems within the body. I think that evolution is a very
satisfactory explanation of how a molecule such as serotonin came to
be, and how it was marshaled into useful divergent roles throughout
the body. But if I am wrong, and some god-type entity (whatever that
might mean) created it ex nihilo and set it into motion within all
those roles, that would change nothing regarding the risk/benefit
analysis of the use of antidepressants that target serotonin in some
way.

> His basic point is that people on antidepressants have lower
> longevity, and thus, whether depressed folks should be popping these
> serotonin-altering pills is questionable.  I agree with him
> completely.  And I don't believe in evolution.  And I understood his
> every syllable.  He was just playing a word-substitution game: you
> could substitute "designed" for his every utterance of "evolved" and
> the interview would be just as intelligible and informative.

Yes. I listened to the audio again after reading your post, and
indeed, it can be taken just as meaningfully with or without
acceptance of the theory of evolution. But of course, I still think
that the theory of evolution is the superior viewpoint. I do think
that there are only a very few areas in medicine that might benefit
slightly from adopting the Darwinian viewpoint. Just as there are only
a very few areas of mechanical engineering that might benefit slightly
from adopting the Copernican viewpoint.

> I have a better analysis than this august fellow.  People are
> depressed for good reason: usually they're losers or, best case
> scenario, they're going through a crapsandwich time in their lives.
> Trying to treat a spiritual malady with drugs is never a good idea.
> People who have problems can do their best to actually solve their
> problems or they can pop a pill that makes them not care that they
> have problems -- or they can drink booze or smoke dope.  Inherent
> losers have it tougher, but they can choose to believe their lives are
> important to God and that they, through faith, will one day inherit
> eternal life in perfect bodies in a perfect environment such that
> their years of suffering on Earth will fade to vanishing by comparison
> -- or they can pop a pill that, statistically, doesn't even work.

I agree. And pills don't seem to work in a large fraction of the
cases. They do have risks. And they make some people rich and are
heavily promoted.

[UC]

I have to agree. The psychiatric profession in general is of little
utility. I also tried several anti-depressants and found them
generally ineffective.

[wiki trix]

> http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Sickest-Surprising-Connections-Longevi...

>
> It shows how some 'diseases' are actually adaptations.

Sounds like a cool book. Wish I had time to read it.

[jillery]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:41:27 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
<wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 26, 2:58 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 3:28 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This interview of an evolutionary biologist shows how important it is to know evolution to do practical research.
>>
>> Are you joking?  Other than asserting that serotonin was created by
>> evolution, whatever that means, this interview provides no evidence
>> that understanding evolution is important to doing practical
>> research.  The man being interviewed could have just as easily stated
>> that it's not a good idea to manipulate depressed people's serotonin
>> levels because it leads to decreased longevity, and left his personal
>> metaphysics out of the discussion.  It would be just as strange and
>> pointless had he warned against manipulating serotonin levels because
>> God don't make no junk.
>
>I do not often agree with you. But this time I have to. The origins of
>serotonin have nothing to do with its usage in multiple unrelated
>biological systems within the body. I think that evolution is a very
>satisfactory explanation of how a molecule such as serotonin came to
>be, and how it was marshaled into useful divergent roles throughout
>the body. But if I am wrong, and some god-type entity (whatever that
>might mean) created it ex nihilo and set it into motion within all
>those roles, that would change nothing regarding the risk/benefit
>analysis of the use of antidepressants that target serotonin in some
>way.

IIUC you're saying if we start with what we know right now, and wanted
to test if depression is adaptive (that is the question he said he was
looking into), then it wouldn't make a difference whether we started
with an assumption of evolution or an assumption of Goddidit. ISTM if
we started with the premise that Goddidit, we wouldn't even bother
asking that question in the first place. More to the point, it's
unlikely we would know anything about serotonin or its multiple uses
in the body or its association with depression. We know these things
right now because scientists study how our bodies works. And they do
that in part because they don't settle for Goddidit as an answer.

[wiki trix]

Well, perhaps you do have a point there. I was saying that you don't
need Copernicus to do mechanical engineering. Today. But you are
saying that if it was not for the Copernicus heliocentric model
arising in the late 1500s, which opened up much investigation, that
lead to modern mechanics. So perhaps we would not have had so much in
the way of Kepler, Galileo, Newton, etc. if it were not for the
original idea. Hey you could have a point there. But you do agree that
now that we have classical mechanics sorted out, the average engineer
building a bridge or a rocket does not have to make a commitment to
the heliocentric model. That was my point.

[UC]

It's eye-opening. In fact, medicine has a very poor understanding of
this, that not all 'diseases' should be considered 'bad'. Also, read
Nietzsche.

[UC]

On Apr 26, 1:47 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is a basic presumption that anything not 'normal' is a disease
state, which must be 'treated'.

[wiki trix]

Nietzsche rules.

[Glenn]

Do you know that those who settle for Goddidit believe our bodies do
not work?

[jillery]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:03:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

No, but if you hum a few bars, I might pick it up.

More seriously, I don't recognize what you're referring to. Would you
elaborate?

[jillery]

For my part, perhaps I focused too much on your agreement with someone
who proclaims Goddidit loud and proud. Regarding your point, IIUC it
is that understanding evolution or cosmology is not a bona fide job
requirement for most occupations. And if that was what the article
was about, or what prawnster's comments were about, I would agree and
move on. Certainly there's no need to know anything about these
things to build bridges or flop burgers. But ignorance of these
things is different from denial of these things, and building bridges
and flopping burgers is different from researching biological
processes. ISTM if someone is doing that, and expressing their
opinions about what they do as authoritive, then yes, they better know
something about which they speak, which necessarily includes
understanding evolution.

[wiki trix]

On Apr 27, 12:33 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>
>
>
>
>

I agree. This thread is now officially wrapped up. Move along
everybody... nothing to see here.

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:58:15 AM UTC+1, prawnster wrote:
> On Apr 25, 3:28 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This interview of an evolutionary biologist shows how important it is to know evolution to do practical research.

I always wonder about statements like this

> Are you joking? Other than asserting that serotonin was created by
> evolution, whatever that means, this interview provides no evidence
> that understanding evolution is important to doing practical
> research. The man being interviewed could have just as easily stated
> that it's not a good idea to manipulate depressed people's serotonin
> levels because it leads to decreased longevity, and left his personal
> metaphysics out of the discussion. It would be just as strange and
> pointless had he warned against manipulating serotonin levels because
> God don't make no junk.
>
> His basic point is that people on antidepressants have lower
> longevity, and thus, whether depressed folks should be popping these
> serotonin-altering pills is questionable. I agree with him
> completely. And I don't believe in evolution. And I understood his
> every syllable. He was just playing a word-substitution game: you
> could substitute "designed" for his every utterance of "evolved" and
> the interview would be just as intelligible and informative.

much though I hate to say it, you may have a point

> I have a better analysis than this august fellow. People are
> depressed for good reason: usually they're losers or, best case

> scenario, they're going through a <bad> time in their lives.

this shows your ignorance. There is "reactive depression" where people are depressed because bad things have happened to them (though some people seem to be able to soak up a remarkable amount of punishment) and clinical depression that doesn't seem to be related to external circumstances (or only loosely). And before you ask, no I've never taken anti-depressants.

> Trying to treat a spiritual malady with drugs is never a good idea.

whatever a "spiritual malady" is. A friend explained to me that it's really difficult communicating with a doctor who doesn't believe in spiritualism because he thinks the voices are imaginary.

[Glenn]

On Apr 26, 9:35 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:03:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>

No, but thanks for asking.

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:12:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Your welcome. I'll just accept that you make no distinction between
"how it works" and "that it works".

[Glenn]

On Apr 27, 12:10 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:12:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>

Good for you.

[Mitchell Coffey]

You're a man of mystery, Glenn.

Mitchell

[Glenn]

But they left me out of the movie.

[UC]

No-one besides me has pointed out the researcher has failed to tie in
anything related to evolutionary theory.

[jillery]

If your point is that Paul Andrews didn't explain himself very well on
the radio, I agree. Perhaps the interview would have better satisfied
your needs if Matt Galloway hadn't dwelled on why an evolutionary
biologist should have anything to say about treating clinical
depression.

Here are some links where Paul makes a better case for his hypothesis:

http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/psychology/andrews/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=depressions-evolutionary

http://tinyurl.com/mdgl2y


You can read the actual article mentioned here:

http://www.frontiersin.org/evolutionary_psychology/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00159/abstract

http://tinyurl.com/3o4q4rd

[Mark Buchanan]

Oh no! His undergrad degree is engineering, that surly disqualifies him from ever coming up with something useful in evolution :-).

Mark

[jillery]

If he pushes Intelligent Design I will surely get surly.

[UC]

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=depressions-evolutio...

>
> http://tinyurl.com/mdgl2y
>
> You can read the actual article mentioned here:
>

> http://www.frontiersin.org/evolutionary_psychology/10.3389/fpsyg.2011...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3o4q4rd

Survival of the Sickest covers the whole concept of sickness as
adaptation.

http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Sickest-Surprising-Connections-Longevity/dp/0060889667/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335641609&sr=8-1

The OTHER point is that antidepressants don't really work all that
well, which has nothing to do with whether or not depression is
adaptive.

His whole point is weak.

[Mark Buchanan]

There is little chance of that - a few engineers have actually overcome the ID temptation (me included).

Mark - P.Eng.

[Mark Buchanan]

The first article linked on his page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/magazine/28depression-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

gives a fairly good assesment of the pros and cons of his research. He also links to criticism from Jerry Coyne. Andrews and Thomson of course could be wrong about depression being adaptive.

Mark

[jillery]

That's a remarkable claim you make, even for a book that's over 300
pages long. Having only just heard of it, I haven't had a chance to
read it through, but thanks to Amazon, I did look at its table of
contents and end notes. I don't see anything there about mental
diseases generally, or depression specifically. Do you think there's
a chance that your book might have skipped that subject, and/or other
researchers might still be able to contribute some original research
about it?

>http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Sickest-Surprising-Connections-Longevity/dp/0060889667/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335641609&sr=8-1
>
>The OTHER point is that antidepressants don't really work all that
>well, which has nothing to do with whether or not depression is
>adaptive.

Well, yes, that would be an other point. I assume that's your
informed opinion, at least to the degree that you read and understood
the article he wrote. What part of it do you disagree with, and why,
specifically?

>His whole point is weak.

I note the repeated assertion of your opinion without basis.