Friday, February 20, 2015

Unit 1 Project: Italian Stem-Cell Clinical Trial Controversy


Davide Vannoni
Photo by collanedilana
Stem-cells set the stage for one of the most controversial topics in Biology. These cells have the potential to become any cell in the human body, repair any tissue in the human body, and can replicate themselves for an unlimited amount of times. Recently, Nature journal critics stirred up some tension between Davide Vannoni’s (an Italian researcher) work on a stem-cell related treatment and the Italian government; the latter wishes to conduct a clinical trial to test the treatment’s validity. Even though the Nature journal argues against the Italian government conducting a clinical trial with Vannoni’s work, due to the flawed nature of Vannoni’s findings, progress with discovering a revolutionary stem-cell-related cure for diseases, like cancer, outweighs the trial’s financial expenses and must be conducted.

Stem-cells distinguish themselves from other cells in the body with their ability to replicate themselves indefinitely, and can become any cell (“The Stem Cell Controversy”). Under specific conditions, stem-cells can become the cells for a specific organ and insert themselves into that organ, which heals the tissues in that organ (“Frequently Asked Questions”). In certain parts of the body, like the stomach and bone marrow, the stem-cells can divide freely, while in other organs, like the heart and pancreas, the stem-cells can only divide under specific conditions (“Frequently Asked Questions”).

Stem-cell research monumentally influences developing new cures. The unique traits of stem-cells, like their ability to develop from generalized cells to cells with specialized functions, and their ability to divide without limit, make them a possible cure for difficult-to-treat diseases, like heart disease and diabetes (“Frequently Asked Questions”). Continued research furthers our understanding of how organisms develop from cells at early stages, and how stem-cells can replace damaged cells in adults.

Photo by hellaslive
Recently, the Italian government announced plans to watch over a clinical trial about a controversial stem-cell therapy method, which a Nature journal article avidly speaks against (“Trial and Error”). The article explains, because flaws exist within the data that researcher Davide Vannoni collected, the clinical trial, which will essentially waste all the money it requires, should not be carried out. (“Trial and Error”). The trial will cost roughly €3-million, or $3.9-million USD (“Trial and Error”).

In a clinical trial, participants receive experimental variables according to the research procedure (“Learn About Clinical Studies”). Experimental variables can include medical drugs or procedures, and behavioral changes, such as one’s diet (“Learn About Clinical Studies”). Clinical trials compare new medical procedures with traditional ones, determining the most effective and efficient products or treatment methods (“Learn About Clinical Studies”). The Italian government’s stem-cell therapy clinical trial tests the validity of Vannoni’s stem-cell treatment; if no compelling evidence supporting Vannoni’s method emerges, his work will lose credibility.

The Nature article asserts that this trial should not be conducted. This article mentions how Vannoni’s research is flawed, and even mentions how there is, “no good reason for [the trial] to be carried out” (“Trial and Error”). Statements like that represent only a single opinion; including it in an article takes away from the article’s credibility. The article acknowledges the opposing side by mentioning how those favoring Vannoni organized demonstrations with the patients’ families’ help, but the article fails to expand on this topic or connect it with the other ideas the paragraph, creating an impression that the author only included the statement for the sake of including it, and fails to comprehend how much it impacts the topic. Progressing through the article, the reader notices how the author only discusses one standpoint until the last paragraph; opinionated language appears, like when the author mentions the government taking a “pragmatic” approach to the topic, unlike Vannoni’s methods, and even refers to Vannoni’s practices as “scanty’ (“Trial and Error”). No matter how well the article hides it, name-calling always detracts from someone’s standpoint through reducing a reliance on facts when that person argues a point. This article’s opinionated tone requires an examination for consistency and validity among the facts presented.

After review, the data Vannoni bases his stem-cell procedure (known as Stamina therapy) on is flawed, and the Nature article establishes its argument upon this idea. The Stamina therapy procedure involves removing patients’ cells from their bone marrow and manipulating those cells in vitro (in a laboratory). Ideally, this should make the bone-cells into nerve-cells (“Abbott”). The Nature article mentions how Vannoni fails to provide adequate details regarding his procedures, and consistently refers to his patent (“Trial and Error”). Another source mentions this and explains an error with a picture on Vannoni’s patent (“Abbott”). The picture of a nerve cell Vannoni uses on his patent bears a

striking resemblance with a picture of a nerve cell used by another researcher named Elena
Schegelskaya, showing the inconsistency of Vannoni’s position (“Abbott”). Schegelskaya based her publication, with that photo, around turning bone-cells into nerve-cells, like Vannoni’s position, but both researchers used very different procedures (“Abbott”). The Nature article references this inconsistency, and while Vannoni’s findings are flawed, this does not imply that utilizing stem-cells from bone marrow is impossible, or that nothing will be learned if the government carries out the clinical trial.


Next, the Nature article discusses Vannoni’s relation with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). GMP encompasses regulations that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration erected, including ones regarding recordkeeping, personnel qualifications, and process validation (“What is GMP”). The Nature article warns that, “The very unlikeliness of the Stamina story should have made the Italian government extremely wary” (“Trial and Error”). Utilizing a retrospective statement this way, which mainly states the author’s opinion, alerts the reader about a possibly biased data presentation ahead. Even though the author of this Nature article presents truthful information, the author’s presentation style draws attention away from the facts presented, and even weakens claims, shown in this paragraph about Vannoni’s response to GMP. The paragraph explains how he prefers oversight-free environments, provides no detail regarding his procedures when prompted by authorities, asserts that the therapy can only function without GMP, and moves often to escape his opponents (“Trial and Error”). While the reader might assume that the author presents truthful information about Vannoni, this paragraph’s accusing and one-sided tone, established by the poor opening sentence, invokes a skeptical mindset within the reader, and makes the author’s claim, that the Italian government should not conduct the clinical trial, less creditable. This paragraph reminds the reader of Vannoni’s flawed research, though, and reinforces the author’s position.

Human stem cells
Photo by California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
Vannoni’s Stamina therapy may be based on flawed data, but the Nature article poorly explains why the Italian government shouldn’t look further into a topic like Stamina therapy by conducting a clinical trial. The author acknowledges the incredible potential that stem-cells possess, but falters when stating that a trial that could challenge some topics regarding stem-cells will hinder progress within that field (“Trial and Error”). Even if conducting further research on Stamina therapy yields no breakthroughs, new information about stem-cells can still be learned. If Vannoni’s Stamina therapy falls flat, we could wonder, “what made it not work in those conditions?”, even if the therapy stemmed from false data. Avoiding a potential conflict between a clinical trial and stem-cell research won’t benefit anyone. The trial demands a hefty amount of funds, but the finances are well worth getting closer to finding a cure that can save and improve millions of lives.

Stem-cells greatly impact the medical world as we continue to learn more about them. Bone marrow-based stem-cell procedures, similar to Vannoni’s Stamina therapy, currently aid cancer treatment (“Bone Marrow Transplantation”). Inside the bone marrow (sponge-like material inside bones), hematopoietic stem-cells can be found (“BoneMarrow Transplantation”). These stem-cells divide to produce more blood-producing stem-cells, and are used with peripheral blood cells (cells found in the bloodstream) in bone marrow transplant operations, called Bone Marrow Transplantation (BMT) and Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation (PBSCT) (“Bone Marrow Transplantation”). These procedures allow patients to receive high levels of chemotherapy and radiation therapy by replacing destroyed stem-cells in the bone marrow during these processes (“Bone Marrow Transplantation”). This is just one revolutionary way that stem-cell treatments have helped people overcome diseases, and the more familiar we are with stem-cells, the more uses we’ll find for them.

Human embryonic stem cell
Photo by California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
The Italian government should conduct the clinical trial for Stamina therapy, even though Vannoni constructed the Stamina therapy method using false data. The Nature journal argues against conducting the trial, citing Vannoni’s flawed data and the financial aspect of the trial as reasons why, but suffers from a highly opinionated presentation style, costing the article some credibility for its claims. The information we could obtain from the trial, even if Stamina therapy doesn’t get us anywhere, goes towards finding a cure for several, currently, un-curable diseases, and spending the finances towards saving and improving the lives of millions of people is well worth it. 



Works Cited
"Trial and Error." Nature 499.7457 (2013): n. pag. Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 09 July 2013. Web. 14 Feb. 2015. <http://www.nature.com/news/trial-and-error-1.13346>
"Frequently Asked Questions." Stem Cell Basics: Introduction [Stem Cell Information]. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. < http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/pages/basics1.aspx>
"The Stem Cell Controversy." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2015. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/innovation/episode6_essay1.html>
"Learn About Clinical Studies." Learn About Clinical Studies. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2015. <https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/info/understand>
"Bone Marrow Transplantation and Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation." National Cancer Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2015. <http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/bone-marrow-transplant>
"What Is GMP." What Is GMP. N.p., 09 Nov. 2014. Web. 14 Feb. 2015. <http://www.ispe.org/gmp-resources/what-is-gmp>
Abbott, Alison. "Italian Stem-cell Trial Based on Flawed Data." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 02 July 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. <http://www.nature.com/news/italian-stem-cell-trial-based-on-flawed-data-1.13329>
 

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Unit 1 Project: The Untold Benefits of GMO

DNA Sculpture
Photo by 'ἀλέξ'
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as the name suggest, are any organism whose genetic structure has been modified through genetic engineering. Farmers have done this for thousands of years by breeding plants with a desired trait with another plant which lacks the desired trait. Recently, however, modern biologists have developed a more precise method of genetic engineering. By using special restriction enzymes, biologists can cut a section of DNA out of an organism and then inserts it into the target species’ genome. Although the public has shown significant distrust towards modern methods of genetic engineering, scientific data from independent studies show that GMOs pose no additional health risk and can be more environmentally friendly than conventional farming. As such, it is our duty to continue research into genetic engineering, in both corporate and university settings.

Recently, the public has become increasingly aware of the fact that most of their foods contain GMOs. In fact, fifty-two percent of Americans polled believe that foods containing GMOs are not safe to eat and only thirty-five percent believe they are safe to eat (ABC). At sixty-two percent, an even higher percent of women did not think such foods are safe to eat (ABC). Public distrust of GMOs has lead to a grassroots movement in the US which is attempting to get foods containing GMOs labeled. Recently, Governor of Vermont, Peter Shumlin has passed just such a bill. The bill will require all food products made in Vermont containing GMOs to be labeled (Not on the label). According to the Center for Food Safety, sixteen other states have similar legislation in the making. Several food-industry groups have already declared intention to take the bill to court, but if it survives, it may set a precedent for similar legislation to be passed in other states (Not on the label).

Anti-GMO Label
Photo by 'De Cora'
This viewpoint is not localized to the United States either. On the contrary, European nations show an even larger distrust of organic foods than does the United States. The European Union has long since had legislation in place requiring the labeling of food containing GMOs. Turkey is also passing anti-GMO legislation in an attempt to assimilate more to the standards of the European Union which they hope to join (An absurd law). Their version of the legislation, however, is even more harmful. The law will ban cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops, along with generation of any GM animals or microorganisms. While it does not explicitly ban research into further GMOs, it creates an application process which will render any GMO research impractical as well hinder progress in other biological research (An absurd law). Why, one might ask, is such a large portion of the world so adamantly against the use of GMOs?

GE Rapeseed
Photo by 'Jan Smith'
Perhaps one of the most legitimate reasons is that genetically engineered crops can cross pollinate with nearby plants which are not genetically engineered. Several years ago, local farmer Percy Schmeiser found that some of the rapeseed (the plant from which canola oil is derived) on his farm was resisting the herbicide he was using to clear his fields for the next season (CommonDreams). What occurred was that Roundup Ready canola on a nearby farm owned by the agricultural giant Monsanto Inc. had cross pollinated with his crop. Schmeiser was forced to remove the herbicide resistant plant from his fields by hand and wound up in a legal battle with Monsanto Inc. over the damages (CommonDreams). The case was taken to the Canadian Supreme Court where a 5-4 ruling in favor of Monsanto Inc. found that genetically modified crops can be patented (CommonDreams). Schmeiser was not forced to pay damages, however, as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his field (CommonDreams). While Monsanto Inc. wound up paying Schmeiser the cost of removing the rapeseed, Schmeiser’s story still acts as a cautionary tale of the danger of GE crops spreading to nearby fields (CommonDreams).

Science, however, already has a potential solution to the problem of contamination from GE crops. In two separate studies from Farren Isaacs at Yale University and George Church from Harvard Medical Schools researchers have been able to create a GE plant which depends on some artificial nutrient to survive (Kept on a leash). This means the farmer who is planting the GE crop can control exactly where it can or cannot grow (Kept on a leash). If the GE crop were to attempt to cross pollinate with a plant in a field without the nutrient, the resulting offspring would die, preventing the spread of the GE crop to nearby fields (Kept on a leash). While this technology has not been implemented in the field yet, it could solve one of the largest objections to GE crops.

Toddler Eating GE Strawberries
Photo by 'the mom in me, md.'
Another common objection amongst the public to GMOs is the potential health risks they may pose. The majority of the public within the United States believes that GMOs pose significant health risk, but is there any real evidence backing up this claim? The World Health Organization (WHO), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the American Medical Association (AMA) all agree that no research thus far has indicated any significant health risk associated with GM crops (McClatchy). Both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the AMA have stated that there is no point labeling food products containing GMOs as there is no evidence genetic engineering changes the “quality, safety, or any other attribute of the food” (ABC). If this is the case, then where are so many people getting the notion that foods containing GMOs are harmful? Much of the anti-GMO sentiment sprang from a study done by Gilles-Éric Séralini. Séralini performed a study in which he compared the mortality rate of mice fed with genetically modified corn to that of a control group (Panchin). Within his study, he showed startling images of mice riddled with tumors. Not surprisingly, these images shocked and appalled the public leading to a widespread distrust of GMOs. What Séralini failed to mention, however, is that his study was tragically flawed. Whether intentional or not, Séralini chose a breed of mice which have a high tendency for tumors regardless of diet. His study also failed to mention that due to low sample sizes, the difference in mortality between his control group and the GMO fed group was not statistically significant (Panchin). His study was eventually retracted (ScienceDirect) but it was too late. The damage to GMOs reputation had already been done.

Malnourished Children from Dolo Ado
Photo by Cate Turton
In addition to being just as safe to consume as organic foods, GM crops pose significant benefits to the farmers who plant them. Peter Shumlin signing the new GMO labeling bill into law in Vermont has left many farmers shocked. Bill Rowell, from Green Mountain Dairy, did not understand why his state was so adamantly against GMOs. Rowell is the keeper of a meticulous dairy farm which grows genetically modified corn to feed his cattle. His interviewer noted that his farm “ appears to have not a single blade of grass out of place in its large complex of five barns that measure 400-500 feet long a piece” (BurlingtonFreePress). Rowell even stopped midway through the interview to pick up a piece of trash he saw laying in his grass. He is also quite conscious of his environmental impact, which is why he runs almost three million dollars worth of methane generators. These generators burn any methane produced by animal manure, simultaneously preventing greenhouse gases from escaping into the atmosphere and generating clean energy. According to Rowell, “We see a greater yield, and the yield is drought tolerant” (BurlingtonFreePress). This means he can continue to produce an enormous twenty-five million gallons of milk, even during drought heavy years. This technology could help feed those struggling with hunger all over the world. Rowell also is able to spray less pesticide and herbicide which reduces the amount of fuel and labor he has to use. For an environmentally conscious farmer like Rowell, the use of GM crops seems to be a no brainer.

In spite of the massive amounts of scientific evidence that stack up in favor of genetically modified crops, most of the public is still opposed to the use of GMOs. This opposition varies in intensity from those who simply choose not to eat foods containing GMOs, to those radicals who have threatened to destroy the research of genetic engineers. As farmer Rowell says, “opponents of GMOs are basing their opinions on sentiment rather than science, which remains inconclusive on any detrimental health effects from GMOs after nearly 20 years of use” (BurlingtonFreePress). While others would argue it is the job of scientists to prove conclusively that GMOs are in no way harmful, that isn’t the way science in the United States has ever really worked. We have always been a nation that leaps head first into the newest generation of technology. It is precisely this attitude which has kept our nation on the cutting edge of scientific research. Allowing the opinions of the underinformed to steer us away from GMO research would be irresponsible. We must, therefore, continue research into GMOs, both in corporate and university settings. This will keep us on the cutting edge of GMO use in industry while also providing objective, third-party evaluations on the safety and ramifications of GMOs.


“An Absurd Law.” Nature 463.7284 (2010): 1000–1000. Print.

“Kept on a leash.” Nature 517 (2015): 411–411. Print.

“Not on the label” Nature 509 (2014): 399–400. Print.
Posted by at No comments:

Depression - A Case For Neuroscience?

Photo by Zachary Veach.

In 2005, Anna, a retired lawyer living in Pennsylvania, discovered that her husband wanted a divorce due to his love for another woman. “I'm worthless. I messed up everything. It's all my fault.” These are the words that came out of Anna’s mouth when she realized that her husband was leaving her after 30 years of marriage (Anthes). Two-thirds of people who commit suicide have been diagnosed with depression, and over 350 million people in the world today have been diagnosed with this mental illness (Ledford). Advances in the field of depression have been hindered due to subpar treatment success rates and lack of information shared by those who struggle with this mental illness. We need to address these issues by developing a greater understanding of current psychological treatment methods, increasing neurological and clinical research, and developing new or improved treatment methods based on stronger medicine and neuroscience research findings.

Two common types of depression are major depression and persistent depressive disorder. Major depression is usually understood as short term and high intensity, and the individual diagnosed with this ailment may undergo several “episodes” throughout a lifetime. If an individual were in a constant state of depression for at least two years, then this individual would be classified as having persistent depressive disorder. One key difference between persistent depressive disorder and major depression other than timeframe is intensity level. Those who suffer from persistent depressive disorder tend to experience depression at a smaller magnitude than one with major depression. An individual dealing with persistent depressive disorder, however, may also experience moments of major depression.

When it comes to dealing with therapy, two common routes taken are medication (antidepressants) and psychotherapy, otherwise known as psychological treatment. In psychotherapy, psychotherapists will try to 1) understand the patient’s thought process, and 2) help the patient develop new ways of thinking. One of the most common types of psychotherapy used to treat depression is cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT. CBT focuses on figuring out any negative thoughts created by the patient. Once these negative thoughts have been indicated, the therapist then attempts to help the patient completely get rid of these thoughts or change them into positive ones. During CBT, the therapist will also teach the patient how to focus more on the positive things pertaining to their life rather than negative ones.

CBT is the most common method of treatment used among those diagnosed with depression (Holmes, Craske, Graybiel). Although we understand the process of CBT, scientists are yet to gain a solid grasp on how CBT actually works. This lack of understanding is a problem because out of those who chose to undergo CBT, only 60% of these individuals see promising initial results. Although 60% may sound like a good number, it means almost nothing because only 30% of those who started CBT will actually finish the treatment process, and 10% of those who saw promising initial results experience relapse(s) later on (Holmes, Craske, Graybiel). Emily A. Holmes, Michelle G. Craske, and Ann M. Graybiel believe that in order to gain a greater understanding of CBT, we must 1) invest more time in the study of current psychological treatments, 2) categorize certain types of psychological treatments to certain situations based off of research findings, and from there, 3) determine if new methods of psychological therapy must be developed or if current methods should be improved. In order for this process to occur, we must first gain fundamental knowledge on how psychotherapy cures depression.

Increased knowledge about neuroscience can help us make advancements in the field of depression. Through neuroscience research over the years, scientists have been able to discover that depression is associated with the frontal part of our brain. The frontal part of the brain hosts contrasting emotions - the front left being associated with positive behavior and the front right being associated with negative behavior. Individuals experience depression or anxiety due to an imbalance between the front left and front right parts of the brain (“Depression Treatment”). The imbalance in this case shows that the front right part of the brain is overpowering the front left part of the brain, which leads to thoughts of fear and wanting to be alone. These neuroscience findings are a huge step in the right direction because now, medication and psychological treatment can be engineered toward restoring imbalances in the human brain – but the only problem is that we aren’t quite sure about how exactly to restore these balances yet.

The amygdala and prefrontal cortex are two parts of the brain that are crucial when examining the relationship between the brain and depression. The amygdala is located in the previously mentioned front right part of the brain, while the prefrontal cortex is located in the front left. The amygdala is a part of the limbic system, which controls our motivation and emotions. The prefrontal cortex is not a part of the limbic system. Its job is to assist in self-organization and control. Scientifically speaking, we undergo emotional changes or outbursts (such as anger) when the amygdala is stimulated. The role that the prefrontal cortex plays here is sending messages to the amygdala, which “flattens” it – therefore reducing the intensity (or sometimes completely eliminating the intensity) of these emotional outbursts. Depression creeps in when communication between the amygdala (front right) and prefrontal cortex (front left) is skewed. Both medication (antidepressants) and psychological therapy attempt to restore equilibrium between the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, but they each attack the brain in different ways. Medication will usually reduce activity in the amygdala, while psychotherapy will increase the productivity of the prefrontal cortex.

Advances in depression treatments have been halted for years, and a big reason for this is a lack of neurological and clinical research. Although we know how medication and psychotherapy attack the brain, 60% of current treatment methods fail initially (“No Dishonour in Depression”). One reason for this is because we have yet to find new and/or improved methods that would maximize results based off our current neurological knowledge. This in itself is a sign that although we have made some significant findings, there is still more to be done. Some people are against investing time, money, and other resources into depression research, arguing that depression can be caused by cultural, environmental, and other factors. However, research in the field of depression has been decreasing ever since President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act of 1971. In 2013, cancer research outweighed depression research by $4.885 billion (Ledford). Clinical depression research has always struggled due to the fact that people with depression are either ashamed to admit it, or too embarrassed to share personal experiences. Clinical research will continue to struggle unless scientists break the norm and attempt to learn more about what a day in the life with depression is like.

Photo by DES Daughter.

In terms of laboratory research, the only real option from here is to go forward. In the past decade, new systems have been developed and produced that image physical and molecular features of illnesses. Because of these recent technological breakthroughs, the US National Institute of Mental Health is attempting to promote more imaging of mental illnesses in these systems (“The Burden of Depression”). This is another step in the right direction, but some people still undermine the importance of mental health research, stating that these newly released machines should be used for other purposes. What these people do not realize is that we will have to wait even longer to see advancements in the field unless we change the way we research mental illness now.

Since we have not made much progress in terms of research, current treatment methods for depression are outdated and need improvement. As of now, a depressed individual’s best bet when it comes to treatment would be medication or CBT. The only issue here is that every person reacts differently to each method, and we do not have a current way to determine which treatment should be given to an individual initially (this is a problem that branches off of the lack of research and knowledge). Some patients may prefer CBT, while some may prefer antidepressant medication. Some patients may need both! Since there is no way (other than trial and error) to find out which treatment best suits the individual, actually getting results may take up to two or three months longer than planned. This is a significant time period when you consider the fact that the patient is hoping for results while battling through a mental illness that has been caused by an imbalance in their brain. Some patients may lose hope within this time period and gain a perception that their problem cannot be cured.

Not all hope is lost with those who do not see immediate results. Recent research has led to the belief that treatment response level depends on the level of insula present in the person’s brain. If research can be continued and confirmed, this two to three month “waiting period” can be removed for most individuals (“No Dishonour in Depression”). The one thing that looms along with the research barrier is the question of how to actually measure an individual’s insula level before receiving treatment, which is why greater knowledge about depression is crucial. Even when we find new possibilities and/or information, the knowledge needed to execute these new ideas is lacking. In the article “Depression, the best way forward” from Nature magazine, Robert C. Malenka & Karl Deisseroth propose a possible way to improve future treatments using neuroscience. They believe that if we can find the brain circuits that relate to mental illness, we could attempt to develop new drugs that would manipulate the brain cells in these circuits, leading to brain balance restoration.

Another way to improve treatment methods outside of neuroscience and the discovery of insula level is by changing the ingredients of current antidepressant medication. In the previously mentioned Nature article “Depression, the Best Way Forward,” Lisa Monteggia says that the main problem with antidepressant medication other than the “waiting period” is that this medication typically does not work on those who suffer depression at a high magnitude (she categorizes these individuals as “treatment resistant”). Her solution to this is a drug called ketamine. Monteggia shows that when ketamine was used in testing, it led to quicker results AND results for those who previously categorized as “treatment resistant”.

Although depression and mental illness as a whole have struggled over time, the future looks promising. More and more resources are becoming available to us each day, and scientists are finally starting to see where the field of mental illness needs improvement. If we take full advantage of technological advancements being made, we can overcome the mysteries of neuroscience. Research is not the only thing holding back advancements in depression. Those who currently suffer from it or those who have suffered from it need to let their voice be heard. Depression is a mental illness, and every person’s interaction with it is unique. Once scientists can overcome neurological barriers and understand more of the human perspectives, depression can become a topic that we are no longer scared to face.



Works Cited














Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)