Mental-health division will no longer fund research aiming to relieve symptoms without probing underlying causes. Sara Reardon (March 14, 14)
My comment: Anyone who has followed my blog posts is already aware of how easy it was to predict the latest dictates from the NIMH. Insel clearly indicated on more than one occasion, that psychiatry research would soon need to be based on what is already known about the gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ system pathway. Anyone left without funding never deserved the funding they had during the past two decades of neuroscientific progress.
Excerpt: “I am reminded of how Elaine Morgan addressed what happens when a paradigm fails; [Researchers] “carry on as if nothing had ever happened.” Above all, they do not ask questions about the new paradigm, which now (i.e., decades after publications like The Naked Ape; The Aquatic Ape; The Scented Ape; and The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality) appears to have helped to cause the NIH to abandon psychiatry’s “Bible”.”
Excerpt: This is the message I received when I attempted to post to the topic thread: Psychiatry framework seeks to reform diagnostic doctrine. “You do not have permission to post on this thread”
I’ve been shot down by someone at Nature.com.
Attempts to get the word out there (e.g., since 2008) have been hindered by those who seem to prefer their theories to explanations of biological facts
Excerpt: Clearly, many psychologists and psychiatrists will go kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the realm of what is currently neuroscientifically known.
What’s known includes information on biomarkers (e.g., indicators of the microRNA / messenger RNA balance required for epistasis). However, the information must be taken in the context of a model, sans definitions and dichotomies that obfuscate neuroscientifically established facts.