2024-10-17 11:01:00
François Gonon is 76 years old and this neurobiologist from the University of Bordeaux is still looking. In fact, he has been questioning neuroscience statements in the media for fifteen years. How have they, and therefore the general public, been led into false beliefs about advances in neuroscience claiming to alone explain the causes of mental disorders? In France, according to the 2023 government report6% of children and 3% of adults suffer from ADHD, attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity; 8% of children, qualified as DYS, have specific learning disorders. Whose fault is it? In the brain. François Gonon turns the tables, and criticizes this “triumphant vision of neurobiology” in his book “Neurosciences, a neoliberal discourse. Psychiatry, education, inequalities”.
François Gonon, neurobiologist and emeritus researcher at the CNRS of the University of Bordeaux.
Guillaume Bonnaud / SO
Does neurobiology participate in the development of the diagnosis of a mental pathology, such as ADHD or DYS for example?
Mental disorders are diagnosed by symptoms. Cognitive psychology focuses on studying cognitive functions, language, memory, reasoning, while neuroscience wants to see the box, the inside of the brain. Neuroscience today does not allow a diagnosis to be made, no biomarker can contribute to this, via a brain imaging examination.
Do you mean that a psychological disorder cannot be seen on an MRI for example?
On an individual level, it is impossible. For example, in 2016, an MRI study showed in people with chronic depressiona shrinkage of 1.2% of a region of the brain, the hippocampus. This difference is an average over 1,700 patients, much lower than the spontaneous variability in controls. Furthermore, this observation does not tell us whether this shrinkage is the cause or the consequence of depression…
“Researchers feel obliged to exaggerate the interest of their research in order to obtain the funding they need”
In your book, you argue that there is a gap between the reality of scientific observations and what emerges in the media and the general public. Who should we believe?
Researchers make observations and describe them in scientific publications. Then they draw conclusions and therapeutic perspectives. I never question the reality of the observations. Indeed, fraud on raw data is very rare because it is severely punished. On the other hand, conclusions and therapeutic perspectives are often exaggerated. These exaggerations have been quantified in a few particular cases. Out of 200 biomedical publications, 140 were overly optimistic and misleading to the uninformed reader. The same goes for publications in neuroscience. Researchers feel obliged to exaggerate the interest of their research, to make it more attractive in order to obtain the funding they need.
You also explain that only promising publications are the subject of press releases and media coverage, which truncates the reality of the progress of scientific research. For what ?
Before publishing, the researcher makes observations to test a hypothesis. If it seems confirmed by the evidence and if it promises attractive prospects, the results are likely to be published in a prestigious scientific journal. The publication will then be taken up by press releases and then by journalists. On the other hand, negative results are less often published or published in less prestigious journals. They are therefore less visible to journalists. The media favor initial studies, which are nevertheless the most uncertain, and do not take into account subsequent studies which have refuted them.
Can you give us the example of ADHD in particular?
In 1999, a publication in a prestigious biomedical journal showed for the first time through brain imaging an abnormality of dopamine neurons. This anomaly explained the cause of ADHD and the merits of the medication [NDLR, la ritaline]. After this initial study, subsequent work did not find this anomaly. However, the media covered the initial study, but never the subsequent work. Thus, the dogma of an abnormality of dopamine neurons explaining ADHD still persists, even though it is still not based on solid scientific evidence.
“The time of science is not the time of the media”
You write that neuroscience alone cannot explain psychiatric disorders. Yet for years, we have been given an almost fatalistic discourse on the origin of these pathologies. Brain diseases or not?
I am not the only researcher to make this observation. In the United States, Thomas Insel, a psychiatristwho headed the largest mental health research center in the world, was interviewed by the “New York Times”. He said in 2022: “For the most part, neuroscience research has not yet benefited patients. » I am worried about the gap between the general public’s belief regarding the role of neuroscience in understanding psychological pathologies and the reality of scientific research. In fact, research doubts, contradicts itself, advances slowly and only time brings a little certainty. The time of science is not the time of the media.
How does the neuroscience discourse delivered to the general public that you describe as “triumphant” promote neoliberalism?
By emphasizing the individual brain, the discourse of neuroscience is in line with neoliberal values of autonomy and individual responsibility to the detriment of values of collective responsibility and solidarity. If a child from a disadvantaged background performs poorly in class, it is not because he is poorly supported or lives in a stressful and unstimulating environment, but it is the fault of his brain. .
Why are so many children today diagnosed with ADHD ?
The psychological suffering of children is a reality that must be taken into account, but the diagnosis of ADHD is associated with a medical response that is well in tune with the times. The discourse of neuroscience offers a biological explanation of social inequalities and gives good reasons for politicians to avoid prevention and social justice work.
“Neurosciences, a neoliberal discourse: psychiatry, education, inequalities”, by François Gonon, ed. Champ Social, 232 p., €20.
1729163410
#Mental #illnesses #scientific #truth #truncated
