- Image via Wikipedia
Amidst the steady stream of basic imaging and genetic science that pours forth into the literature each day (or in response to Eric Kandel‘s latest update on the state of brain science and mental health), how could anyone remain glum? In Hamlet, the King asks, “How is it that the clouds still hang on you?” to which Hamlet replies, “Not so, my lord, I am too much in the sun“. So it seems the case with John M. Grohol, whose recent article, “Chasing the Genetic Ghosts of Mental Illness” which rightly maintains an evenly skeptical long-term perspective on the (as-yet-unrealized-over) promise of genetic and brain imaging research. Certainly, patients may be encouraged by new findings, but as Grohol points out, there is a notorious 1-step forward, 2-steps back dynamic to basic research that can undermine the time-line of promise delivery. Indeed, from a patient’s perspective, basic research that characterizes empirical therapeutic effects may only deliver marginal benefits at best. Thus, there may be some need to better communicate on the fruits of basic research now – abundant or sparse as they may be. I will keep Grohol’s perspective in mind.
You couldn’t if you tried, John! Grohol’s perspective is okay if you’re a patient (or relative of), but as a researcher what is the use of a conservative outlook? No one would do research if they really took Grohol to heart.