At the February 2010 Technology, Entertainment, and Design (TED) Conference, Sam Harris questioned why good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. Sam Harris argues that science can — and should — be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.

I agree with the premise that is presented here. It is often argued that purview of religion is morality and that science has no place in the discussion. However, a scientific view of morality can, and must, be part of the discussion of the human condition. I believe that Buddhism, unlike western religions, has always viewed the world in a factual, scientific light. Accordingly, this site is dedicated to seeking answers in a discerning, practical manner to understand the human condition related to addiction and substance abuse.

About Sam Harris

Adored by secularists, feared by the pious, Sam Harris’ best-selling books argue that religion is ruinous and, worse, stupid — and that questioning religious faith might just save civilization. ~Full bio and more links

The more difficult the decision we face, the more likely we are not to act, according to new research by UCL scientists that examines the neural pathways involved in ‘status quo bias’ in the human brain.

The study, published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), looked at the decision-making of participants taking part in a tennis ‘line judgement’ game while their brains were scanned using functional MRI (fMRI).

First author Stephen Fleming, Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL, said: “When faced with a complex decision people tend to accept the status quo, hence the old saying ‘When in doubt, do nothing.’

“Whether it’s moving house or changing TV channel, there is a considerable tendency to stick with the current situation and choose not to act, and we wanted to explore this bias towards inaction in our study and examine the regions of the brain involved.”

The 16 study participants were asked to look at a cross between two tramlines on a screen while holding down a ‘default’ key. They then saw a ball land in the court and had to make a decision as to whether it was in or out. On each trial, the computer signalled which was the current default option – ‘in’ or ‘out’. The participants continued to hold down the key to accept the default and had to release it and change to another key to reject the default.

The results showed a consistent bias towards the default, which led to errors. As the task became more difficult, the bias became even more pronounced. The fMRI scans showed that a region of the brain known as the subthalamic nucleus (STN) was more active in the cases when the default was rejected. Also, greater flow of information was seen from a separate region sensitive to difficulty (the prefrontal cortex) to the STN. This indicates that the STN plays a key role in overcoming status quo bias when the decision is difficult.

Stephen added: “Interestingly, current treatments of Parkinson’s disease like deep-brain stimulation (DBS) work by disrupting the subthalamic nucleus to alleviate impaired initiation of action. This is one example of how knowing about disease mechanisms can inform our knowledge of normal decision making, and vice-versa.

“This study looked at a very simple perceptual decision and there are obviously other powerful factors, such as desires and goals that influence decisions about whether or not to act. So, it would be of interest to investigate how these regions respond when values and needs come into play.”

Provided by University College London

By Denis Campbell
Originally published by The Guardian, March 10th,  2010

Joe Gerstein, founder of the SMART Recovery treatment program that is spreading from the US as an alternative to AA, explains why he rejects the myth that alcoholism is a ‘disease’ to be endured rather than cured

Alcoholism is a disease that leaves victims powerless and needing to stay in permanent recovery if they are serious about stopping the demon drink from inflicting further damage, conventional wisdom holds. Given that most people can’t afford to pay for a stay in a Priory clinic, then the best way for chronic drinkers to tackle their addiction, so the theory goes, is to turn to Alcoholics Anonymous, seek the help of a higher power with their struggle, begin using the 12-step program, and be ready to attend meetings for the rest of their lives.

Not so, says Joe Gerstein, a retired clinical professor of medicine in the US. “A myth has grown up that you can’t get over a substance addiction without AA,” he says. “It’s a widely-held belief, but it’s a myth.”

For years, he admits to buying into the myth and referring patients with alcohol problems to AA, with varying degrees of success. “I would see people in my office during the day who had big, swollen bellies from liver cirrhosis and tell them about how serious their problem was, and then I’d see them again at 7pm coming out of the liquor store carrying a bag that didn’t contain doughnuts,” he says.

Joe Gerstein, founding president of the SMART Recovery program, says: "We don't depend on higher powers to help."

Although he describes AA as “an absolutely remarkable program”, given that millions have found it useful over the last 75 years, he also calls it “ethically wrong, medically wrong and psychologically wrong”.

Gerstein is the founding president of SMART Recovery, an alternative to AA that is catching on in America – where it began in 1994 – and worldwide. He was the main speaker at a conference in London yesterday, organized by charity Alcohol Concern, and funded by the Department of Health (DH), that was designed to promote SMART Recovery – Self-Management and Recovery Training, to give it its full title – as another way to help England’s 1.1 million problem drinkers.

The DH, keen to expand the number of options for treating the scourge of alcohol, is funding a £100,000 two-year trial of SMART Recovery, which currently has a low profile and is the David to AA’s Goliath. In London, for example, some 300 different AA groups meet regularly. But there are just 20 or so SMART ones in all of England – even Gerstein is unsure exactly how many – and about the same number in Scotland.

However, it is attracting attention from experts in the field. Nicolay Sorensen, Alcohol Concern’s director of policy and communications, says: “AA is huge, and people wouldn’t go if it didn’t work. SMART Recovery at the moment is the only alternative. It’s got momentum, it’s got a good evidence base, and it’s growing in popularity.”

Similarly, Addiction, the UK’s largest drug and alcohol treatment charity, is setting up an alcohol recovery service for over-50s in Glasgow, funded by the brewers Heineken and using SMART Recovery.

SMART is based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and especially an element of it called rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Gerstein calls SMART “a self-empowerment program”, and rejects utterly AA’s disease theory of alcohol and the labeling of people with serious drink problems as alcoholics.

SMART Recovery and AA are both international not-for-profit organizations. SMART is used in Australia, Uzbekistan and beyond. Its handbook has been translated into Russian, Farsi and Mandarin Chinese, among other languages. Both programs are used in prisons, seek abstinence from participants, and are free – although they rely on donations from those attending their groups. But, crucially, SMART is science-based and secular, while AA has heavy religious associations. Many of the people attending the 370 SMART groups across America have tried AA and been put off by its insistence that members undergo a spiritual awakening, Gerstein says.

For him, though, the key difference is that SMART is a positive philosophy. “We believe that addiction is a very human condition that can be corrected, and that it’s the people themselves who do that through natural recovery,” he says. “We don’t think people are hopelessly taken over by addiction. Other people use books, medicines, help from family or professionals, whatever works for them. But with SMART Recovery, people do it on their own. That belief that human beings have the capacity within themselves to overcome even severe addictions and go on to lead a meaningful life is vital.”

Where AA has its Big Book, SMART has four key points and a “toolbox” – a set of ways in which problem drinkers can change their behavior. For instance, if someone is feeling stressed at the end of their working day, they may choose to use the ABC tool. That is: A for the Activating Event, the walking out of work; B for the Belief, that the person needs a drink now to relax; and C for Consequences, that someone ends up drinking because of their stress.

SMART teaches participants ways to disrupt this irrational belief system by helping them understand why they act as they do – damaging their lives and relationships in the process – and to then challenge that thinking. CBT is also the basis of the “talking therapies” program that the DH has been rolling out in recent years to help people ranging from long-term benefit claimants wanting to resume working to couples whose relationship is in peril.

A key part of the SMART trial is the creation of six SMART Recovery groups – in Birmingham, Norwich, Croydon, Gateshead, Cumbria and Sheffield – so that alcoholics in those areas needing major help can choose between that and AA.

Don Lavoie, a DH alcohol adviser, explains: “The DH has issued some high-impact changes for the alcohol sector – one of which is aimed at supporting and improving specialist alcohol treatment. Involved in that development is the promotion and growth of peer support, and ensuring that there is a range of choices for people with an alcohol problem.” Who comes, why, and how they fare will be evaluated to see which approach works best.

Gerstein points out: “At SMART Recovery meetings, we don’t pray, do the Lord’s Prayer or sing Kumbaya. We don’t depend on higher powers to help and we don’t expect people to come forever. They come, recover, and get on with their life”.

By Kara Gavin
Originally published by UMHS Public Relations October 17, 2005

Smokers often say that smoking a cigarette helps them concentrate and feel more alert, but years of tobacco use may have the opposite effect, dimming the speed and accuracy of a person’s thinking ability and bringing down his IQ, according to a study by University of Michigan Medical Center (U-M) researchers.

The association between long-term smoking and diminished mental proficiency in 172 alcoholic and non-alcoholic men was a surprising discovery from a study that set out to examine alcoholism’s long-term effect on the brain and thinking skills.

While the researchers confirmed previous findings that alcoholism is associated with thinking problems and lower IQ, their analysis also revealed that long-term smoking is, too. The effect on memory, problem-solving and IQ was most pronounced among those who had smoked for years. Among the alcoholic men, smoking was associated with diminished thinking ability even after accounting for alcohol and drug use.

The findings, released online before publication by the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence, were made by a team from the U-M Addiction Research Center, or UMARC, and colleagues at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and Michigan State University.

Lead author Jennifer Glass, a research assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry, cautions that the results need to be duplicated by other studies before conclusions are made about smoking’s effect on the brain, or before the findings can be considered relevant to women.

But, she says, the results should prompt alcoholism researchers to re-examine their data for any impact from smoking—a factor that usually is not taken into account in studies of alcoholism’s effects on the brain, despite the fact that 50 percent to 80 percent of alcoholics smoke. The U-M-led team, meanwhile, is launching a study that will examine the issue in adolescents and plans to test the 172 men again soon.

“We can’t say that we’ve found a cause-and-effect relationship between smoking and decreased thinking ability, or neurocognitive proficiency,” Glass says. “But we hope our findings of an association will lead to further examination of this important issue. Perhaps it will help give smokers one more reason to quit, and encourage quitting smoking among those who are also trying to control their drinking.”

Many alcoholism-recovery programs don’t emphasize quitting smoking, even though smoking can be a social and possibly chemical cue associated with alcohol consumption.

Glass notes that her team’s paper is being published at the same time as one from a team at the University of California, San Francisco, in which brain scans showed that alcoholics who smoke have lower brain volume than alcoholics who don’t smoke.

Taken together with previous epidemiological studies, the two papers feed a growing body of evidence for a link between long-term smoking and thinking ability, says Robert Zucker, professor of psychology in the departments of Psychiatry and Psychology, and director of UMARC. Zucker is senior author on the new paper led by Glass.

“The exact mechanism for smoking’s impact on the brain’s higher functions is still unclear, but may involve both neurochemical effects and damage to the blood vessels that supply the brain,” Zucker says. “This is consistent with other findings that people with cardiovascular disease and lung disease tend to have reduced neurocognitive function.”

The data for the paper by Glass come from an ongoing longitudinal project that uses interviews and standardized research questionnaires to look at mental and physical health issues in families, measured every three years.

The study, which has run for more than 15 years and recently was funded for another five, is supported by the National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

The new work that will explore these relationships in youth is being funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, also part of the NIH.

Below is a link to a lecture given by Dr. Gabor Maté to a Canadian First Nation group. He gives a great overview of some of the science behind substance addiction. He also gets to the root of passing the behavior to our children. This lecture is very educational and explains some of the “causes and conditions” that lead from substance use, to abuse, to addiction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpHiFqXCYKc

This is a great example of a professional in the drug treatment industry with an enlightened view: examining not only the symptoms, but also the “causes and conditions” that lead to substance abuse. By understanding why we behave as we do, we can learn new skills and retrain how we think. Through this understanding and acceptance we can overcome self destructive behavior.

Thank you to Darren Littlejohn, The 12-Step Buddhist, for passing this video on to me.

About Dr. Maté: Vancouver, Canada-based physician and author. He is staff physician at the Portland Hotel Society, which runs a residence and harm reduction facility as well as Insite, North America’s only supervised safe-injection site. His four books, all bestsellers in Canada, include Scattered: How Attention Deficit Disorder Originates and What You Can Do About It, When the Body Says No, and his latest, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction.