EDITORIALS |
University of Cambridge, Department of Psychiatry, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK
Correspondence: Ed Bullmore, University of Cambridge, Department of Psychiatry, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK. Email: etb23{at}cam.ac.uk
E.B. is employed half-time by the University of Cambridge and half-time by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and he holds shares in GSK and the Brain Resource Company.
The original vision of psychiatry was as a medicine – or physic – of the mind. If psychiatry aspires to be a progressive modern medicine of the mind, it should be fully engaged with the science of the brain. We summarise and rebut three countervailing or neurophobic propositions and aim to show that not one provides a compelling argument for neurophobia. We suggest that there are several ways in which psychiatry could organise itself professionally to better advance and communicate the theoretical and therapeutic potential of a brain-based medicine of the mind.
Related articles in BJP:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. Blewett Neurohawks fight back The British Journal of Psychiatry, September 1, 2009; 195(3): 268 - 268. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. McQueen Neurohawks fight back The British Journal of Psychiatry, September 1, 2009; 195(3): 269 - 269. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. F. Johansson Neurohawks fight back The British Journal of Psychiatry, September 1, 2009; 195(3): 268 - 268. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Datta Neurohawks fight back The British Journal of Psychiatry, September 1, 2009; 195(3): 268 - 269. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. B. Jones, E. Bullmore, and P. Fletcher Authors' reply: The British Journal of Psychiatry, September 1, 2009; 195(3): 269 - 270. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
Read all eLetters