Electronic Letters to:
|
|
eLetters: Electronic letters published:
-
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
The Social Defeat hypothesis: Difficult to refute
- Muzaffar Husain (19 August 2005)
|
|
|||
|
Muzaffar Husain, SHO in Learning Disabilities South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, London, UK
Send letter to journal:
Muzaffar.Husain{at}iop.kcl.ac.uk Muzaffar Husain
|
Selten and Cantor-Graae(1) have presented a very convincing case for the social defeat hypothesis. They invite readers to dwell on it and ‘carry out empirical experiments to confirm or refute the proposal’. Such sentiments are laudable, but my query is, how easy would it be to falsify such a proposition in the first place?(2) The authors acknowledge that social defeat is a relatively ubiquitous phenomenon, and something which is so common would indeed be difficult to discount in any model of schizophrenia. Therein lies the risk of all research in this field. Over the past years there has been an explosion of new evidence on the possible causation of schizophrenia. However, vague and generalist hypotheses are difficult to refute. That is why it seems that a lot has been proposed but very little actually recanted. I suppose it is easier to shout out ‘Eureka’, than to say ‘No, I accept, I was wrong’. Advancing a hypothesis is easier than taking it back. From evidence in molecular genetics, the glutamate hypothesis looks set to overthrow dopamine dysregulation as the central feature of schizophrenia(3). But as with the risk factor of social defeat, glutamate too is ubiquitous. It is found all over the brain. It becomes very difficult to build any model of schizophrenia with the glutamate system unaffected. Even when results do reveal contradictory findings, how often are researchers obliged to retract their discoveries? Recent linkage and association studies have revealed several loci as markers of schizophrenia. The history of most of these loci is marked by enthusiastic discovery, followed by non-replications in other samples (usually by a different research group). How many times have researchers taken back their claims of discovery in the light of conflicting evidence? How much does this add to our knowledge anyway? Science requires hard work and dedication. But it also requires courage. Schizophrenia research would be better guided were scientists obliged to frame narrower and more falsifiable hypotheses. They ought to also have a greater sense of ownership of these propositions. Any approach otherwise, seems doomed to take us further away from what really matters. 1. Selten, J.,P., and Cantor-Graae, E.(2005) Social Defeat: risk factor for schizophrenia? British Journal of Psychiatry , 187, 101-102 2. Popper, K (2002) Logic of Scientific Discovery 3. McGuffin, P ,Owen M., and Gottesman, I., I., (2004) Psychiatric Genetics and genomics- An update, 449-464 |
|||