I think it is sometimes important to offer scientific support for a position at a time when people, like Glen, have only their opinions.

In contrast, it's not one paper that one an award, it's one from Neuroendocrinology Letters with ethologists from Vienna, and a monograph in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, which was concurrently published as a chapter in the Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality.

Also, since book publication of The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality (1995),  I have continued to detail the direct link from sensory input to behavior and using across species comparisons of the evolved gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ system pathway, which the FDA is now recommending for use in attempts to develop new psychotherapeutics. 

The ASAM Public Policy Statement: Definition of Addiction takes a similar stand against psychology and basically states that people like Glen Sizemore must now pay attention to what neuroscientists have been trying to tell them about biologically based cause and effect. As I'm sure the medical practitioners here already know, behaviorists like Glen know nothing about medical practice. And it is clear that addiction is more than a behavioral disorder.

Glen is correct, however, the  FDA critical path initiative  does not mention anyone specifically. The focus is on the gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ system pathway. Given the rapid rate of progress towards understanding genetic predispositions and epigenetic effects of sensory stimuli from the environment, I don't think the scientifically illiterate behaviorists have much of value to say, since rarely do they show even a glimmer of hope that they can understand how the salience of different sensory cues is established. For example, there is nothing inherently rewarding about dopamine, so why are behaviorists praying to a dopaminergic god of operant conditioning?

We should thank them for not causing more harm than they have, however, and watch for new treatment regimens to replace "reparative therapy" for variations on the theme of sexual orientation, and for "rebirthing theapy" -- a practice responsible for the death by smothering of a 10 y/o girl.  Unfortunately, someone must place the blame for such ridiculous ideas at their origins in radical behaviorism so those who are familiar with science can continue to make progress.

James V. Kohl
Medical laboratory scientist

On 12/31/2011 10:07 AM, Glen Sizemore wrote:

 

As usual (but not so on this particular NG), we see a post from Kohl filled with gibberish and misinformation. The only thing lacking to make this post like most of his others is the announcement that a paper he wrote once won an award. I have no intention to respond to Kohl directly, or to respond to his post in detail but, as an example of the deception and misinformation that characterizes Kohl's insipid gibberish is this: "It is odd that the FDA critical path initiative fails to mention the importance of Skinner's work..." As far as I can see, the Initiative fails to mention anyone specifically. Further, if Kohl knew anything about drug development (development of drugs that are behaviorally active) he would know that the combination of behavior analysis and pharmacology has figured prominently. Though it isn't everything to the field, one need only consider, for example, the role of drug self-administration in non-human animals in addiction research. Drug self-administration, of course, involves drugs functioning as reinforcers for responses like lever-pressing. It is not, of course, just the apparatus that is the same, the whole language of operant conditioning transfers; some of the earliest research was carried out by researchers trained in the behavior analytic tradition. The Wikipedia article is decent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-administration

In addition to drug-self-administration, the whole field of the neurobiology of "reward pathways" relies critically on behavior analysis. How could it not? This is a gigantic field, of course, and it is thought relevant to many behavioral disorders. But you will find, if Kohl continues to spew his misguided and narcissistic gibberish (which he almost certainly will), that any paper concerning behavior or the neurobiology of behavior  that doesn't mention pheromones/olfactory stimuli is relegated to the trash heap. Now, I admit that I am critical of much of neurobiology on conceptual grounds (cf Bennett and Hacker etc.) but, for Kohl, his "award-winning paper" (Kohl will, no doubt, get around to this soon enough) sets the standard for "biology" in his alleged mind, and 99.9999% of what anybody else does is trash.

In addition to its role in basic research on behavior qua behavior and neurobiology, behavior analysis has also produced one of the few technologies of behavior.

Kohl also evinces, though this is hardly unique to him, a serious abuse of the term "biological." For the chronically misinformed the term "biological" is synonymous with "physiological."  But even Kohl's beloved FDA initiative, at least according to Kohl, includes research carried out at the level of the whole organism. That, of course, is the level at which behavior analysis operates. The notion that operant conditioning is "not biological" is one of the many bizarre aberrations that Kohl demonstrates. Anyway, though, I'll leave Kohl to speak for himself. 

---

From: james kohl <jvkohl@...>
To: psychiatry-research@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [psychiatry-research] News: Prozac works better when used with other therapies

 

Glen, It is odd that the FDA critical path initiative fails to mention the importance of Skinner's work and I didn't seen anything on observation of behavior. Instead, they seem to be pushing for a systems biology approach to pharmacogenomics such that not just gene expression is considered, but also protein levels, metabolites, etc. The basis for this approach is research conducted at every level --gene, cell, tissue, organ, and organism�and at every stage of life, from conception through death.  I think that behaviorists may have missed out on this approach because they focus on training animals instead of the biological basis for their behavior. In any case, I think the days of giving someone a treat (or a psychotherapeutic drug) and observing behavioral changes to see if it works are long gone. The side effects of that approach were literally killing people, albeit indirectly in most cases. James V. Kohl --- On Fri, 12/30/11, Glen Sizemore <gmsizemore2@...> wrote:

<snip>

-- James V. Kohl
Medical laboratory scientist
ASCP AMT ASCLS
Independent researcher
Currently writing for
Socioaffective Neuroscience & Pscyhology