Drug dependence as a split object: Trajectories of neuroscientification and behavioralization at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry.

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Journal of the History of the Neurosciences Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1080/0964704X.2021.2001267
Lisa Malich
{"title":"Drug dependence as a split object: Trajectories of neuroscientification and behavioralization at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry.","authors":"Lisa Malich","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.2001267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Today, drug dependence is often understood as a \"brain disease\" and as an indication for behavioral therapy. In this article, I trace the historical development of the notions of drug dependence as a neuronal and behavioral problem in the local research context of the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany. Focusing on the period from the 1950s to the 1980s, I argue that the neuroscientific and behaviorist understanding of \"dependence\" had two different trajectories that were yoked together under the same institution of self-proclaimed basic research: (a) the neuroscientific notion derived from an older toxicological approach to drug effects that was then accompanied by biochemical methods from the 1950s onwards, and neurochemical approaches from the 1960s and 1970s; and (b) the behaviorist notion had predecessors in psychotherapeutic approaches to addiction that emerged in the 1950s and took a psychodynamic orientation at the Institute. When the Institute positioned itself as a basic research establishment and developed a unified structure during the 1960s, these psychodynamic approaches were excluded for being \"too applied.\" Soon afterward, behaviorist psychotherapeutic approaches to drug dependence emerged in the 1970s, emphasizing their foundation in basic research. Even though neuroscientific and behaviorist notions had some overlaps through the use of animal experimentation and by referring to basic research, researchers using the two approaches remained separate in their respective units during the time period under analysis. When conceptualizing the local scientific occupation with \"drug dependence,\" I apply here the history of science concept of a \"split object.\" Like the \"boundary object,\" the split object is plastic enough to adapt to local conditions and robust enough to maintain its genuine identity. Compared with the boundary object, however, the split object does not invite scientific collaboration. It does, nonetheless, enable epistemic coexistence under a common institutional goal.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 2","pages":"123-147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.2001267","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Today, drug dependence is often understood as a "brain disease" and as an indication for behavioral therapy. In this article, I trace the historical development of the notions of drug dependence as a neuronal and behavioral problem in the local research context of the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany. Focusing on the period from the 1950s to the 1980s, I argue that the neuroscientific and behaviorist understanding of "dependence" had two different trajectories that were yoked together under the same institution of self-proclaimed basic research: (a) the neuroscientific notion derived from an older toxicological approach to drug effects that was then accompanied by biochemical methods from the 1950s onwards, and neurochemical approaches from the 1960s and 1970s; and (b) the behaviorist notion had predecessors in psychotherapeutic approaches to addiction that emerged in the 1950s and took a psychodynamic orientation at the Institute. When the Institute positioned itself as a basic research establishment and developed a unified structure during the 1960s, these psychodynamic approaches were excluded for being "too applied." Soon afterward, behaviorist psychotherapeutic approaches to drug dependence emerged in the 1970s, emphasizing their foundation in basic research. Even though neuroscientific and behaviorist notions had some overlaps through the use of animal experimentation and by referring to basic research, researchers using the two approaches remained separate in their respective units during the time period under analysis. When conceptualizing the local scientific occupation with "drug dependence," I apply here the history of science concept of a "split object." Like the "boundary object," the split object is plastic enough to adapt to local conditions and robust enough to maintain its genuine identity. Compared with the boundary object, however, the split object does not invite scientific collaboration. It does, nonetheless, enable epistemic coexistence under a common institutional goal.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作为分裂对象的药物依赖:马克斯·普朗克精神病学研究所的神经科学化和行为化轨迹。
今天,药物依赖通常被理解为一种“脑部疾病”,并作为行为治疗的指征。在这篇文章中,我在德国慕尼黑的马克斯·普朗克精神病学研究所的当地研究背景下,追溯了药物依赖概念作为神经元和行为问题的历史发展。聚焦于20世纪50年代至80年代,我认为神经科学和行为主义对“依赖”的理解有两种不同的轨迹,它们在自称为基础研究的同一机构下捆绑在一起:(a)神经科学概念源于一种较旧的毒理学方法来研究药物效应,然后从20世纪50年代开始伴随着生化方法,以及20世纪60年代和70年代的神经化学方法;(b)行为主义概念在20世纪50年代出现的成瘾心理治疗方法中有其前身,并在研究所采取了心理动力学取向。当该研究所在20世纪60年代将自己定位为基础研究机构并开发了统一的结构时,这些心理动力学方法因“过于应用”而被排除在外。不久之后,20世纪70年代出现了针对药物依赖的行为主义心理治疗方法,强调了它们在基础研究中的基础。尽管通过使用动物实验和参考基础研究,神经科学和行为主义的概念有一些重叠,但在分析的时间段内,使用这两种方法的研究人员在各自的单位中保持独立。当用“药物依赖”概念化当地的科学职业时,我在这里应用了科学史上“分裂对象”的概念。就像“边界物体”一样,分裂的物体具有足够的可塑性以适应当地的条件,并且足够坚固以保持其真实的身份。然而,与边界对象相比,分裂对象不需要科学协作。尽管如此,它确实在一个共同的制度目标下实现了认知的共存。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the History of the Neurosciences is the leading communication platform dealing with the historical roots of the basic and applied neurosciences. Its domains cover historical perspectives and developments, including biographical studies, disorders, institutions, documents, and instrumentation in neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropsychology, and the behavioral neurosciences. The history of ideas, changes in society and medicine, and the connections with other disciplines (e.g., the arts, philosophy, psychology) are welcome. In addition to original, full-length papers, the journal welcomes informative short communications, letters to the editors, book reviews, and contributions to its NeuroWords and Neurognostics columns. All manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by an Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, full- and short-length papers are subject to peer review (double blind, if requested) by at least 2 anonymous referees.
期刊最新文献
Charcot's interest in faith healing. António Egas Moniz: From pioneering brain imaging to controversial psychosurgery. A 150th birthday celebration. The concept of the Schwann cell by Louis Ranvier and his school: The 'interannular segment' as a cell unit. The trial of David Ferrier, November 1881: Context, proceedings, and aftermath. Henry Hun and his family: Three foundational stories in the history of nineteenth-century American neurology, Part I. Thomas Hun (1808-1896): Nineteenth-century patriarch, neurophilosopher, and proto-neurologist.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1