Nicolas Langlitz

The persistence of the subjective in neuropsychopharmacology: observations of contemporary hallucinogen research

The elimination of subjectivity through brain research and the replacement of so-called ‘folk psychology’ by a neuroscientifically enlightened worldview and self-conception has been both hoped for and feared. But this cultural revolution is still pending. Based on nine months of fieldwork on the revival of hallucinogen research since the ‘Decade of the Brain,’ this paper examines how subjective experience appears as epistemic object and practical problem in a psychopharmacological laboratory. In the quest for neural correlates of (drug-induced altered states of) consciousness, introspective accounts of test subjects play a crucial role in neuroimaging studies. Firsthand knowledge of the drugs’ flamboyant effects provides researchers with a personal knowledge not communicated in scientific publications, but key to the conduct of their experiments. In many cases, the ‘psychedelic experience’ draws scientists into the field and continues to inspire their self-image and way of life. By exploring these domains the paper points to a persistence of the subjective in contemporary neuropsychopharmacology.

On a not so chance encounter of neurophilosophy and science studies in a sleep laboratory

This article was inspired by participant observation of a contemporary collaboration between empirically oriented philosophers of mind and neuroscientists. An encounter between this anthropologist of science and neurophilosophers in a Finnish sleep laboratory led to the following philosophical exploration of the intellectual space shared by neurophilosophy and science studies. Since these fields emerged in the 1970s, scholars from both sides have been visiting brain research facilities, but engaged with neuroscientists very differently and passionately fought with each other over the reduction of mind to brain. As a case in point, this article looks at the philosophical controversy over the dreaming brain. It serves as a window on the problem space opened up by the demise of positivist conceptions of science, now inhabited by both neurophilosophy and science studies. Both fields face the problem of how to bridge the gap between empirical research and conceptual work. At a time when ontological speculation has made a comeback in these areas of research, studies on how epistemic objects manifest themselves in the material culture of neuroscience could help neurophilosophers to become better materialists. In the sleep laboratory, however, the materiality of dreams continues to be elusive. In dreaming science studies and neurophilosophy encounter a phenomenon that – at least in 2015 – still invites a positivist rather than a materialist attitude.

Loperamid-Abusus bei Angststörung

ZusammenfassungAngststörungen äußern sich häufig auch in Form von abdominellen Beschwerden und Durchfall. Dennoch sind bisher nur einmal Fälle von Antidiarrhoikamissbrauch beschrieben worden. Wir berichten über eine 34-jährige Patientin mit über 10-jährigem Loperamid-Abusus mit Tagesdosen von bis zu 16 mg. Loperamid ist ein Opioid, das durch Stimulation der Opioidrezeptoren im Bereich des Gastrointestinaltrakts eine Hemmung der intestinalen Sekretion und der propulsiven Peristaltik bewirkt, vermutlich ohne dabei zu zentralnervösen Effekten zu führen. Da die Diarrhö unserer Patientin stets als somatisches Korrelat von Angstzuständen auftrat, war es ihr möglich, den Durchfall auch mit Hilfe von Diazepam zu bessern. Diese zweite Strategie der Selbstmedikation erlangte besondere Bedeutung für sie, nachdem das Loperamid trotz hoher Dosierung nicht mehr half. Es kam so zu einer Benzodiazepinabhängigkeit. Mit Besserung der Angstsymptomatik im Rahmen einer stationären Behandlung verschwand auch die Diarrhö.SummaryAnxiety disorders often accompany somatic correlates of anxiety such as abdominal trouble and diarrhoea. Nevertheless, misuse of antidiarrhoeals has been described only once. We report on a 34-year-old woman who abused loperamide for over 10 years, taking up to 16 mg per day. Loperamide is an opioid that stimulates opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract, thereby inhibiting intestinal secretion and propulsive peristalsis, probably without affecting the central nervous system. As our patients digestive trouble was a consequence of her states of anxiety, diazepam application helped against her diarrhoea as well. This second strategy of self-medication gained particular importance for her, when even high doses of loperamide stopped having an effect. So she developed a benzodiazepine dependence. As soon as she began treatment as an inpatient, her feelings of anxiety became less and the diarrhoea disappeared.

Opaque models: Using drugs and dreams to explore the neurobiological basis of mental phenomena

On the basis of four historical and ethnographic case studies of modeling in neuroscience laboratories, this chapter introduces a distinction between transparent and opaque models. A transparent model is a simplified representation of a real world phenomenon. If it is not patently clear, it is at least much better comprehended than its objects of representation. An opaque model, by contrast, looks at one only partially understood phenomenon to stand in for another partially understood phenomenon. Here, the model is often just as complex as its target. Examples of such opaque models discussed in this chapter are the use of hallucinogen intoxication in humans and animals as well as the dreaming brain as models of psychosis as well as the dreaming brain as a model of consciousness in general. Several functions of opaque models are discussed, ranging from the generation of funding to the formulation of new research questions. While science studies scholars have often emphasized the epistemic fertility of failures of representation, the opacity of hallucinogen intoxications and dreams seems to have diminished the potential to produce positive knowledge from the representational relationship between the supposed models and their targets. Bidirectional comparisons between inebriation, dreaming, and psychosis, however, proved to be generative on the level of basic science. Moreover, the opaque models discussed in this chapter implicated cosmologies that steered research endeavors into certain directions rather than others.

The New Old Books Forum

If the emergence of modern science was characterized by the formation and differentiation of scientific disciplines, the current ubiquity of calls for interdisciplinarity must be seen as a symptom of profound discontent with the resulting canonization of knowledge. This unease has also driven BioSocieties since the very first issue. When Nathan Greenslit introduced the book reviews section four years ago, he promised that it would serve as ‘a new venue for actual dialogue between scientists, social scientists, clinicians, ethicists and health policy makers’. And it did. With the transition of BioSocieties from Cambridge University Press to Palgrave Macmillan, the Books Forum has also changed hands—from Javier Lezaun’s to mine. I would like to use this opportunity to reintroduce the Books Forum, especially to new readers not yet familiar with its unusual format. The primary goal of the Books Forum will continue to be to generate cross-disciplinary dialogues and debates about a wide range of books concerned with the life sciences—from sociological studies to bioethical treatises and from historical works to the latest policy documents. The Books Forum uses varying formats: one expert may write about a number of books on a particular topic; reviewers from different fields may write about the same book from their respective perspectives; authors may be given the opportunity to respond to their reviewers; key figures from different disciplines may be asked to write about what they read to inform themselves about a certain subject matter, etc. Of course, the Books Forum will serve to inform readers about individual books and emerging bodies of literature in the social studies of the life sciences (occasionally including non-English publications to provide at least glimpses of what is going on beyond the AngloAmerican book market). In the post-Gutenberg era, future reviews will additionally cover websites, blogs, and other electronic publication formats. But the book reviews are also meant to attract interest in themselves. How does a life scientist read bioethical science fiction scenarios predicting designer babies and genetic enhancement? What difference does a historical study of non-medical uses of psychopharmaceuticals make to a medical ethicist involved in the current debate about the spreading consumption of Prozac and Ritalin? How do social scientists from different European countries assess a British government report? The success of the new old Books Forum will depend on whether it can continue