![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Mirror neurons in the Rhesus monkey and the mirror neuron system (MNS) in the human brain respond to actions that are executed by self and observed in another animal or person (i.e., imitated). The status of the MNS in humans is unclear, with some positive and some negative findings using electroencephalography and functional neuroimaging. We suggest that the fronto-parietal MNS may be disparate nodes or modules of a (poorly understood) self-referential processing system that is important in drug abuse and addiction. We then discuss some theories of the etiology of these disorders that emphasize the self. A modular approach to human brain organization and function (as opposed to strict localizationist or extreme globalist models) may resolve some issues surrounding the MNS and drug abuse.
THE AUTHORS
David B. Newlin, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Scientist at RTI International, a large, nonprofit research institute. He was previously on the faculty in psychology at Purdue University, then spent many years at NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse. His research concerns the etiology of substance use disorders, primarily using psychophysiological and neuroimaging techniques. He has long-standing interests in tolerance and sensitization to drugs, genetic and environmental risk for alcoholism, and control theory and evolutionary theory as they relate to substance use disorders. He is a member of the editorial board of Substance Use and Misuse.
Rachael M. Renton, B.S., is currently a research assistant at the Center for Functional and Molecular Imaging at Georgetown University. She received her undergraduate degree in biopsychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Notes
1 This concepts, processes, and description is often noted in the literature as a negative “container” concept’, stigmatizing selected “cravers” and their “cravings”—as distinct from our desires without adequately helping one to understand its dimensions (linear, nonlinear), its “demands,” the critical necessary conditions (endogenous and exogenous; micro to macro levels) which are necessary for it to operate (begin, continue or not, change as realities change, become “anchored”/become stabilized, cease, begin again, etc.) or not to and whether its underpinnings are theory-driven, empirically-based, individual and/or systemic stake holder- bound, based upon “principles of faith” or what. What, for example, is the substantive difference between human “desires,” whatever they be and craving? continue, “stabilize” and become “integrated” in ones adaptation, change as reality conditions change, cease, etc.)? This is necessary to clarify if often used terms are not to remain as yet additional shibboleths in a field of many stereotypes. Editor's note.
2 The often used nosology “drugs of abuse” is both unscientific and misleading in that (1) it mystifies and empowers selected active chemicals into a category whose underpinnings are neither theoretically-anchored nor evidence-informed and which is based upon “principles of faith” held and transmitted by a range of stakeholders representing a myriad of agendas and goals, and (2) active chemical substances of any types-”drugs”- are used or misused; living organisms can be and are all-too-often abused; Editor's note.
3 The reader is referred to Hills's criteria for which were developed in order to help assist researchers and clinicians determine if risk factors were causes of a particular disease or outcomes or merely associated. [Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: associations or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58: 295–300.]