Why are people so keen to look for genetic explanations, rather than socioeconomic ones?
Posting form this position - Psychopharmacology and neuroscience research to post graduate level. I'm not keen to see a genetic explanation, i'm keen to see the results of research into this area because then we can discuss the extent biology plays a role in relation to socio-economical factors.
There is some research suggesting opiate addicts could be compensating for a dysregualted endogenous opiate system through substance abuse. There is similar work for dopamine with smoking. Looking at things this way could change the way interventions are offered and also potentially reduce stigma for some of those who have addictions.
Some interesting links that have likely already been shared on HN for both socio-economical and biological theories:
Dangers, too. Legitimate pain patients already frequently have to drop through an onerous set of hoops for opiates, and the medical system isn't always good at teasing out "increased risk" from "unacceptable risk". (For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib, aka Vioxx)
Furthermore, in spite of the strong genetic evidence, especially for the cases for congenital pain insensitivity, it has also been hard for the industry to develop Nav1.7 inhibitors, but that could mostly be due to targeting specificity.
"Understanding the genetic architecture of OUD might provide clinically useful clues about its biology. However, to our knowledge, only a few risk variants have been identified by GWAS so far, and none has had clear external replication. Several factors contribute to this situation: (1) OUD is a complex psychiatric disease with relatively low heritability, and there is no single variant with a large effect size that can be detected in small cohorts"
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abst...
It would be more reasonable and compassionate to identify genetic risk factors so that the people in question could make more informed choices in their lives, but instead we must keep them (and ourselves) ignorant lest, somewhere in the dark, a reel of Triumph of the Will begins spinning all on its own.
One of the eras of extreme racial stereotyping happened when there was very little knowledge about the genetic science.
If there is a genetic component to opioid addiction then it would be extremely helpful to treat it with that knowledge.
I agree it's not, because it's not about research, but rather about science and "science" reporting as well as what ends up in the "news" ("researchers find the addiction gene"). That's why I said it is important to consider the magnitude before talking about it, not before researching it, because obviously you don't know the impact before the research is done.
I think the line to draw is that for it to be positive it should always be private, voluntary, independent from public policy and strictly for the purposes of improving medical outcomes.
If we replace the DNA in a human OVA with different DNA we get a different person. I conclude therefore, that DNA plays a role in who and what we are, the extent of which requires honest study.
See whatever that effect is called where a hundred thousand people collaborate to make something great, and the single person at the top of the organization is given 100% of the credit.
[1] e.g. services 23andMe differentiating between English and Irish genes.