Posted on 02/25/2006 8:22:24 AM PST by oxcart
IN a world first, researchers from NSW have discovered the gene responsible for depression.
After 25 years' research, scientists have found that people who carry a particular gene are more likely to suffer depression regardless of their life experiences. The medical breakthrough will have major ramifications for diagnosis and treatment of the disease which affects one in four Australians.
The study, to be published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry this week, shows that people who carry a short serotonin transporter gene are predisposed to depression.
Conversely, those who carry a long version of the serotonin transporter gene would be more resilient to whatever life throws at them.
Around 43per cent of the population is believed to carry the short version of the gene.
The breakthrough comes in the wake of a series of recent high-profile cases of depression, including former WA premier Geoff Gallop, the late rugby league legend Steve Rogers and former state opposition leader John Brogden.
Former Australian Olympic swimmer John Konrads and actor Garry McDonald were also sufferers. It is hoped the findings could be used to pre-warn carriers of their susceptibility and take early preventative treatment.
Mr Konrads described the breakthrough as exciting.
"I think it's wonderful to think that people who might have that doubt could confidentially find if they're conducive to depression or not, that would be fantastic," he said.
The serotonin transporter gene, which is responsible for our uptake of "feel good" serotonin and mood control, has been implicated in depression before - but this is the first and most conclusive evidence of its true role.
sorry--when i first posted you about meds i hadn't yet read your later posts.
good luck with everything.
sorry--i posted to you by mistake--it should have gone to the person you were posting to.
The cynicism in italics is overblown. This discovery isn't about selling pills, which are already sold at a great amount to those who feel like they need them...many of which, probably do to keep an emotionally ordered life.
But there is something amiss in the original posting's text. Is this depression the type of whirlwind that overcomes a psyche, sending a person reeling to the point of looking at suicide as a high note; or is it the "depression" of those who can't handle the responsibilities, or disappointments of everyday life and seem to lull into a state of benign melancholia?
Of course it's genetic. Everyone but Mom and me in my family, all depressed and whining about something all the time. She and I were way too polite to express what we were always thinking when we were around anyone else: "What is your flippin' problem??"
And let me tell you, she and I both had some really, really horrible things happen to us. We simply had no long attention span for misery, and why cry when you can play a fiddle, or sing, or play with the cat or read to the kid?
Too bad I can't bottle the so-called ice in my veins. Lot of folks could use it.
This is a troubling article in a less-than-obvious way.
There's something fundamentally flawed with the underlying concept of what constitutes "depression" and "mental illness." In a world of death, suffering, abuse and sin, who is delusional, who is irrational -- those who feel sadness from time to time, or those who have blithe, oblivious happiness and are affected by little or nothing? I ask you, in the face of the realities of the world, are the latter normal? Are they rational?
There's something flawed with labeling 25% of a population as genetically less blessed because they are "less resilient."
There is something fundamentally flawed with the idea that the capacity for feeling hurt is a defect.
The motive, of course, is that of creating market -- the more people labeled as "ill," the more will seek, or be prescribed medication and treatment. But there's something a bit more insidious -- a disempowerment of a large segment of the populace (by saddling with a label of defective or ill) and taking away their "rational" voice (they're mentally ill, you know, so they really aren't to be taken seriously) and making them another entitled victim group.
A society made up exclusively of people who are universally "resilient" would be a coarse and brutal society. Abuse would be tolerated under a "no harm, no foul" mindset. There would be no motive to search out and excise tyranny and evil. Those who are hurt by it would be marginalized as defective because of an "inferior gene," or castigated as "weak" for not being able to take it and bounce back. There would be no one motivated to change things for the better.
Aren't most of the greatest advances and discoveries of science and culture -- and even religion -- achieved by those who are most motivated to make the advances and find the truths? In other words, aren't most advances and truths that lead to the changes discovere by those who are looking because they are unhappy with the way things are in the moment?
This is a bad road, these negative labelings of sensitive, normal people. We need sensitive people, people who feel. If they are removed, by drugs or more extreme treatments, advancement and improvement will decrease and the worst aspects of humanity -- it's latent inhumanity -- will flourish.
Hey, I like the Aussies just fine, but our prisons are full of folks that use to hang out at the pub to long...if you get my drift.
Your excellent response reminds me of Aldous Huxleys Brave New World published way back in 1932, Brave New World has
remarkable meaning in today's world (IE SOMA).
Soma use is encouraged by the government to be
consumed by the citizens. The main reason for this is that soma puts the person into a deep numbness, void of all feeling. In the novel, a character that is feeling too emotional takes a dose of soma to rid herself of those
odd sensations.
Huxley showed that when the citizens were either alone or had a moment of free time, creative forces tended to creep out.
This is when it was most opportune to take soma tablets, when the individual is conscience
of being an individual.
But, we must remember sometimes we are dealing with life and death issues.
That makes you an ass.
Nice observation, but you've got that backwards. People with depression tend to be retiring wallflowers without a social network. Your view makes as much sense as "Diabetes is a made-up disease...it's the people who won't process sugar well who are so-called 'diabetics.'"
Unfortunately it's difficult to work out a reliable dose with the stuff. Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical manufacturers have what you need.
Depression has gone from "bad mothering" all the way to a true neurological disorder (to the degee we understand it).
"There is a strong family history of depression in my family but I haven't succumbed to it, thankfully. I've always held that life is too short, precious to be depressed. It sounds trite but it's rings law like natural law to me. To not enthusiastically enjoy life is imponderable to me."
Cleary it is imponderable to you. Like it is a choice. Your family must love being around you.
Glad you think it's fictional ~ it's not. But as long as you are happy, none of the rest of us care.
Hey, some of us who are clearly anti-social are not depressed at all. We enjoy being that way. Fur Shur, fewer bills would get collected without us.
"After 25 years' research, scientists have found that people who carry a particular gene are more likely to suffer depression regardless of their life experiences."
Never doubted it. My DH has a mild case of depression. Generic Prozac keeps him steady. His Uncle, Brother and a Nephew also suffer from this. All still going untreated, except for self-medicating with alcohol, of course. Uncle has it the worst, but he still has Vietnam to deal with.
It took us four years of hell and back to find meds that worked well for DH.
I don't have it, but I know my Grandmother on my father's side did. My sister is on Wellbutrin, and I did insist that my Dad take a mild anti-depressant for a few months after my Step-Mom died. Took him to the doctor and put him on Wellbutrin for a while, too. Dad's not truly depressed, but the anti's helped him through where friends and family couldn't.
He thanked me later. He just got back from his Honeymoon with his new wife. Both are 70. Life goes on if you have the tools and information to help you through the rough patches. :)
The article noted that 24% of adults have experienced it at one time or the other.
It's hardly a "convenient" diagnosis.
There are worse genetic differences though. Something like 48% of any average population around the world will be genetically oriented to show allergic reactions to fish. The symptoms may be mild, or they may be extreme leading to death.
The 48% figure suggests that there is no selective advantage to the gene set that results in allergy, or the gene set that results in being able to readily eat fish.
The same with this depression gene. In the great scheme of things it doesn't have any selective advantage or disadvantage.
However, imagine what happened to children born to Norwegians who lived on what was essentially a 100% fish diet year round. For the most part they died because we can check them for the fish allergy gene, and it's present in only 2% of them.
There, not being allergic to fish has a selective advantage, and a pretty brutal one at that.
The gene for depression might well have the advantage of allowing more of us to "live in camp" or "in the village" that was the case back when we were all half naked savages. On the other hand, it obviously creates problems for folks living in a modern, industrialized society. That is, it no longer has the advantage it once had. Still, unlike the fish allergy gene, we can't unload it by having our children die early.
As the man said, sometimes life isn't fair.
I'm not getting the hostility, especially from you, a guy who doesn't seem particularly prone to insults. If you disagree with me, fine, disagree, but don't call me names because my opinion differs from yours.
I remember encountering the first person I'd ever known who had shown up with clinical depression ~ good friend of mine, in college, climbed up on top of his study desk and wrapped his arms around his knees and stayed in that position for several days.
Once we understood he wasn't faking it, we got him some help. Otherwise, he was a passably friendly sort. What we didn't know is that his neural stamina for the work required for an 18 credit hour class load was just not there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.