'Hangover' Gene in Flies May help Explain Alcoholism

[sintax]

My Comment: It's all about the gene these days. The_____gene causes this; The_____gene causes that. Tripe. Poverty also runs in families in economically unjust societies. The solutions of the ills of modern-industrial society are always posited in the reductionist mode of that society diverting blame away from the entirety of the diseased organism-That Society.

'Hangover' gene in flies may help explain alcoholism

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Published: 11 August 2005


A gene that could lead to alcohol addiction has been identified by scientists studying the effects of the drug on fruit flies.

The researchers, who have called the gene "hangover", believe that a similar version may exist in humans and could help explain why alcoholism tends to run in families.

A study published in the journal Nature has found the gene helps fruit flies to develop a tolerance to alcohol, a condition in humans that soon leads to dependency and addiction.

Flies lacking the hangover gene do not develop the tolerance seen in those with the gene, said Ulrike Heberlein of the University of California in San Francisco.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article305156.ece

[jasmeel]

1. Nature and nurture are ALWAYS fighting!

[marbuc]

2. Hangover Gene?

I thought hangovers were caused by physiological reactions in the brain to a poison? I have known very few people that do not get hangovers, are we all alcoholics? I am reluctant to binge drink, precisely because of the wicked hangovers this causes. I am normally very open minded to science and discovery, but I'm not buying this one.

[alfredo]

3. One big downside to all these genetic discoveries:

Will insurance companies and private enterprise start genetic testing to winnow out those with certain genetic makeups because there's a chance they will become ill in the future?

[Teaser]

4. Flies don't even have a brain.

Just some strategically positioned ganglia. Their nervous system is entirely different from ours.

When will molecular neuroscience start looking at things systemically?

[Lexingtonian]

5. uh, no

The large scale organization of their brains is very similar to that of mammals, though the relative size of the different regions is very different and folded up differently.

In fruit flies it has been possible to use genes to convert brain areas of one kind to a different kind, and to grow brain in place of some ganglia of their equivalent of a spinal cord. The product of the orthodenticle gene induces 'deuterocerebrum' structure (i.e. the fly equivalent of midbrain), the product of the extradenticle genes induces 'tritocerebrum' structure (i.e. the fly equivalent of hindbrain/medulla). Homologs of these two genes are found in the equivalent regions of the mouse/human brain during development. I haven't checked recently and my memory is fuzzy, but I think the missing such gene iresponsible for inducing the fly equivalent of forebrain/cortex is not yet known.

Things are are a little more systematic than people in the field admit; rather too much of their funding and ability to publish is dependent on appearing to work on things that appear far more distinct from the rest than they really are.

[sintax]

6. "When will molecular neuroscience start looking at things systemically?"

They cannot, it would render their field of study to extinction just as the society which engenders such a field as molecular neuroscience cannot look at its flaws systemically for that would entail entirey new modes of thinking and render that society to extinction.

"We need to stop looking for cures and seek entirely different modes"-Oliver Sacks

[Mizmoon]

7. I'm starting to believe that addiction as we know it is a myth

People keep taking heroin or drinking or smoking crack because they WANT to. I say that as a former problem drinker who stopped on her own years ago.

Maybe the "disease model" of addiction just reinforces addiction itself. Maybe it helps abusers to keep abusing their substance by using terms like "relapse" to describe the selfish return to their drug-of-choice.

Yes, people can choose to go on with their habit for so long that their body has withdrawl symptoms like DTs, but that is a separate and distinct problem from why they kept using until they got to that point.

My evidence? Everyone knows that 12-step programs set up on the disease model rarely work. That's because it's a flawed model.

What do you guys think?

[Flirtus]

8. nothing worse than arguing with a reformed addict

except, 'everyone knows' that only if you want to recover can you recover, no one can make you. I'm surrounded by addicts, some are helped by this, some are helped by that, all are helped by education and unconditional acceptance. we're flawed models all, call it human, call it addicted. I'm glad you recovered your self, and I'm glad I escaped the lure of addiction (poverty! it does do some good). But addictions are serious for those with addictive tendancies, perhaps you aren't wired that way.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi Flirtus!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: