Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addiction. 2010 May;105(5):792–796. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02817.x

What integrated interdisciplinary and translational research may tell us about addiction

MARC N POTENZA 1
PMCID: PMC2858351  NIHMSID: NIHMS161819  PMID: 20402969

In his article (1), Kalant raises important points regarding how addiction is conceptualized and researched. This topic seems particularly timely given current preparations for the next editions of the International Classification of Diseases and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). At the article’s onset, Kalant provides a definition for addiction: “compulsive use of the drug despite the occurrence of adverse consequences.” Although this definition was widely agreed upon in prior iterations of the DSM including the current DSM-IV-TR (2), several DSM-V research workgroups (including those relating to substance use disorders and obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders) have recently discussed at length the extent to which non-substance behaviors or disorders (e.g., related to gambling) should be considered addictions (3).

Kalant cites the importance to studies of addiction of the decision to self-administer drug (or by extension engage in the potentially addictive behavior) by individuals who become addicted. Decision-making represents an important and arguably central component of addiction (4), and performance of individuals with addictions on neurocognitive tasks assessing decision-making has been associated with treatment outcome (5) and real-life measures such as the ability to maintain employment (6). Precisely how decision-making relates to addictions, however, is less clear. For example, individual differences in decision-making prior to substance exposure could lead to initial engagement in substance use and substance use may generate sub-optimal decision-making. Animal models seem particularly well suited to investigate such questions, and pre-clinical studies indicate that not only does substance-naïve impulsive decision-making predict substance self-administration (7, 8), but also that substance intake, likely in a developmentally sensitive fashion, influences decision-making (9).

Decision-making and related processes (e.g., impulsivity) represent complex, multi-faceted constructs (10), with their expression influenced by genetic and environmental factors in a dynamic and complicated fashion. Multiple individual differences, including those relating to gender, emotional reactivity, stress responsiveness, among others, represent important considerations with respect to addictions and frequently co-occurring disorders, and an improved understanding of how individual differences relate to decision-making and addiction will likely be facilitated by an integrative translational research approach involving multiple disciplines (11). Such approaches ideally might involve studying behaviors (e.g., through analogous tasks in pre-clinical and clinical settings) and using assessments (e.g., relating to brain imaging or genetics) across species such that findings from each study might be directly linked with one another while at the same time affording unique insight through the utilization of “species-specific” techniques (e.g., through self-report, diagnostic, and real-life measures in human studies and genetic manipulation and neurochemical measurements from brain tissues in pre-clinical studies) (12). I currently have the privilege of participating in an interdisciplinary research consortium on stress, self-control and addiction (http://stress.yale.edu/ and http://stress.yale.edu/projects.html). The consortium includes ten coordinated and integrated investigations that involve rats, non-human primates and humans and use molecular/cellular, genetic, brain imaging, behavioral, clinical and epidemiological approaches. While there exist organizational and logistical challenges in conducting interdisciplinary team science, such an approach holds significant promise for understanding complex neuropsychiatric conditions like addiction that are currently frequently refractory to existing treatments (13). Even if such studies do not identify the cause of addiction (14), they have tremendous potential for generating significant advances in prevention and treatment strategies and reducing the suffering and societal burden currently associated with addictions.

Acknowledgements and Disclosures

This study was funded in part by NIH grants R01 DA019039, R01 DA020908, R01 DA020709, RL1 AA017539, P50 DA09241, P50 DA016556, R37 DA15969, P01 DA022446, and UL1 DE19586, the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research/Common Fund, the VA VISN1 MIRECC, Women’s Health Research at Yale, and a Center of Research Excellence Grant from the National Center for Responsible Gaming. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of any of the funding agencies.

Footnotes

Declarations of interest Dr. Potenza consults for and is an advisor to Boehringer Ingelheim; has consulted for and has financial interests in Somaxon; has received research support related to the gambling industry (Mohegan Sun Casino, and the National Center for Responsible Gaming its Institute for Research on Gambling Disorders) and pharmaceutical industry (Forest, Ortho-McNeil, Oy-Control/Biotie, Glaxo-SmithKline); and has performed legal consulting in issues related to impulse control disorders.

References

  • 1.Kalant H. What neurobiology can not tell us about addiction. Addiction. (in press) [Google Scholar]
  • 2.O’Brien CP, Volkow N, Li TK. What’s in a word? Addiction versus dependence in DSM-V. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:764–765. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.5.764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Potenza MN. Should addictive disorders include non-substance-related conditions? Addiction. 2006;101:142–151. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01591.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kalivas PW, Volkow ND. The neural basis of addiction: A pathology of motivation and choice. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:1403–1413. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.8.1403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Krishnan-Sarin S, Reynolds B, Duhig AM, et al. Behavioral Impulsivity Predicts Treatment Outcome in a Smoking Cessation Program for Adolescent Smokers. Drug Alc Dep. 2007;88:79–82. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.09.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bechara A. Risky business: Emotion, decision-making, and addiction. J Gambling Stud. 2003;19:23–51. doi: 10.1023/a:1021223113233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Belin D, Mar AC, Dalley JW, Robbins TW, Everitt BJ. High impulsivity predicts the switch to compulsive cocaine-taking. Science. 2008;320:1352–1355. doi: 10.1126/science.1158136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Diergaarde L, Pattij T, Poortvliet I, et al. Impulsive choice and impulsive action predict vulnerability to distinct stages of nicotine seeking in rats. Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63:301–308. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.07.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nasrallah NA, Yang TWH, Bernstein IL. Risky decision making following adolescent alcohol exposure. Paper presented at the Winter Conference on Brain Research; Copper Mountain, CO. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Moeller FG, Barratt ES, Dougherty DM, Schmitz JM, Swann AC. Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:1783–1793. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.158.11.1783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Potenza MN, Taylor JR. Found in translation: Understanding impulsivity and related constructs through integrative preclinical and clinical research. Biol Psychiatry. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.08.004. (in press) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Potenza MN. The importance of animal models of decision-making, gambling and related behaviors: Implications for translational research in addiction. Neuropsychopharmacol. doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.152. (in press) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chambers RA, Bickel WK, Potenza MN. A scale-free systems theory of motivation and addiction. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2007;31:1017–1045. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.04.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.van Reekum R, Streiner DL, Conn DK. Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation to neuropsychiatry: challenges and opportunities. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2001;13:318–325. doi: 10.1176/jnp.13.3.318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES