Eric Kandel's 'new intellectual framework

for psychiatry'
Eric Kandel is a Nobel prize winning neuroscientist. In addition to his work on memory, Kandel
was the author of a very influential and important paper setting out a robust biological account of
psychiatry. He argues that all human behaviour, thought and emotion has its roots in the
functioning of the brain. Consequently it is to brain-based, neuroscientific, explanations that we
should look to for solutions to mental health problems.

Kandel argues, in the abstract of his paper, that:

In an attempt to place psychiatric thinking and the training of future psychiatrists more
centrally into the context of modern biology, the author outlines the beginnings of a new
intellectual framework for psychiatry that derives from current biological thinking about the
relationship of mind to brain. The purpose of this framework is twofold. First, it is designed to
emphasize that the professional requirements for future psychiatrists will demand a greater
knowledge of the structure and functioning of the brain than is currently available in most
training programs. Second, it is designed to illustrate that the unique domain which psychiatry
occupies within academic medicine, the analysis of the interaction between social and biological
determinants of behavior, can best be studied by also having a full understanding of the
biological components of behaviour

Kandel then sets out five principles that he believes should provide the underpinnings of a new
intellectual framework for psychiatry.

This framework can be summarized in five principles that constitute, in simplified form, the
current thinking of biologists about the relationship of mind to brain.

These are:

Principle 1. All mental processes, even the most complex psychological processes, derive from
operations of the brain. The central tenet of this view is that what we commonly call mind is a
range of functions carried out by the brain. The actions of the brain underlie not only relatively
simple motor behaviors, such as walking and eating, but all of the complex cognitive actions,
conscious and unconscious, that we associate with specifically human behavior, such as
thinking, speaking, and creating works of literature, music, and art. As a corollary, behavioral
disorders that characterize psychiatric illness are disturbances of brain function, even in those
cases where the causes of the disturbances are clearly environmental in origin.

Principle 2. Genes and their protein products are important determinants of the pattern of
interconnections between neurons in the brain and the details of their functioning. Genes, and
specifically combinations of genes, therefore exert a significant control over behavior. As a
corollary, one component contributing to the development of major mental illnesses is genetic.

Principle 3. Altered genes do not, by themselves, explain all of the variance of a given major
mental illness. Social or developmental factors also contribute very importantly. Just as
combinations of genes contribute to behavior, including social behavior, so can behavior and
social factors exert actions on the brain by feeding back upon it to modify the expression of
genes and thus the function of nerve cells. Learning, including learning that results in
dysfunctional behavior, produces alterations in gene expression. Thus all of nurture is
ultimately expressed as nature.

Principle 4. Alterations in gene expression induced by learning give rise to changes in patterns
of neuronal connections. These changes not only contribute to the biological basis of
individuality but presumably are responsible for initiating and maintaining abnormalities of
behavior that are induced by social contingencies.

Principle 5. Insofar as psychotherapy or counseling is effective and produces long-term

changes in behavior, it presumably does so through learning, by producing changes in gene
expression that alter the strength of synaptic connections and structural changes that alter the
anatomical pattern of interconnections between nerve cells of the brain. As the resolution of
brain imaging increases, it should eventually permit quantitative evaluation of the outcome of
psychotherapy.

Kandel does not deny that social events are important, but he maintains that social events have
their impact on people by affecting the brain:

Viewed in this way, all sociology must to some degree be sociobiology; social processes must,
at some level, reflect biological functions. Nevertheless, it is important to appreciate that
there are critical biological underpinnings to all social actions.

Not all psychologists and not all psychiatrists agree with his conclusions, but the paper is
definitely worth reading.

What will you learn, and what should you do?

Clearly, you should read Kandels paper. You could well ask yourself questions like:

How could Kandel possibly be wrong? How could it NOT be true that all human
behaviour is a product of our brains, of neurological processes?
If thats true, if all our thoughts, behaviours and emotions stem from neurological
processes, does that not mean that mental health problems MUST be biological
phenomena (as Kandel appears to argue)?

But also
 Surely that argument is true for all human phenomena, for depression and anxiety, but
also for happiness and joy, and love, and loyalty, and humour and jealousy etc and if
THATS true, does that mean we all just electro-chemical machines?
More to the point, its self-evident that people respond to environmental stimuli; if we are
rewarded for something, well behave differently; if were punished for something, again
well behave differently. Kandel might well argue that these changes rely on changes in
the brain, but they are also changes in response to events in the world. So which of these
(the brain changes and the events themselves) are the REAL cause of the behaviour?
And if, as Kandel might argue for example, events make us unhappy, because they affect
our brain functioning, which of the parts of the equation, the events or the changed brain
functioning, are the REAL causes of our unhappiness?

And are those questions even meaningful?