New study claims ADHD 'has a genetic link'

16 posts / 0 new

The first direct evidence of a genetic link to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder has been found, a study says.

Scientists from Cardiff University, writing in The Lancet, said the disorder was a brain problem like autism - not due to bad parenting.

They analysed stretches of DNA from 366 children who had been diagnosed with the disorder.

But one clinical psychologist argued that what happened in children's early years was more crucial than genetics.

At least 2% of children in the UK are thought to have attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

More.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

This study brings 3 questions to mind:

1. Is temperament its self genetic?

2. What gene codes are missing and/or repeated? I'd like specifics.

3. What about the effects of environmental stimuli on gene expression... ...and therefore neurophysiological development?

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Here's The Lancet abstract:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61109-9/fulltext

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thanks Bonnie.

One you can rely on - scientific studies raise at least as many questions as they answer. lol

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
One you can rely on - scientific studies raise at least as many questions as they answer. lol

Absolutely! And that can be a very good thing.

One thing I do agree with is - there have to be some sort of quantifiable neurophysiological and genetic differences based on various perceptual and cognitive abilities.

For example: the brain scans and genetic make up of a highly intuitive extrovert is going to be different than the brain scans and genetic make up of a highly rational introvert. It is short sided to say the least and down-right unscientific to be honest to compare groups of children solely based on one's ability to sit on one's duff and pay attention to information based on externally imposed importance - often sans intimate, (personal) episodic encoding and recall - ESPECIALLY if one is a highly intuitive type.

And here's another example: A child with an I.Q of 130+ is going to exhibit very different traits, behaviors, perceptions and cognitive abilities vs. a child with an I.Q of 105.

Anyway, what I would really like to know is: what are scientists like these using as their baseline comparator? A control group is one thing. But, I as I just mentioned, I wonder if what is the true scope of range used in the control group to quantify "normalcy" - AKA: non-ADHD like behaviors.

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hey there, Bonnie-

It's all about the money. Let's just hang it up, and then we can FOCUS on that simple truth.

:D

Kate2008's picture
Kate2008
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If they were born in 1958 the "children" would be around 52 now. Frequency and criteria for diagnosis may have been very different then.There would have been fewer kids falsely diagnosed in the hope that drugs would keep them quiet, but less was known about the condition then. I wonder how many of the control group actually had undiagnosed ADHD.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
t's all about the money. Let's just hang it up, and then we can FOCUS on that simple truth.

As much as I feel it would be easy to agree with this... ...I feel it's too simplistic. I don't just think it's about the money. I think it's about justifying the research... ...especially when it is done on children. I know I've say it before... ...and I know it sounds dark and "Tuskegee" but it is the intuition and impulse I've gotten from the get-go:

"When researchers want to study neurophysiological development and ways to alter it... ...they do not use adult lab rats - they use rat pups."

Anyway...

SueN,

I think you know... ...one does NOT have to have "ADHD" to experience the "cognitive enhancement" effects of these stimulant meds. So - my REAL question is -- how does one SCIENTIFICALLY quantify something called "ADHD" when the medications used to treat "it" are used as comparators to define it's scientific existence.

How do you explain that? Is everyone ultimately "ADHD" on some level, (and therefore benefit from stimuant meds), but just hasn't be Dx with it yet?

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Don't ask me! lol

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If you gave ADHD medication to a neuro-typical person, the person would, instead of calming down and being able to focus, instead would become hyperactive and loose focus. Found this out when a friend mistook my sons ADHD medication for his blood pressure medicine.

Remember folk, the majority of ADHD medication is pharmacudical speed. It is due to the ADHD brain-drug inversion that it helps them focus, in anyone else it would do the opposite.

downix's picture
downix
Joined:
Oct. 12, 2010 11:04 am
If you gave ADHD medication to a neuro-typical person, the person would, instead of calming down and being able to focus, instead would become hyperactive and loose focus.

So why is ritalin, addrall and dexedrine all the rage during college exam time?

Are all of these college kids, (who have realized these "medications" have short term cognitive enhancing properties), suffering from undiagnosed ADHD?

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bonnie:
If you gave ADHD medication to a neuro-typical person, the person would, instead of calming down and being able to focus, instead would become hyperactive and loose focus.

So why is ritalin, addrall and dexedrine all the rage during college exam time?

Are all of these college kids, (who have realized these "medications" have short term cognitive enhancing properties), suffering from undiagnosed ADHD?

Same reason Cocaine is, it keeps them awake to allow them to study. It, however, hurts their focusing ability, hence why you find them with multiple books, so when they loose focus, it drifts onto another subject they need to study.

downix's picture
downix
Joined:
Oct. 12, 2010 11:04 am

I think the authors of this study have serious attention deficit problems of their own.

Firstly these abnormalities are quite uncommon in the ADHD population.

Secondly they also occur (at 1/2 the incidence) in the non ADHD population. Thirdly- there is plenty of evidencde that mutations at the DRD-4 gene are strongly associated with ADHD. In birds that gene mutation is called the "curiosity gene".

So- there is evidence of a genetic contribution but not provided by this study.

Gabor Mate is quite right- the fact that there is a genetic contribution is undeniable. However the rather dull people who pass themselves off as scientists nowadays have conflated this with the idea that AHDD is agenetic disorder.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Now that I have got on top of my ADHD ( initially stimulants now Meditation only) my genetically encoded, attention difference, high sensitivity brain actually works very well in my favour. In fact I think it is very much better than all those dull, straight ahead, mentally constipated, neurotypical brains.

Barliman's picture
Barliman
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There is clearly documented evidence that stimulants improve learning across the board. Medical stimulants do not hurt anybody's focussing ability unless the consumer allows themselves to focus on their anxiety or anger. I should know- I was on them for 18 months for my ADHD.

Given the devious nature of our politicians, maybe we should put the entire population on them and get them to study Machiavelli, so we all grasp just how we are being shafted by our politicains.

Barliman's picture
Barliman
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The condition was definitely underdiagnosed then but equally it is commoner now, and becoming commoner much faster as society disintegrates. This process is most advanced in the US of A.

Read "The Spirit Level" - mental illness is much less common in more equal more inclusive, less stressed societies. ( Ie those dreadful "socialists" the Scandinavians with their high tax rates that nobody there seems to want to abolish.)

Barliman's picture
Barliman
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Same reason Cocaine is, it keeps them awake to allow them to study. It, however, hurts their focusing ability, hence why you find them with multiple books, so when they loose focus, it drifts onto another subject they need to study.

Hmmm... ...I disagree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09carey.html?pagewanted=all

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system