Etiology in a taxonomy of illnesses

According to what Robert Koch termed the etiological standpoint, illnesses are best understood and controlled by focusing on their causes, including in their definitions and, thus, in the construction of their taxonomies. In some ways flawed, this standpoint has been misunderstood and misapplied. A taxonomy based solely on etiology was an unrealistic dream in the context of 'the bacteriological revolution', and it also is unrealistic in the present context of 'the genetic revolution.' We argue that the illnesses in a taxonomy of them are in some cases best defined directly in terms of their respective somatic anomalies, in some others indirectly by the unique and universal etiology of that anomaly (left unspecified) in a 'deeper' somatic anomaly, and in yet others as a combination of these; and when the somatic anomaly for direct definition remains unknown, it is to be defined indirectly by the clinical syndrome that is its patient-relevant manifestation, possibly in conjunction with a somatic cause. We note, also, that these taxonomic issues have no material bearing on epidemiologists' etiologic research for the knowledge base of community-level preventive medicine.

Can the neuroeconomics revolution revolutionize psychiatry?

Neuroeconomics is a rapidly growing new research discipline aimed at describing the neural substrate of decision-making using incentivized decisions introduced in experimental economics. The novel combination of economic decision theory and neuroscience has the potential to better examine the interactions of social, psychological and neural factors with regard to motivational forces that may underlie psychiatric problems. Game theory will provide psychiatry with computationally principled measures of cognitive dysfunction. Given the relatively high heritability of these measures, they may contribute to improving phenotypic definitions of psychiatric conditions. The game-theoretical concepts of optimal behavior will allow description of psychopathology as deviation from optimal functioning. Neuroeconomists have successfully used normative or near-normative models to interpret the function of neurotransmitters; these models have the potential to significantly improve neurotransmitter theories of psychiatric disorders. This paper will review recent evidence from neuroeconomics and psychiatry in support of applying economic concepts such as risk/uncertainty preference, time preference and social preference to psychiatric research to improve diagnostic classification, prevention and therapy.