Schizophrenia: A scientific graveyard or a pragmatically useful diagnostic construct?

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Elaine Walker, Emory University; David Goldsmith, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2022-04-01
• Publisher: ELSEVIER
• Publication Version: Author Accepted Manuscript (After Peer Review)
• Copyright Statement: © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
• License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2022.01.022
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
• Volume: 242
• Start Page: 141
• End Page: 143
• Grant/Funding Information: No external funding source for the preparation of this manuscript.
• Keywords: Diagnosis; Science & Technology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; BRAIN; VALIDITY; Schizophrenia; Psychiatry; UTILITY

Abstract

References to schizophrenia research as a scientific “graveyard” first appeared decades ago (Plum, 1972). This special issue demonstrates that controversies about the viability/validity of the diagnosis of schizophrenia have continued. The premise of this commentary is that there are scientific reasons for these controversies, and they stem from the facts that the brain is more complex than other organs and that the human brain disorders that are in psychiatry's purview, especially psychoses, involve disruptions for which there are few animal-model homologs. Positive psychotic symptoms, especially, reflect dysfunction in neural substrates that are human-specific. Finally, we conclude that scientific discussions of schizophrenia would benefit from improved conceptual clarity, but that the diagnosis is worth retaining until scientific advances reveal etiologic subtypes and effective treatments.