The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Photo of Shai Mulinari. Private photo.

Shai Mulinari

Associate Professor | Senior Lecturer

Photo of Shai Mulinari. Private photo.

Explaining biological depression theories

Author

  • Shai Mulinari

Summary, in English

I AM GRATEFUL TO Dien Ho and James Phillips for their comments on my article (Mulinari, 2018). Although they approach the topic from different perspectives, they both seem to find my account of the evolution of monoamine theories into neuroplasticity theories to be compelling. They especially seem to find my principal argument to be persuasive: Until quite recently, the use of drugs to generate and test pathophysiological hypotheses—the pharmacological bridge—has been a paramount driving force in psychiatric research.

Department/s

  • Sociology

Publishing year

2018-12-06

Language

English

Pages

309-310

Publication/Series

Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology

Volume

4

Issue

25

Document type

Journal article (letter)

Publisher

Johns Hopkins University Press

Topic

  • Technology and Environmental History
  • Psychiatry
  • Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Anthropology, Demography and Criminology)

Status

Published

Project

  • After the success with the new generation antidepressants: Experiences, practices, discourses and changes in the self.

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1086-3303