I am an experimental psychologist, and my goal throughout my career has been and still is to find the truth and to teach my students to do the same. How do we do that in science? We disprove our own and others’ faulty claims and methodically arrive at truth. Or at least that’s the way it’s supposed to work. 

My own research is in the area of addiction. I want to eradicate it—a big goal, especially as vast amounts of money and manpower have been invested in addressing addiction without actually reducing the problem. So, there is much work to be done.

The scientist in me wants to “build a better mousetrap”—to find the best ways to reduce dependence on substances. I particularly want to investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments, methods such as intentionally increasing the patient’s interpersonal connections. However, whenever I question the status quo, which involves using medication as the (almost) universally recommended, “evidence-based” treatment for addiction, I am accused of endangering people, stigmatizing addicts, and bringing up questions that have already been answered. 

But those questions have not been answered. In fact, the questions haven’t even really been asked yet because the “evidence” base is comprised of studies comparing one medication to another, rather than comparing medication to non-pharmacological interventions. 

Unfortunately, when it comes to treating addiction, there is an ironclad orthodoxy. Research funding for additional treatment almost always requires medication to be provided to patients. Treatment guidelines call a failure to medicate unethical. And trying to publish articles questioning medical intervention for addiction has been nearly impossible for me and my colleagues.  

Seeking effective treatment alternatives threatens several multibillion-dollar industries—from Big Pharma to the prison system, from lab testing to treatment centers. Those protecting these industries are far better positioned to lobby and to curry favor with funders, publishers, and guideline gatekeepers. Is that what is happening or is their ideology just so strong that they truly can’t fathom any alternative being viable, let alone superior?

I would like to see head-to-head comparisons of treatments. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the most effective treatments win. But because I dare to question the pharmacological bias, I feel as if I am left (or being sent) outside the camp.