Translational neuroscience and psychiatry: A conceptual analysis

Abstract

As rapidly developing research disciplines and enterprises, the translational sciences have made significant impact on research direction in medicine. Psychiatry has likewise been affected, and in this regard, the translational neurosciences have been the major drivers. This paper explores the conceptual underpinnings of this enterprise in relation to psychiatry. It shows that translation is used in a metaphorical sense in this context but that this can be misleading because of the resultant connotation that there is equivalence between neurobiological states and mental states. Furthermore, this equivalence is reinforced by the unidirectional flow or bottom up approach of the translational process. Given that the epistemological basis to psychiatry is fundamentally different to that underlying medicine, questions are raised concerning the application of the translational neurosciences approach to mental symptoms and mental disorders. The hybrid structure of mental symptoms and mental disorders demands that attention is paid to the "semantic" as well as the neurobiological constituents. Neglect of the former would carry implications for the validity of research findings as well as have ethical consequences for treating patients. Translational neurosciences may have greater validity in those mental disorders and mental symptoms whose constitution and sense are carried by the neurobiological elements.

Current Challenges in Translational and Clinical fMRI and Future Directions

“…Translational neuroscience is an important branch within the broad field of neuroscience. In the context of this opinion article, translational neuroscience will be seen as the attempt of bridging neuroscience, neuroimaging, and clinics for improving our understanding of symptoms and disorders, and for better diagnostics and treatments (1,2). This is not a new attempt.…”

Empirically supported interventions in psychology: contributions of Research Domain Criteria

“…Despite the relevance of some constructs for several disorders, there is no clear connection between psychological symptoms, clinical problems, and the constructs, demanding a deeper specification of clinical problems as targets for RDoC intervention research (Patrick & Hajcak, 2016). Moreover, the RDoC matrix assumes that the different units of analyses are equivalent for each construct, which enables researchers to integrate results from different fields and clinicians to use the accumulated knowledge to devise therapeutic interventions (Marková, 2018). As such, translational research searches for the meaning of a certain process in one level of analysis (e.g., biochemical changes in the brain) and also for the result of such changes on other levels of analysis (e.g., behavior and symptoms).…”

“…However, there seems to be no one-to-one correspondence between units of analysis within the same construct (Peterson, 2015). As we progress through the different levels of analysis, from more internal (e.g., molecules) to more external (e.g., self-reports), there is no isomorphic transfer of meaning; that is, information is lost and new is added (Marková, 2018).…”

“…Finally, when RDoC defines mental disorders from a biological framework focused on the neurodevelopmental aspects of psychopathology, there is a risk to claim that alterations in the brain and biology are causing the altered mental states and behavior in a reductionist and linear way (Marková, 2018). This could lead to an internalized (mis)conception of psychological disorders as well as to therapeutic interventions focused solely on biological and pharmacological targets.…”

Editorial introduction: The implications of translational neuroscience for clinical practice and its evaluation

“…What are the proper ways to incorporate neuroscience from the perspective of epistemology and the philosophy of the mind? To consider such questions, we need look no further than to the contributions of Ivana Marková and Diogo Telles Correia . These two conceptual papers set the background for a much better understanding of the theoretical diversity and controversies in this particular field of debate and orientate the reader to the substance of the papers that follow.…”